New York Times: Children With Zika-Caused Birth Defects are Better Off Aborted

National   |   Elliot Polsky   |   Jun 24, 2016   |   9:33AM   |   Washington, DC

The New York Times pro-abortion propaganda strikes again.

Journalists Donald McNeil and Pam Belluck have written another stunningly one-sided piece – this time about abortions in countries affected by the Zika virus, which according to research, threatens to cause severe birth defects in new children.

Like Belluck’s recent Times article praising websites for selling contraception to 13-year-olds online, this latest article never bothers to interview anyone with a pro-life perspective.

The Times is just the latest media source that has used the Zika virus to promote abortion, and it follows a predictable pattern. Although those who think that unborn children with birth defects still deserve life aren’t allowed a voice in this Times “news” story, the story has enough space to cite six pro-abortion organizations or individuals either for statistics or for pro-abortion statements.

Of course, that’s leaving out the authors themselves, who functionally add another two pro-abortion voices to the story.

CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!

 

The Zika virus threatens to cause birth defects in the children of pregnant mothers. What conclusion do the authors draw?

“Even more than it [the Zika virus] has increased attention on restrictive abortion laws, the Zika crisis has highlighted the issues of access to contraception and ways that women are ill-informed about birth control or discouraged from using it in some of the countries.”

Translation: Children with birth defects? Better kill them.

If the authors had bothered to interview someone with a pro-life perspective, they would have had their “attention” drawn elsewhere. Maybe what’s “highlighted” by the Zika virus is the dignity of humans with severe disabilities. Readers of the Times won’t hear that.

The authors also describe Women on Web as “helping” women. Oh good! Does Women on Web give pregnant women physical and moral support during their pregnancy?

No, that’s not what the authors mean by “helping.” That’s another pro-life perspective that won’t show up in this Times piece.

Women on Web “helps” by—to use the author’s terminology—“terminat[ing] unwanted pregnancies.” “Women on Web is an offshoot of Women on Waves.” As the authors explain, that organization helped women by performing abortions on a ship just outside of the territorial waters of countries where abortions were illegal or restricted.

But who can blame the two Times journalists? They’re at least biased for a good cause. They’re fighting mean governments that, to use their words, “seize” abortion pills.

LifeNews Note: Elliot Polsky writes for Newsbusters, where this originally appeared.

microcephaly2