by Mark Angelides
The abortion debate is one of the starkest dividing lines in American (and UK) politics. Like few other issues, there are people who will base their vote on where advocates and critics stand regardless of other considerations. Just this week, two news stories came out that have reignited the MSM in their excitement, one from the UK and one from the US.
The US story comes from a conference in Seattle where a guest speaker, actress Martha Plimpton spoke to rousing applause of her experiences with abortion:
“Seattle has some particular significance for me for lots of reasons,” she began. “I’ve got a lot of family here, some of whom are here in the audience tonight. I also had my first abortion here at the Seattle Planned Parenthood.”
“Notice I said ‘first.’ I said ‘first.’ And I don’t want Seattle – I don’t want you guys to feel insecure, it was my best one.”
“Heads and tails above the rest. If I could Yelp review it, I totally would. And if that doctor’s here tonight, I don’t remember you at all, I was 19. I was 19, but I thank you nonetheless.”
The fact that she sees an abortion as something to be proud of makes no sense whatsoever. Abortion is clearly not a form of “birth control.” It is a reaction based on a “lack of control,” and to celebrate it as anything other than “fixing a mistake” seems somewhat ludicrous.
The other story come from the UK and the man who, until today, was seen by bookmakers as the most likely to succeed Prime Minister Theresa May as the leader of the Conservative party. He was on an interview with Piers Morgan and made the fatal flaw of being honest about his views on abortion.
As reported by the Guardian, Rees-Mogg said: he was “completely opposed to abortion” and said he believed life began at the point of conception. “With same-sex marriage, that is something that people are doing for themselves. With abortion, that is what people are doing to the unborn child,” he said.
Asked whether he would be against terminations in all circumstances including rape, he replied: “Afraid so.”
Since the interview aired, his odds of becoming the next Prime Minister have lengthened.
Why is it that the majority of the MSM seem to revel in pro-abortion stances and become almost vicious against those that oppose it? Surely the media is not supposed to be our moral arbiters. When did we allow them to shape what is “acceptable” and what is not in public life?
Abortion – Two Vastly Opposing Views and how the Media are Reacting
Views:
The media love murder — regardless of whether it’s the murder of everyone in wars, or the murder of unborn children.
The media’s view that restricting someone’s “right” to have an abortion is taking away a basic human right is just like arguing murder should be allowed, after all any restrictions on killing someone else take away my basic human right to kill whomever I don’t like.
Not much of a difference there – different DNA = different human, removing an unborn child is NOT like removing your appendix.
Rees-Mogg is absolutely right on this issue – but being right doesn’t translate into votes while the corrupt media pretend murder is a basic human right.
of all the left’s causes by far the easiest to refute is there stance on abortion, yet it is the one they cling to the strongest.
They can not even argue the central point that abortions is killing a human being, so they argue for a totally irrelevant side point- a woman’s right to “choose”.
In what other context is it ever argued that any person has the right too “choose” who is human or not. By there logic, I could kill every child in a nursery, if I choose to not consider anyone less than a month old as a human being.