The latest from MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry: abortion can be like a treatment for cancer or hand amputation
By Dave Andrusko
Melissa Harris-Perry
If you’ve watched the “Melissa Harris-Perry” show or read any of NRL News Today’s posts on her, you know that she is so committed to abortion advocacy that she says things that are not only unintelligent but often unintelligible.
Some background. Last Saturday, two days after the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Harris-Perry interviewed Julian McPhillips, who is (according to Melanie Hunter), “a civil rights attorney who represents the rights of the unborn as a guardian ad litem in Alabama court because of a state law (HB 494)) that allows juveniles who don’t have parental permission to petition the court for an abortion.”
Here’s what Harris-Perry said (thanks to the transcript from CNS.com; I added a couple of words that had been overlooked):
“But I want to ask one final
question though: Are you at all distressed in the ways that I am about
the idea that there is a separate interest between an individual and
something that is happening in her body that cannot at that moment exist
outside of her body? So, the idea, for example, that I would need a
court’s permission for cancer treatment or the court’s permission for a
surgery that would remove my hand. Like, if it’s my body, I guess I
can’t understand why the state would have to give me permission.”
At first blush, you might simply say, What?!” But remember this is
the same woman who argued that superstar singer Beyonce could [should?]
have promoted abortion at the 2014 MTV Video Music Awards program where
she spoke at length; who, in the context of Kate Middleton’s first
pregnancy opined, “When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an
awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling – but not
science”; and who spoke of the unborn child as a “thing” that “might
turn into a human”—to name just three examples.Mr. McPhillips demolished the rickety underpinnings of her faulty logic but to his credit, did so in a respectful manner. He said
“Well, you wouldn’t have to,
because I presume you’re well over 17, but someone 17 or younger,
especially 16, 15, 14, having an abortion or having a baby could have
great consequences. And at their age and stage, they can’t enter into
any contract legally in any state anyway, and the rules of civil
procedure in Alabama and in most states allow for the appointment of a
guardian ad litem to protect the property interests of an unborn child.
And we reason if the property interests of an unborn child can be
protected, why not the life interests, because without the life, you
can’t have property. …
“But I will say this: I want to
raise the consciousness of people out there that there’s much at stake,
great life itself. The only problem with pro-choice is it’s absolutely
no choice for the one life that’s really at stake.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment