Sha-really?

I read this in disbelief, obviously on the pages of The Constructive Curmudgeon, who earns yet another dishonorable mention in the annals of blogging with this post about the truly dismal and ill-conceived Stupak-Pitts amendment (in that it discriminates against a class of women--poor women--while preserving the right to any kind of abortion for those who can afford one):

"I am somewhat happy about this vote, but...what this means, if the public (statist) option goes through, is that many women may claim rape or incest in order to get federal funds. When the civil government promises to pay, many people lie to get it. Consider all the Medicare fraud going on! That means pro-life people will be paying for abortion that they do not agree with."

Yes, I can just see scores of accidentally impregnated women ruining their brothers or fathers' lives under baseless accusations of incest, or accusing strangers of rape so they can get that much sought after abortion. To make a statement like the one in italics, Groothuis must really have no shame, no morals. The solution for reducing fraud and abuse is obviously not to ban a service, product or whatever, for all. It is to go after those guilty of fraud. But the worst has yet to come:

"In fact, I do not think rape or incest justifies abortion, since a human being has been conceived, however wrongfully. You don't solve one problem (illicit, immoral intercourse) by another one (aborting an innocent human being made in God's image). I do not want my money going to pay for these abortions." (Emphases added.)

Hey Doug, guess what? Not everybody on this planet is convinced that we are all made in your god's image. (How cruel would that be?) You and your fellow theocrats must stop interfering with the non-privileging covenant that the Founding Fathers you revere when it's convenient to you have made for posterity.

Moreover, as stated before, I do not want my tax dollars going for illegal wars or to subsidize education at Christian colleges, but you know what? Shit happens in a pluralistic society.

And regarding the ludicrous, deliriously theocratic statement that one should force a victim of rape or incest to carry the pregnancy to term (why, because it's a gift from god?) in spite of the will of the unwanted fetus's host, the raped mother, I am really sorry that there is no hell bad enough (or no hell at all) for people like you, Mr. Groothuis. People who believe in the Constitution and freedom only as long as it conforms with their fanatical, fairy-tale-modeled view of how things should be.

Now tell me: for a non-believing American, given the statements Mr. Groothuis made in his truly appalling post, what is the difference between an Islamic extermist and a Christian extremist? (I am not talking about terrorists, of which Christians re not devoid, either.) Theocrats are theocrats, the world over, no matter what jersey they wear.

Close as it is to Sharia law, you could call Mr. Groothuis's view of a truly Christian society "Sha-really". Truly evil and shameful, whatever your intentions.