By Dave Andrusko

One of the great triumphs (so to speak) that pro-abortion feminists chortle about incessantly is that movies and television are now more “realistic” about abortion [here and  here]. Joy and rapture, babies are slaughtered as casually as taking a trip to the corner grocery store.

Not that they don’t loudly complain when a movie or a television program “lapses.”  The pro-abortion Thought Police are not happy when there is a “step backwards.”

NRL News Today has tackled this numerous times. Today will address it again on the happy side: another pro-abortion lament that a new movie does not even “consider” abortion.

I don’t know anything about the “Bridget Jones” movies. I only know that Renee Zellweger often plays a genuinely sweet, strong character, such as she did in the over-rated “Jerry Maguire” and the much under-rated “Cinderella Man” films.

So, in an update of the 2001 movie, the now 43-year-old Bridget Jones becomes pregnant (thus the title, “Bridget Jones’s Baby”)but does not know which of two men is the father (one of whom is her ex-husband).

Laura Goldman loves the movie but laments (as the headline over her review reads) ”Bridget Jones’s Baby’ Misses By Not Discussing Abortion.”

The operative criticism is contained in these two paragraphs:

“Bridget Jones’s Baby,” deftly written, generates a belly laugh a minute. The one flaw of the movie is that it overdoses on cuteness instead of taking the braver path of discussing birth control and abortion on screen. …

It is 2016 not 1950. It is okay for a 43-year-old single woman to fear she can’t handle a baby on her own and consider terminating her pregnancy.

Three observations.

First, contrary to the wishes of the Abortion Blogosphere, not every movie must “consider” abortion. Not every woman who has an unplanned pregnancy “considers” abortion, so why, short of adding another pro-abortion agit-prop movie to the roster, does “Bridget Jones’s Baby” have to?

Second, I understand how pro-abortionists are desperate to turn abortion, literally, into a joke (see the wretched “Obvious Child”). If annihilating your own progeny can be turned (again literally) into a punch line, if it is that trivial, what’s the big deal?

But for the other 99% of us, a comedy is a comedy, not the opportunity to lecture/hector us yet again about the wonderfulness of abortion.

Third, just seeing the trailer, I can imagine perhaps why Goldman is really angry. Here’s Zellweger/Bridget saying of her situation

“This is not how I thought this would be but however we chose to do this, the most important thing is the baby.

Yes, the most important thing is the baby.

Immediately thereafter , looking at an ultrasound of her baby cavorting about, she says in her most protective (and awe-stricken) voice

“You’re the best thing I have ever seen.”