The March For Life 2018

The March For Life in 2018 was a major event, not the least because it was the first time a sitting US President addressed the crowd via live video. You’d never guess that by the media coverage.

Nor would those participants be invited to the (alleged) Women’s March the next day. That march is less about women and more about politics.

And Matt Walsh lines up the excuses for keeping abortion legal with keeping slavery legal. They line up very closely.

Mentioned links:

Mainstream media largely ignores March for Life despite Trump’s historic address

Only Six Democrats Voted to Protect Babies Born Alive After Botched Abortions

This Is Not Hyperbole: Democrats Now Refuse To Oppose Infanticide

Pro-Lifers Are Modern Abolitionists And Pro-Choicers Are Modern Slaveholders. Here’s Proof.

Getting some shopping done? If you're going to shop at Amazon, please consider clicking on my affiliate link. Thanks!

On Apple devices, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes.

If you're on Android, listen with Google Podcasts.

Stitcher Radio is another possibility for both Apple and Android devices. If you do download Stitcher to your phone, please use the promo code “ConsiderThis” to let them know where you heard about it.

Browser-based options are the Blubrry Network and

And if you have some other podcatcher or RSS reader, click here to get the direct feed and paste it wherever you need it.

I would love it if you would spread the word about the podcast! Click the Facebook, Twitter, and other icons (or all of them!) at the bottom of this post to recommend "Consider This!" to your social media audience.

Show transcript

On the same weekend, the 45th annual March For Life, and the 2nd annual Women’s March happened all around the country, but mostly in Washington, DC. One was to make sure that DC politicians saw how many people are concerned about children who never get their first right; the right to life. The other made sure that those same DC politicians saw how many people were concerned about losing rights that they haven’t actually lost. And it gave some marchers the chance to really make a difference by cosplaying as female body parts. Trump certainly does not have a monopoly on vulgarity.

One got one-third of the coverage on the big 3 news reports the following day than the other, in spite of the unprecedented live speech given by the sitting President. To the press, life and death decisions are just a bunch of “meh”, but what amounted to basically just an anti-Trump rally is a big deal. Again. Oh, that liberal media.

I’m not surprised by this disparity, but I am dismayed at how so many people don’t realize the bias going on out there, as blatant as it is.

What’s interesting about the Woman’s March is how less it is about women and how much it is about politics. Anti-abortion voices are expressly not invited. This is not about diversity; it’s about orthodoxy. If you are the right kind of woman, who thinks like a woman should, then you’re a real woman, at least according to them.

And demonstrating how political it actually is, is a story about a recent bill in Congress. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was voted for by all House Republicans but only 6 Democrats. The other 183 Democrats apparently believe that a baby born alive after a botched abortion still does not deserve to live. You’ve got to ask yourself how long the baby has to be alive before they think that killing it is no longer the mother’s choice. You’ve got to ask yourself how do doctors do this after giving an oath to do no harm.

Actually, you don’t have to ask yourself. Those Democrats and those doctors are the ones who need to be asked. You’re cool with infanticide now?

This is quite a turnaround from 2002, when the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was passed without a dissenting vote, and signed into law by President George W. Bush. This law states that any human baby “who is born alive at any stage of development” is a “person” for all federal law purposes.

I would like any Democrat within the sound of my voice to explain both voting to kill babies that are born alive, and voting that way in spite of existing law that was passed in the most bipartisan way.

Matt Walsh at the Daily Wire is a must-read. His columns and live Facebook videos are not to be missed. Regarding the abortion issue, and following the March For Life, he did a comparison of the arguments for slavery and lined them up exactly with the arguments for abortion. The link to the full article is in the show notes, but here are the arguments themselves. It’s scary how close they are.

  • The argument from ownership: “This slave/baby is my property/body. You can’t tell me what to do with it.”
  • The argument from privacy: “No one is forcing you to have slaves/abortions. Mind your own business!”
  • The argument from superseding rights: “My property/body rights come before the rights of a slave/fetus.”
  • The argument from inevitability: “Slavery/abortion has been around for thousands of years, it’s never going away. We might as well have a safe and legal system in place for it.”
  • The argument from pseudoscience: “Slaves/fetuses aren’t really people. They aren’t like us. Look at them — they’re physically different, therefore we are human and they are not.”
  • The argument from socioeconomics: “If slavery/abortion ends, most of these slaves/babies will end up on the street without a job.”
  • The argument from the courts: “Slavery/abortion was vindicated by the Supreme Court. It’s already been decided, there’s no point in arguing it.”
  • The argument from the Bible: “Slavery/abortion isn’t specifically condemned in the Bible. If it’s wrong, Jesus would have specifically said so.”
  • The argument from faux-compassion: “Slavery/abortion is in the best interest of Africans/babies. The world can be a cruel place. It’s best to protect them from it by keeping them enslaved/killing them.”
  • The argument from the assumed hypocrisy of the other side: “You say you want to end slavery/abortion, but you don’t want to live with freed blacks/adopt unwanted babies yourself. Therefore your position is invalid.”

I mean, what else can I say?

Filed under: AbortionMedia