Sure as the tides go in, the tides go out, Bill O'Reilly can be reliably counted upon to articulate the talking points of the anti-abortion movement. But in his Thursday night's "Talking Points" segment, in addition to staying with the standard anti-abortion script, he also, as Sen. Al Franken used to say, pulled a fact straight of his ass. Moving on and eliminating the image of O'Reilly's posterior. After getting some right wing blowback about his "thump the bible" comments, O'Reilly used his "no spin zone" to do some fancy, rhetorical spinning about how he wasn't really being pejorative to a major American religious group who are, presumably, big Fox fans. In the process, he tried to advise them with his view of what constitutes good argument on two "intense issues" in the culture war, abortion and gay marriage, which traditionalists see as destructive. And like any of O'Reilly's arguments regarding abortion, it vividly illustrated his contempt for women who just don't understand that if they have an abortion, they're going to hell!
After working his tired talking point that secular progressives, "emboldened by Obama's win," are, OMG ,trying to change the country, Bill said that "traditional Americans must make their case in very persuasive ways in order to win the day." He then provided abortion data that was very misleading. In taking a page from the forced birth playbook, he cited a Fox News poll which showed in increase in those who identify as pro-life. (Now 50%) Fact Check - Recent polls that show a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal and in an MSNBC/Wall Street Journal (Murdoch publication) seven out of 10 said that Roe V Wade should not be overturned - the highest percentage since 1989. A Pew Poll showed that OMG, 55% of Catholics felt that Roe should not be overturned. This information is specifically geared to abortion and not identification as "pro-life" which is a nebulous term and doesn't account for those who are personally pro-life but don't want to impose, as does O'Reilly and his church, their views on others.
After setting up his debatable fact, Bill then explained the reasons. In taking another page from the anti-abortion extremist (and Bill thinks that liberals are extreme!) playbook, Bill's first reason: "Science established that DNA is present upon conception. So the pro-abortion [anti-abortion designation for those who are pro-choice] people can no longer say a human presence is not affected by abortion. It is. And if you destroy a human presence, you'd better have a pretty darn good reason for doing so. That is, if you want to be a civilized society."
Retort - Wrong. While the zygote has "human" DNA, neither the scientific nor legal system has defined this entity as a "person" entitled to rights of the post-born. Not all religious groups believe this either; hence the pro-choice positions of major mainstream Protestant groups and non-Orthodox Jews.
Bill's second reason: "Pro-life forces did not, did not link abortion to sin. They largely kept theology out of it and so we now see states like North Dakota, Arkansas, passing laws that better protect unborn babies and there would be more states that do that. That's a huge win for traditional forces in America."
Retort - Owing to the bizarre and totally unsubstantial nature of the statement it's hard to respond. But I'll try. He seems to be saying that as more people listen to Catholic priests and "bible thumpers" they become pro-life - a strange argument given that, as lamented by O'Reilly, fewer of "the folks" identify with a church and only about one fourth of Catholics attend Mass. Implicit in the argument is the Catholic view that abortion, as the biggest, fattest, hugest sin, is a one way ticket to hell - a view that seems to inform Bill's belief that women are a bunch of selfish slutty sluts who have abortions for no reason.
What is truly offensive is Bill's statement, as fact, that the North Dakota and Arkansas anti-abortion laws, "better protect unborn babies" because a) fetuses are not "babies" and b) these laws hurt women be further restricting their right to determine what's best for them. The North Dakota law would effectively outlaw abortion for women in that state. But as Bill believes it's a sin, I guess he figures good enough for them. Who cares if these sinners die in illegal abortions! And memo to Bill, it's not all about sin. In the case of North Dakota, and for the anti-abortion movement, it's about taking these laws to the Supreme Court so that Roe can be re-examined. This might be a win for "traditional forces" but not for women!
Bottom line, Bill is wrong. The majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal so the DNA and sin things are just more of Bill's delusional thinking and "pro-life" projecting. And, as arguments against abortion, they're certainly not persuasive. Bill is in the middle of a nasty divorce settlement. Maybe that's why he hates women?! Go figure!