Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) was not happy that Congress didn’t pass funding for dealing with the Zika virus, especially now that the outbreak in the U.S. is happening in his back yard. However, he’s also not happy that any woman who contracts the virus might consider having an abortion if it happens that her child will be born with severe birth defects.
“I understand a lot of people disagree with my view – but I believe that all human life is worthy of protection of our laws. And when you present it in the context of Zika or any prenatal condition, it’s a difficult question and a hard one,” Rubio told POLITICO.
“But if I’m going to err, I’m going to err on the side of life.”
And what kind of life would that be for a child born with severe microcephaly? This is what I want to know from people who are staunchly pro-life and the mindset that “erring on the side of life” is somehow better than the alternative of not bringing a human being into a life of pain and suffering, not to mention the cost to the family, and I don’t mean just financially. Being forced to bring a child into a world where their quality of life will never hope to achieve anything other than misery is not “life.”
It’s so easy to piously decree how someone else should face a truly devastating decision by citing a bumper sticker and then making it the law of the land. And even if a woman chooses to bring forth a child with birth defects, will Marco Rubio and the vehemently pro-lifers stand by her with more than just their moralistic platitudes and actually help pay for the extra care and support that a special needs child requires? Somehow I don’t think so.