Thursday, October 05, 2006

Ms. Magazine's omission on the abortion issue

Ms. Magazine is going to run an article in which women state that they've had abortions and are happy about their decision. However, in this article, the website says that Ms. is only running the stories that they want to hear (in other words, that "abortion is a good thing"), and will not be telling the stories of the women who regret their abortions.

While Ms. Magazine is entitled to run with what they please, it also seriously undermines their credibility and professionalism to be ignoring one whole side of this issue just so that it can put a sunny face on their side. Imagine if you will, another women's magazine that ran a similar article presenting itself as discussing the abortion issue, but ran only the horror stories? Would this be regarded as fair and unbiased? If you think that, then you also believe that Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh are fair and unbiased.

This situation makes me ask, "If Ms. is so certain that they're right about the abortion issue, then why wouldn't they run the stories of women who regret their abortions?" The only answer that I can think of is that Ms. subconsciously is afraid of giving exposure to views that don't agree with theirs. Why would they be afraid? Because they don't want to be wrong on this issue. For someone to not allow the opposition to have their say is a virtual statement that this person is not confident in their own views.

No one wants to be wrong, but a mature person will face up to their error and learn from it. For someone to manipulate a discussion so that his opponent does not get their say implies that they are hiding something. My hope is that the media will step up and point that out to Ms. They probably won't - but one can only hope.

No comments: