Melissa Harris-Perry Compares Pro-Lifers to Attackers
MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry is a treasure trove of malicious rhetoric. Her last hate-filled rant attacked the Romney family for adopting a white baby.
She eventually apologized. But that’s all liberals have to do. Say something utterly foolish and politically incendiary and later offer a tearful apology. All is then forgotten and then there is a career advance with a pay raise.
Alec Baldwin got it right when he said, referring to Melissa Harris-Perry’s apology over the Romney slam, “If I cry, will I be forgiven all of my transgressions?” Baldwin is infamous for having politically incorrect diarrhea of the mouth. Baldwin’s sin was to say what the media describe as “homophobic remarks.” There aren’t enough apologies to recover from such an infraction unless you go through reparative therapy to “get your mind right.”
Melissa Harris-Perry’s latest absolutely insane statement is about abortion, the purposeful killing of an unborn baby, 55 million of them in the United States since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.
Speaking to Nancy Northrup from the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, Harris-Perry compared those who oppose killing unborn babies to someone who attacks women:
“So, Nancy, self-defense teaches women, ‘Get on the ground, kick with your legs, don’t try to go right,’ you know, ‘don’t try to go arm to arm because that’s not necessarily where the strength is.’ Is this what this new strategy is? ‘All right, if you guys want to sign this, run on this.’”
Melissa Harris-Perry referred to those in the pro-life movement as “enemies of reproductive rights.”
Harris-Perry needs to have a spokesperson from the pro-life movement on to set the record straight. I’d be glad to make an appearance, but it will never happen, and if it did, she would stack the deck with three other virulent pro-abortionists to insure that there would be no debate.
First, if we’re talking about attackers and victims, let’s talk about the unborn baby. The unborn baby is the one being attacked. The problem for the unborn baby is that she is not physically capable of fighting back against the attack on her life by a sanctioned representative of the State. The doctor has been given the legal right to attack the unborn child by crushing her skull, cutting her up in little pieces, and finally extracting the bloody parts from what used to be the sanctuary of her mother’s womb.
Second, pro-lifers are not against “reproductive rights.” No one is saying a person can’t reproduce. It’s about killing what has been produced.
Third, given the “reproductive rights” argument, why should we stop with the baby in the womb? Why not say that after two weeks, two months, or two years that parents should have the legal right to consider their reproductive decision.
Peter Singer, professor for Human Values at Princeton University, promotes the idea that parents should have up to 28 days to determine if they want to kill their child if he or she is born disabled. What if a child is disabled at one year? Helen Keller contracted an illness when she was not quite two years old that left her blind and deaf. She was obviously disabled.
Fourth, the pro-abortion argument has always been that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body. The problem with this argument is that an unborn baby is not a part of a woman’s body.
A baby is not cut out of a woman’s body when she gives birth. An unborn baby is not like an appendix or a diseased kidney.
Like evolutionists who are afraid to debate with a critic of evolution, pro-abortionists, pro killing unborn babies, are afraid to have someone on their shows to explain the real issues in this debate as we enter the 41st year of unborn baby killing in the America.