Tags

, , ,

From Shoshana Weissmann at The Weekly Standard:

Rubio’s answer [about abortion] was unconventional and measured. While explaining his views, he made sure to discuss competing principles, and that people on both sides of each issue mean well.

On same-sex marriage, he said, “I don’t believe that believing in traditional marriage the way I do makes you a bigot or a hater.” Rubio continued, “It means that you believe that this institution that’s been around for millenia is an important cornerstone of society. I respect people who believe differently.”

Well, sure. No one charges that believing in ‘traditional’ marriage makes you a bigot. I couldn’t name one serious person who supports same-sex marriage while simultaneously denouncing heterosexual marriage if my life depended on it, so to try and turn this around by insinuating that those who support same-sex marriage are exempt from supporting heterosexual marriage and are somehow persecuting those who support heterosexual marriage is deceptive and dishonest. But that’s not why we’re here, so let’s move on:

Rubio’s answer on abortion was more interesting. He began by focusing on abortion as an issue of life and human rights. “On the issue of life, to me, the issue of life is not a political issue. It’s a human rights issue.”

Glad that’s cleared up. He believes life is a human rights issue. He believes life is a human rights issue so much that he believes those rights extend beyond the living to the not-yet-conceived. So what, human life is so valuable we have to protect it before it even starts? We have to deny flesh-and-blood human beings the choice to try to avoid having a child in the first place? That’s “erring on the side of life”?

There’s also the issue of Rubio stating he’d support any legislation opposing abortion. It’s strange that while he would support anti-abortion legislation that included exceptions for cases of rape and incest, he’d prefer those be outlawed, too. I say it’s strange because he basically takes the position that rapists have the right to force their victims to bear their children. But remember, this is considered a thoughtful answer because he—get this—entertains for half a second the other side of the argument, something Weissmann admits is ‘unconventional.’ But if he really believed in a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, he wouldn’t have spent so much time trying to keep contraceptives away from them. He wouldn’t ‘err’ on the side of rapists over women.

Rubio’s positions are neither thoughtful nor moderate. They’re extreme.

Advertisements