Yesterday (I may have been stoned) I was slumped in my blue sofa wearing only a pair of South Park boxers that are way to small for me (note to self buy new underwear). In my emancipated state I watched on in ore drooling slightly out my mouth as my left hand operated the remote independent of my brain.

It was through this process of channel surfing that I stumbled upon a pro-life activist preaching his mantra. Which brings me to my point: pro-life/pro-choice. I’m not talking about the debate between the two. I’m obviously pro-choice, the very notion of being saddled with a raucous parasite for the rest of my life because a tiny latex barrier could no longer take the pressure is simply too daunting for me. The very thought of it gives my sympathy to anyone trying to raise the legal abortion period up to 18 months. But that is beside the point.

What really intrigues me about this little quarrel is the wonder of spin. Yes in life we’ll spin anything. This is not some new development cooked up by modern politicians and corporations. Spin has bee around as long as language itself and the topic of abortion has two of the best-known spin slogans in the world. The first is obvious, most people will of course say that they are pro life because what is a world without life? Of course with most spin the sword is double edged and by labeling ones camp as pro-life you also label your enemy pro-death. The irony in this little dilemma is that most people who are pro-life are pro-the-death penalty. Apparently it’s all right to kill as long as the subject has already developed into adulthood.

The pro-choice movement on the other hand, now that is a true accomplishment of spin. Already labeled as pro-death they turned the tables and made it all about choice. Great move, who doesn’t like to choose? After all variety is the spice of life. Hell it’s the very corner stone of democracy.

Anyway, while watching a chubby southerner bumble on about the two, I had a thought: What about a movement that both would surely be against? Yes, how about the “end- famine” takes on abortion. It would be helmed by the worst politician ever. Also a southerner and he shall be called, Morgan Saunders. Here is an interview between Morgan Saunders and Ryan Seacrest (because after the Emmys celebrities stopped talking to him) where Morgan explains his take on the abortion debate.

Ryan Seacrest: I’d like to pressure you for an answer here Mr. Saunders and ask you what’s you’re position on abortion? Pro-life or pro-choice?

Morgan Saunders: Neither.

RS: Neither? I don’t understand?

MS: Well son you see, when it comes to abortion I’m “end-famine”.

RS: End-famine? Mr. Saunders I’m very confused by your response and I’ve had to interview Jessica Simpson before. Could you please explain?

MS: Well abortion is just downright wrong. Do we really want to give the choice to terminate valuable resources to a bunch of young whores who were not smart enough to abstain from sex.

RS: So then you’re pro-life?

MS: No I’m end-famine. Have you ever seen a baby Mr. Seacrest.

RS: To be honest, no I haven’t. For some reason nobody I know who has a baby will let me near it.

MS: Well, a baby is roughly the size of a chicken. Do you realize how many abortions we have in this country, 1.37 million. That’s like throwing away 1.37 million chickens each year, simply because some hooker doesn’t want to look fat for nine months. Millions are starving in Africa. Do you know how much 1.37 million chickens would help in the battle against famine?

RS: So you’re saying that you would give all the unaborted babies to Africa to eat?

MS: No that’s not what I’m saying don’t miss-quote me. I’m saying that I would use the unaborted babies to end famine in Africa.

RS: Well, thank you for your time Mr. Saunders and since I’m fairly certain you will never be interviewed again, goodbye forever. Seacrest out.

Well, I think it’s safe to say that if Morgan Saunders weren’t fictional he’d still never become president.