Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Adamantly 'pro-life' ... sometimes

There’s something, in particular, I don’t quite understand about Virginia’s new law dictating the pre-abortion test for almost all patients. Why the exception for victims of rape or incest?

Oh, I understand it, politically. It would gross out a lot of voters if they didn’t allow for the exceptions. But if one truly believes that personhood/citizenship begins at the point of conception, then why aren’t all pregnancies the same?

Back to the first paragraph’s question: It seems to me the answer is that women who become pregnant by cooperating with their male partner deserve some punishment for wanting to end the pregnancy. They must submit to, and foot the bill for, the test.

So, it turns out the party that abhors mandates from the government to do with health care, only abhors some mandates. And, what of the noisy poseurs who claim to be protecting life? They only protect it sometimes. 

Apparently, Virginia Republicans have decided that a so-called “person” whose father raped their mother deserves less protection than other persons. Maybe I'm forgetting a verse, but I’m not sure where in the Bible's New Testament the Christian Republicans, like Gov. McDonnell, are finding their guidance for this concept.

It could be their justification is more Old Testament, sandwiched in between the regulations for burnt offerings and selling daughters as slaves?

No comments: