Skip to content

Michael Jackson’s “ABORTION PAPERS” Paradox

September 26, 2012

The recent release of Michael Jackson’s song “Abortion papers” produced a bombshell effect.

Upon recovering from the initial shock the media scrambled to come up with something coherent about it, but totally failed to do so, as the tide of admiration, anger and controversy around the song is really too big to place these entangled emotions into one basket.

The conservatives and liberals are both at a loss as MJ turned out to be the exact opposite of what they expected him to be, while the media isn’t capable of anything else but helpless reproduction of Michael Jackson’s song in the hope that someone tells them what to make of it.

The Christian U-turn

As Michael Jackson’s advocate who knows that Michael was a pure soul, incapable of anything even remotely close to what they lied about him, I cannot help rejoicing at all this turmoil.  Those very Christian organizations which didn’t want to hear of Michael Jackson’s name only a week ago are now quoting his song on each of their sites and refer to him as a big authority in support of the Christian cause.

” I have to do it in a way so I don’t offend girls who have gotten abortions or bring back guilt trips so it has to be done carefully…I have to really think about it.” [from Michael Jackson's note to the track]

The wacko jacko nickname is immediately gone and now it is Michael Jackson, the respected King of Pop and a defender of life who is a valuable acquisition for the Christian team.

Uncomplimentary pictures of Michael Jackson are forgotten and now he is shown at his very best – smiling or reflecting on something serious, but always a demure, modest and respectable young man.

This almost instant U-turn would be hilarious if it weren’t such a welcome and long-awaited change in the public perception of Michael Jackson.  After all the trashing of the innocent man done by various preachers all the t’s have suddenly been crossed and i’s dotted in our dispute with them as  Michael turned out to be an ardent champion of the most fundamental Christian principles, thus driving those preachers into an utter shame.

I personally am especially amused by the news that “several churches are now teaching from the song Abortion papers”. Who could have counted even on a fraction of this incredible news only a week ago? Oh Lord, your ways are full of wonders indeed!

This marked change concerns everything regarding Michael Jackson. Now even the cause of Michael’s death is no longer presented as a shameful death from an “overdose” but is correctly reported as a respiratory arrest which was the result of Murray’s totally criminal negligence. Well, we’ve known it all along and are fully supportive of the fact that the general public is finally presented with the whole truth – only who could have imagined that one song by Jackson was all we needed for the truth to be finally told about him?

The article in the Christian post is good and is faithfully analyzing Michael Jackson’s lyrics:

Christian Post

Michael Jackson Was Pro-Life? King of Pop’s Newly Uncovered Song Tackles Abortion

By Audrey Barrick , Christian Post Reporter

September 22, 2012|5:07 pm

In a previously unreleased song, Michael Jackson is heard taking a pro-life position. The late King of Pop also cites the Bible in defending the unborn child.

“Song Groove” or “Abortion Papers” was released by Sony as part of the 25th anniversary edition of Jackson’s album Bad. The abortion song, recorded in the 1980s, tells of a woman considering abortion.

The chorus:

Those abortion papers
 Signed in your name against the words of God
 Those abortion papers
 Think about life, I’d like to have my child

“Song Groove” was made just years after abortion was legalized in the United States in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that a woman had the right to decide to have an abortion. The song is upbeat despite the topic Jackson, survived by three children, sings about.

In the first verse he says:

Sister don’t read, she’ll never know
 What about love?
 Living a Christian soul
 What do we get, she runs away
 What about love?
 What about all I pray

He later sings:

Sister confused, she went alone
 What about love?
 What about all I saw?
 Biding a life, reading the words
 Singing a song, citing a Bible verse

Jackson died in 2009 after suffering a respiratory arrest at his Los Angeles home. He was 50. A coroner ruled that a combination of propofol and sedatives administered by Dr. Conrad Murray caused Jackson’s death. Murray was convicted last year of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/michael-jackson-was-pro-life-king-of-pops-newly-uncovered-song-tackles-abortion-82056/#4upK4oulwebc5Vvd.99fact

In her article for Examinier.com called “Michael Jackson Pro-Life?: Spiritual and Political Effects of AbortionRev. Catherine Gross is reporting the incredible news that several churches are teaching from the song Abortion Papers. In addition to the Christian Post she also mentions  Christian Bias and Audio Sermon the latter of which also calls Michael Jackson a respectful King of Pop and says that “in a previously unreleased song, Michael Jackson is heard taking a pro-life position. The late King of Pop also cites the Bible in defending the unborn child”.

I’ve been to some of these sites’ forums and was amazed to see the admin of one of them deal with a reader’s usual-style comment in respect of Jackson in a most resolute manner putting an immediate stop to the reader’s insinuations. Here is a glimpse of their communication which was of course totally impossible only a week ago:

Commenter 1: I would imagine a lot of pedophiles are prolife.

Admin:  Yeah, that’s why priests are prolife huh? Stupid, hateful, unnecessary comment.

Commenter 2: I second this. Not cool, Jaime.  

The deeds of God are full of wonders indeed.

However let us forget the harm done to Michael by some Christian preachers and appreciate all the good they are doing to him now. They are Michael’s friends now, and in this capacity we most heartily welcome them to our side.

Success

The second aspect of the “Abortion papers” effect is even more hilarious than the first one.  The thing is that while seeking public opinion about the song, every media outlet mentioning it provides a link to the video, thus promoting it on a really big scale, independent of  their views being positive or negative on the subject matter.

Every page of every media outlet urges you to listen, listen, listen to the song thus giving it so much free promotion that it leaves the observer of the process totally speechless. What a sudden twist in Michael Jackson’s posthumous fate! When he spent millions on promoting his songs, no one wanted him and shrugged him off as a “has been” and a “basket case”,  but now the same man doesn’t do a thing to promote his music  and they are doing it by themselves and without any monetary incentive at that!

The paradox of the situation is that those who approve of the song are willingly promoting it, and those who disapprove of it are unwillingly promoting it too. If Michael Jackson had been alive he would have had a good laugh over it. Haters and supporters working together in order to promote a Michael Jackson song? Previously it would be totally impossible to envisage such a situation, however it is taking place now – the opposing parties are both working for Michael Jackson’s success and this is what makes the situation so beautiful.

This is the ultimate success of Michael Jackson and I absolutely admire it.

Another incredible thing about the “Abortion Papers” song is that it is liked by everybody.

Roger Friedman describes the song as follows: “It’s got a killer rhythm track and a very catchy hook and melody”. The beat is indeed nothing like you’ve ever heard before, Michael’s vocals are strong and passionate, and the music sounds so fresh that it looks like it was composed today and not a quarter of a century ago (what a ridiculous thought). These awesome features made the media admit that Michael’s music is timeless and is not susceptible to erosion:

  • “Jackson’s ’80s music has a timelessness to it that can cause the listener to disassociate it from the era it came out of.”

In addition to all that there isn’t a single article on the planet that wouldn’t call the song “catchy”. The common neutral description of the song is “incredibly catchy” while phrases like “oddly catchy” and “bizarrely catchy” betray the old familiar voices of Michael’s haters, however all of them, fans and haters alike, sigh in the universal consensus that the song is an absolute addiction.

The album in charts as per Sept.25, 2012

It sure is as I myself can listen to it almost non-stop. It is a great dance song and a true hit, no less smashing than the classic Billie Jean.

However this is exactly where real controversy starts.

Controversy

As Joe Vogel rightfully noted, “Ironically, the main drawback of the track is its catchiness. It feels a bit strange wanting to dance and sing along to a song about abortion, but that’s exactly what the addictive groove inspires.”

The irresistible desire to dance to the song is expressed by all journalists who are not ashamed to confess their crime. Some of them admit that Michael was capable of turning anything into a dance song:

I agree, it is indeed a rather novel idea to dance to a song about papers for an abortion, however since it does not dwell on the bloody horrors of the operation but is a vehement call on both sexes to give a good thought to the decision itself, dancing to it may not be that bad an idea after all….

It depends on how you look at it.

It might even be beneficial for both sexes to dance to these lyrics from the educational point of view as it teaches people responsibility for their actions.

The pair of young people making love after a dance to so catchy a song will probably be reminded of the need to be more responsible for their actions and remember that they are not having mere sex but may accidentally start a new, frail life and are in the long run dealing in serious matters like life and death.

Michael Jackson was perfectly able to make a great ballad on this sensitive subject, however he preferred to turn it into a hit dance song – why?

I am beginning to think that he could do it intentionally. It could be a novel way to make the young generation take the matter of love much more seriously and teach them handle the matters of generating a new life with much more care and responsibility than they usually do.

Learning the eternal truths while dancing and teaching people to reflect on serious matters – how very novel it is and how very much like Michael Jackson who also included Man in the Mirror into this album! The two songs are very much in line with each other, aren’t they?

And as to the dance aspect of it isn’t it much better to dance to Michael’s hit about love and responsibility than to something like “I want your psycho, your vertical stick, want you in my rear window, baby, you’re sick”? (Bad romance by Lady Gaga) If it is perfectly okay to dance to this horror why isn’t it okay to dance to Michael’s call to preserve life?

The way Michael handles the subject matter is awesome. No judgment, no ridicule, no indifference, no moralizing – just a vehement call against the decision that goes against God’s will, just understanding of the anguish that it involves and just conveying the idea that the matter concerns men no less than women (though to some it does look like a female problem only, doesn’t it?). For everyone around, including the parents (father’s confusion, mother’s despair) it is a huge moral dilemma and once the act is committed it is very difficult to live with. Or at least this is the way it should be.

Some girls have been offended by the song’s lyrics . These girls simply do not know how happy they can be in a relationship with a man thinking like Michael Jackson. Considerate, tender, loving and also responsible for what is done by the two of them. Not leaving the girl alone in her trouble if her pregnancy is a problem for some reason. Supportive of her and persuading her not abort life as he wants his child and also has a right to have his say. Being the one who really loves and is not simply using her for his pleasure.

Such men are a rare find but occasionally they do occur as Michael Jackson’s example shows it. Finding them is the greatest luck of your life.

“Pre-pubescent children”

The anger of some feminists is so big that they totally forget themselves and throw at Michael old and nasty innuendoes he never deserved and which he surely doesn’t deserve now that we know how true a believer in God he was and how faithfully he observed the God’s commandments.

After reading the nasty and poisonous article in the Slate I have lost all respect for these self-proclaimed feminists:

Hey, Have You Heard Michael Jackson’s Anti-Abortion Song?

By Amanda Marcotte

Posted Thursday, Sept. 20, 2012, at 3:43 PM ET

Photo by -/AFP/Getty Images

Michael Jackson’s beloved album Bad turns 25 this fall, and to celebrate, Sony has unleashed a box set with a remastered version of the album plus some never before released tracks to convince us to shell out $35 for a slightly different “Smooth Criminal”. And goody, one of those extra songs is a Christianity-heavy screed chastising a woman for choosing abortion instead of giving the narrator the child he is entitled to. Jesse Taylor at Wonkette first pointed me toward the tune “Song Groove (A/K/A Abortion Papers)” which includes the lyrics:

Those abortion papers

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

In case you weren’t sure the woman is a bad lady, MJ also mentions that she’s an atheist. Hey, we all judged Jackson for his, at best, incredibly inappropriate relationships with pre-pubescent children, so I guess he gets to judge the rest of us right back for having consensual sex with age-appropriate partners without feeling obligated to go through with every accidental pregnancy.

The tune is catchy (though not quite as good as that other horribly misogynist song “Dirty Diana”), and it’s good that the curators of this box set thought to include it. Jackson’s ’80s music has a timelessness to it that can cause the listener to disassociate it from the era it came out of. But these lyrics have a goofy mix of religiosity and anxiety about women’s liberation that immediately invoke a time when the term “Moral Majority” meant something and the idea of advertising condoms on television seemed beyond the pale. The “hey lady, give me my baby” lyrics instantly put the listener’s mind back to those bygone years, when sexist responses to feminism in pop culture really didn’t have quite the same subtlety that they do now.

Enjoy: …. (link to the song)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/09/20/michael_jackson_s_bad_turns_25_have_you_heard_the_abortion_track_.html

Feminism or non-feminism is of no importance to us as it simply has nothing to do with what Michael Jackson is singing about, but you will agree that it was terribly mean of this Slate author to make nasty innuendoes about “pre-pubescent children” in connection with a God-abiding a man like Michael Jackson.

Now that we have first-hand proof that Michael Jackson was so vehement in living by the Bible that he composed a sort of an anthem to call people to follow its word, it would be totally incongruous to think that a man like that could break one of the main Divine commands expressed by Jesus in these words:

  •  “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he was drowned in the depth of the sea.”

The meaning of these words is pretty straightforward, however if someone still misunderstands here are the most common interpretations of these words:

-         He said they would be better off with the mill stone than to mislead the children.

-        It means the punishment in hell for harming children is so bad that instead of harming children they should have jump into the ocean with a rock tied to their neck.

-         Children are filled with goodness and a natural faith.  Evil seeks to corrupt and defile what is good.  Children are innocent, and for the most part, adults desire to keep them from experiencing things that can rob them of their innocence.  God is an enemy of anyone who would actively seek to harm any child; Jesus forewarns about the harshness of the punishment for such actions.  The punishment is so harsh that death is a more desirable option. http://jesusspeaks.com/2010/12/18/warning-against-harming-children/

It is no wonder that when Michael Jackson was asked those nasty questions about his “relationship” with children he incredulously looked at those people and said that it would be easier for him to slit his wrists than do anything like… actually the mere idea of it was so repulsive to him that he could never even utter those terrible words.

He would have probably fainted if he had only visualized in his thoughts what these people so freely talked of in connection with him and the children. He and his detractors were and still are two worlds apart that never cross – the reality they live in did not exist for Michael Jackson, while the values he adhered to in life are simply non-existent for his haters. How can those who crawl in muddy waters understand those who fly high in the skies?

Politics

I didn’t know that the sensitive abortion subject is currently a very hot topic in the US as I am not really following the developments there. I’ve learned that the issue is hot from the funny article below:

Sep 22, 2012

By Lil D

Are we sure Michael Jackson’s dead? How did he know this was an election year, and abortion was a hot topic? Anyway, here’s an unreleased track from the 25th anniversary edition re-release of Bad.

  •  Those abortion papers, signed in your name against the words of God, Those abortion papers
  • Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Heavy stuff, right? But when you listen to it, it kinda sounds like a Prince song lol. You know MJ could turn anything into a dance song.

Check out “Song Groove (Abortion Papers)” below:…. (link to the song)

http://zhiphopcleveland.com/3702733/new-music-michael-jackson-song-groove-abortion-papers-video/

The pro-choice media doesn’t beat about the bush and calls Michael Jackson’s lyrics “awful”:

The Michael Jackson – Song Groove (Abortion Papers) – MP3 Listen

by Rickey on Sat September 22, 2012 at 01:17 pm

Here’s an anti-abortion song from Michael Jackson called “Song Groove (Abortion Papers)” from his new album Bad 25. It’s actually a bit catchy — it’s a dance track — but the lyrics are awful:

“Those abortion papers/signed in your name against the words of God/Those abortion papers/Think about life, I’d like to have my child.”

Listen to the MP3 here:… (link to the song)

http://www.rickey.org/michael-jackson-song-groove-abortion-papers-mp3-listen/

Others are resentful of Michael Jackson’s sudden involvement in the current elections and throw all their sarcasm into imagining what would have happened if Michael’s song had been released in the 80s. I wonder if this was indeed possible given Michael’s popularity at the time?

GHOST MICHAEL JACKSON’S ABORTION JAMZ

BY JESSE TAYLOR (excerpt)

“… magine if ’80s MJ, inarguably the biggest musical superstar in the world and probably history, had released an anti-abortion song at the end of the Reagan presidency. Not only would that shit have gone straight to number one, but abortion probably would have ended three days later in a massive dance scene punctuated by a giant elephant march down Pennsylvania Avenue, capped off by America’s second baby boom as all ladies got spontaneously pregnant to the strains of I Just Can’t Stop Loving You.”

(link to the song)

Some are noting that Michael’s lyrics have turned into a fighting tool for each of the sides. A Catholic site posts complete Michael’s lyrics in support of the Christian cause while the terrible Slate article uses the same lyrics for ridiculing Michael:

Michael Jackson, Defender of Life?

September 22, 2012 By Kathy Schiffer

Michael Jackson was pro-life? 

Yes, according to a new, never-before-released song Jackson penned titled “Song Groove (A/K/A Abortion Papers)“.   The song, which is a bonus track on the 25th anniversary re-release of Jackson’s hit album “Bad”, hits store shelves this week, and media are scrambling to tell the story.

Catholic site Phatmass posted the complete lyrics here, and Slate magazine included a pro-abortion, anti-God screed here, calling the tune “a goofy mix of religiosity and anxiety about women’s liberation.”  Slate’s unlovable columnist Amanda Marcotte shocks with her callous disregard for the unborn child and her disparaging of all considerations except her own:  Jackson, she writes, “judges us…for having consensual sex with age-appropriate partners without feeling obligated to go through with every accidental pregnancy.”

In Abortion Papers, Jackson plays the part of a man whose girlfriend chooses to abort his child—even though he wants the child and believes that abortion is outside the will of God.  He sings:

Those abortion papers
Signed in your name against the words of God
Those abortion papers
Think about life, I’d like to have my child.

Listen to the song: … (link to the song)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kathyschiffer/2012/09/michael-jackson-defender-of-life/

Who is right?

The Slate is wrong in one more aspect besides that “pre-pubescent children” point – Michael Jackson was never judgmental. He does not judge anyone in the Abortion Papers song in the same way as he never judged anyone in his whole life – even his worst offenders like the Arvizos and the Chandlers.

Jesus said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (the sinner) and no one did. Michael Jackson literally lived by these words. It could also be his sweet nature and mother’s upbringing that helped, but the end result is obvious and all too clear – Michael never accused anyone. So all this dispute about the Abortion Papers song is absolutely not about judgment.

I think that the dispute is all about what decision to take in a complex situation when for some reason a pregnancy is an unwanted one. Let me risk my own interpretation of the problem.

In contrast to what you expect me to say I think that the pro-choice advocates are partially right.

God the Almighty is all about choice.  He does not force anyone to follow His commandments – if He did want us to blindly obey them He would surely find a means to do it. However instead of compelling us to live a clean way of life he gave us freedom of choice (and it is exactly as a result of this freedom and people’s wrong decisions that there are so many ills on the planet).

A wrong decision is a wrong decision, but even though the right decision made by people under coercion is partially good (as it saves them from making gross mistakes) it is still not the ultimate goal of the Almighty. When the decision was not taken consciously and was not the result of the free choice of a human being there is an element of force in it which goes against the true spirit of the Heavens.

Therefore giving a choice to people to decide for themselves even in this highly sensitive case is probably right, only the point of it is that God wants us to be perfect and consciously make the correct choice, and voluntarily choose Life over Death. Voluntary is the key word here, as otherwise the concept of choice simply makes no sense.

Thus the ultimate correct decision is pro-life after all, only it takes a longer and a more winding road to come to it – through a voluntary, conscious and responsible choice of both him and her.

The other option naturally also exists however if it is taken one should be ready to bear full responsibility for everything it involves.

I don’t know whether Michael would have agreed with me. He seems to have been a very upright man with a very high moral and ethical code of behavior – much higher than anyone of us is capable of even imagining.  And he was also able to convey his ideas to people in a fantastically powerful and enjoyable way, which I do not aspire to. Judging by the effect his “Abortion papers” song has on us now he was able to teach us the simple truths of life in a way all of us would have tremendously enjoyed.

With a great teacher like that we would have probably learned from him not only to live by the Gospel but dance to it too….

*  *  *

I wonder what kind of a video Michael would have made to this great song?

The lyrics of  Song Groove (aka Abortion Papers)

Sister don’t read, she’ll never know

What about love?

Living a Christian soul

What do we get, she runs away

What about love?

What about all I pray

Don’t know the worst, she knows a atheist

What about God?

Living is all I see

What do you get, things she would say

What about love?

That’s all I pray

Those abortion papers

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Sister confused, she went alone

What about love?

What about all I saw?

Biding a life, reading the words

Singing a song, citing a Bible verse

Father’s confused, mother despair

Brother’s in curse

What about all I’ve seen?

You know the lie, you keep it low

What about heart?

That’s all I’ve known

Those abortion papers

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers (Hoo!)

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Look at my words, what do they say?

Look at my heart, burning is all heartbreak

What do you get?

What do you say?

What about love?

Feel my sin

Those abortion papers

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers (Hoo!)

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Who have the grateful?

Where will she go?

What will she do to see the world?

Sister don’t know, where would she go

What about life?

What about all I saw?

What would you do?

Don’t get so confuse

Love all the things

It’s just the things I do

Those abortion papers

Signed in your name against the words of God

Those abortion papers

Think about life, I’d like to have my child

Those abortion papers

(Abortion paper)

(This paper) (Hee-Hee)

Those abortion papers (Hee Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

I’d like to have my child (Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

Those abortion papers

(Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

(Hee Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

Those abortion papers (Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

I’d like to have my child (Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

Those abortion papers (Hee-Hee Hee Hee-Hee)

(Hee-Hee Hee-Hee)

Updated October 1, 2012

There is something unnatural in the media’s overwhelming desire to deny the innocent truth about Michael and bring him down even after his death. Something is amiss here and it is simply a must to find out what it is.

Even “Abortion papers” song which is as straightforward as it can only be is finally getting a totally unnatural reaction from the media. I am talking of a long article in the Guardian which says a thousand vague words about Jackson instead of saying directly that they are very much surprised to see Michael to be a God-abiding man. And if he was so sincere in his love for God he simply could not be a child molester.

There are many people who pretend to be living by God’s word, but few who really do, however in case they take it as seriously as Michael did they simply cannot break the word they give to the Almighty, and this makes the song the best proof of Michael’s innocence.

But instead of a simple admission of this simple fact the media finds it necessary to write a thesis to put as much smoke around it as it is only possible.

The Guardian article sounds like a serious attempt to undermine the effect of the song, to refocus its message and portray Michael as a kind of a monster for women. The use of a picture from Thriller is no accident especially since it is accompanied by the following comment:

  • “Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, above, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised”

Here is the article reprinted in full. See for yourself how totally overblown, twisted and unnatural the text is, and how many negative innuendoes are thrown in.

In the opinion of the Guardian Thriller suggests “sexualized violence” (???), MJ is the “prolific generator of headlines” (and not of great music), the release of the album is a “heavily sponsored and heavily hyped affair” (what a condescending attitude to a great album!), the Abortion papers are no good as they “condemn the woman to sin” (I wish someone told me where it is in the song).

Then they suddenly throw in “the Jackson family controversies” (what does that have to do with the song?), the idea that Michael’s work was becoming explicitly political (which sounds to me as the real reason why Michael began to be so harassed – he should have minded his business only and should have limited himself to being an entertainer) and that MJ was always against violence, KKK, police brutality, so Abortion papers are “nothing new” or special (then why don’t they appreciate Michael for his consistency in upholding the truth and justice?).

A different tune is started with a statement that his voice is “filled with sexual paranoia”, Jackson is involved “in night-time stalking” which actually grows quite “malignant” by the time he makes the Dangerous album (Oh my God!), so on and so forth with it. The more you read of it the more the author makes Jackson look like a sort of a monster for women…

Read it yourself and you will see how really venomous the article is. To help you see the stealth poison of it I took the liberty of putting some of the innuendoes in bold type:

Is Michael Jackson’s Abortion Papers controversial? Let’s look at his work

Jackson’s lyrics have been been political, explicit, violent and accusatory before – Abortion Papers is nothing new

Katherine St Asaph
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 September 2012 15.01 BST

Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, above, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised.‘ Photograph: Allstar Collection//Sportsphoto Ltd

Michael Jackson remains among the most prolific generators of headlines the news cycle has got. Add abortion – another quite reliable traffic source – and the controversy creates itself. The fuss this time involves the 25-year anniversary re-release of Jackson’s Bad, a heavily sponsored, heavily hyped affair. For comparison’s sake, imagine something several tiers above Jackson’s last 25-year reissue, for Thriller four years ago. The album is flush with extra material: the typical remasterings, a couple of remixes by DJs Afrojack and Nero that, depending on one’s stance on contemporary stadium dance music, constitute either updates to or wanton destruction of Jackson’s back catalogue, and about an album’s worth of unreleased tracks.

Among these is Song Groove, better referred to by its parenthetical Abortion Papers. Whatever those papers might be (presumably medical documentation worked differently 25 years ago) they’re no good, condemning the woman in the song to sin and despair and whatever else the pro-life contingent warns against. The track is not quite as inflammatory as news outlets report – the circulated lyrics claim she’s an atheist, which sounds nothing like what Jackson sings – and as Jackson family controversies go, lately and otherwise, this is comparatively trivial. It’s nevertheless a surprise to hear Jackson earnestly rail against “abortion papers, signed in your name against the word of God”. The political timing, whether in 2012 or 1987, is as questionable as the demo is rickety; one can see why it went unreleased.

But then, must it have? The further you get into Jackson’s discography, the more explicitly political his work becomes – by HIStory, police brutality, gun violence and the KKK are fair mentions – and though Jackson’s religion is better documented in his biography than his lyrics, nothing in Abortion Papers is too different from his spiritual repertoire.

Regarding abortion, Jackson would hardly have been the first to address it specifically, whether you count the earnest folk songs released during the 1970s around Roe v Wade or the less overt but far more popular work of his peers. Jackson might mention the deed by name, but his sentiment isn’t all that far from Madonna’s anguished “but I’ve made up my mind – I’m keeping my baby” in Papa Don’t Preach, or Whitney Houston’s stately talk about serendipity in Miracle, both released within a few years of Bad. Nor was Abortion Papers meant as a polemic, at least in Jackson’s mind. “I have to do it in a way so I don’t offend girls who have gotten abortions or bring back guilt trips, so it has to be done carefully,” he wrote in the song’s notes, nuance corroborated by longtime friend Matt Forger.

Care or not, though, Jackson certainly sings Abortion Papers as a polemic, his voice addled with paranoia both general and sexual. By then, for every straightforward love song there was one in which passion was all-consuming and half-unknowable, the cause of as much anguish as pleasure. I Just Can’t Stop Loving You and The Way You Make Me Feel hinted at this, an ineffable, inescapable force that, in the latter video, drove Jackson to night-time stalking (it’s not played quite so sinister, though the undertones are there).

By Dangerous, it’s downright malignant. “Don’t try to understand me / just simply do the things I say,” Jackson says on seething Give In To Me, and though the first half is probably just another instance of Jackson fretting about being misunderstood, it’s just as easily understood as sexual terror. I Can’t Let Her Get Away sounds more tense than heartbroken; She Drives Me Wild so pleased it’s almost accusatory. The only consolation, though it isn’t really, is that Jackson is not the only one susceptible to this lust; In the Closet begins with Princess Stephanie of Monaco panting about desire she cannot resist, contain or hide. All Jackson vetoes is the hiding.

It’s well documented that in Jackson’s material, women don’t always come off well. As early as the Jacksons, he’d sung about cheating accusations by “wicked women” in This Place Hotel. Then come the well-known examples: brazen groupie Dirty Diana and scorned and pregnant one-night stand Billie Jean, neither treated sympathetically. Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised (Smooth Criminal, in which it’s probably on purpose that Annie’s struck down in the bedroom).

Not until late, minor track Blood on the Dance Floor would the gender dynamic be reversed, and even there, it’s still much the same story: inevitable seduction leading to possible pregnancy to blood and revenge. And there come many, many admonishments, most tellingly in Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’: “If you can’t feed your baby / then don’t have your baby.”

Compared to this, Abortion Papers drips with kindness. It’s another admonishment (“I’d like to have my child” doesn’t come off as the woman speaking), but all the sex occurs offscreen, all the violence is cushioned by religion and any judgment is cushioned by empathy. It’s still controversial, perhaps – but only if shorn of context.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/michael-jackson-abortion-papers-controversial?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

So now the media has started a new tune? Michael Jackson is a monster for women, denying them their rights, their sexual freedom, a religious accuser, you name it…

The best reaction to this article is the one found in the comments to it. It shows how artificial and far-fetched the article is:

Pendragon57:

  • “Is Ms St Asaph writing a thesis for her masters in psycho-analysis? This is just a song dearie – not an autobiography by its creator – lighten up for God’s sake!”
18 Comments leave one →
  1. October 1, 2012 6:56 pm

    Where did you go to school Kathertine St. Asaph? What is your background as a journalist?
    Did you get kicked out of elementary school?

  2. October 1, 2012 6:51 pm

    More writing about Michael! He has been accused of just about everything.” He is A sexual”
    “homosexual,pedofile” and so on. How many people have died in Shakespears plays?
    Anybody accuses him of murderous intents and night time stalking?.And so have in numerable artsists ,writers, painters after him.Goya´s late life paintings were immensly violent.Was Goya accused of nightime stalking and maybe being pro murder? Who has read :In Cold Blood?If so call up the Guardian or go and confess to the police!
    To any graet artist all human feelings are known and they have through the ages written,painted or sang about them. What about the ancient Greeks? Oedipus Rex?

  3. October 1, 2012 1:57 pm

    Let me place my earlier comment into the post where it belongs (and add a couple of words too).

    There is something unnatural in the media’s overwhelming desire to deny the innocent truth about Michael and bring him down even after his death. Something is amiss here and it is simply a must to find out what it is.

    Even “Abortion papers” song which is as straightforward as it can only be is finally getting a totally unnatural reaction from the media. I am talking of a long article in the Guardian which tells a thousand vague words about Jackson instead of saying directly that they are very much surprised to see Michael to be a God-abiding man. And if he was so sincere in his love for God he simply could not be a child molester.

    There are many people who pretend to be living by God’s word, but few who really do, however in case they take it as seriously as Michael did they simply cannot break the word they give to the Almighty and this makes the song the best proof of Michael’s innocence .

    But instead of a simple admission of this simple fact the media finds it necessary to write a thesis to put as much smoke around it as it is only possible.

    The Guardian article sounds like a serious attempt to undermine the effect of the song, to refocus its message and portray Michael as a kind of a monster for women. The use of a picture from Thriller is no accident especially since it is accompanied by the following comment: “Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, above, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised”

    Here is the article reprinted in full. See for yourself how totally overblown, twisted and unnatural the text is, and how many negative innuendoes are thrown in.

    In the opinion of the Guardian Thriller suggests “sexualized violence” (???), MJ is the “prolific generator of headlines” (and not of great music), the release of the album is a “heavily sponsored and heavily hyped affair” (what a condescending attitude to a great album!), the Abortion papers are no good as they “condemn the woman to sin” (I wish someone told me where it is in the song).

    Then they suddenly throw in “the Jackson family controversies” (what does that have to do with the song?), the idea that Michael’s work was becoming explicitly political (which sounds to me as the real reason why Michael began to be so harassed – he should have minded his business only and should have limited himself to being an entertainer) and that MJ was always against violence, KKK, police brutality, so Abortion papers are “nothing new” or special (then why don’t they appreciate Michael for his consistency in upholding the truth and justice?).

    A different tune is started with a statement that his voice is “filled with sexual paranoia”, Jackson is involved “in night-time stalking” which actually grows quite “malignant” with time (Oh my God!), so on and so forth with it. The more you read of it the more the author makes Jackson look like a sort of a monster for women…

    Read it yourself and you will see how really venomous the article is. To help you see the stealth poison of it I took the liberty of putting some of the innuendoes in bold type:

    Is Michael Jackson’s Abortion Papers controversial? Let’s look at his work

    Jackson’s lyrics have been been political, explicit, violent and accusatory before – Abortion Papers is nothing new

    Katherine St Asaph
    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 25 September 2012 15.01 BST

    http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/9/25/1348580098550/Michael-Jacksons-Thriller-008.jpg

    Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, above, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised.‘ Photograph: Allstar Collection//Sportsphoto Ltd

    Michael Jackson remains among the most prolific generators of headlines the news cycle has got. Add abortion – another quite reliable traffic source – and the controversy creates itself. The fuss this time involves the 25-year anniversary re-release of Jackson’s Bad, a heavily sponsored, heavily hyped affair. For comparison’s sake, imagine something several tiers above Jackson’s last 25-year reissue, for Thriller four years ago. The album is flush with extra material: the typical remasterings, a couple of remixes by DJs Afrojack and Nero that, depending on one’s stance on contemporary stadium dance music, constitute either updates to or wanton destruction of Jackson’s back catalogue, and about an album’s worth of unreleased tracks.

    Among these is Song Groove, better referred to by its parenthetical Abortion Papers. Whatever those papers might be (presumably medical documentation worked differently 25 years ago) they’re no good, condemning the woman in the song to sin and despair and whatever else the pro-life contingent warns against. The track is not quite as inflammatory as news outlets report – the circulated lyrics claim she’s an atheist, which sounds nothing like what Jackson sings – and as Jackson family controversies go, lately and otherwise, this is comparatively trivial. It’s nevertheless a surprise to hear Jackson earnestly rail against “abortion papers, signed in your name against the word of God”. The political timing, whether in 2012 or 1987, is as questionable as the demo is rickety; one can see why it went unreleased.

    But then, must it have? The further you get into Jackson’s discography, the more explicitly political his work becomes – by HIStory, police brutality, gun violence and the KKK are fair mentions – and though Jackson’s religion is better documented in his biography than his lyrics, nothing in Abortion Papers is too different from his spiritual repertoire.

    Regarding abortion, Jackson would hardly have been the first to address it specifically, whether you count the earnest folk songs released during the 1970s around Roe v Wade or the less overt but far more popular work of his peers. Jackson might mention the deed by name, but his sentiment isn’t all that far from Madonna’s anguished “but I’ve made up my mind – I’m keeping my baby” in Papa Don’t Preach, or Whitney Houston’s stately talk about serendipity in Miracle, both released within a few years of Bad. Nor was Abortion Papers meant as a polemic, at least in Jackson’s mind. “I have to do it in a way so I don’t offend girls who have gotten abortions or bring back guilt trips, so it has to be done carefully,” he wrote in the song’s notes, nuance corroborated by longtime friend Matt Forger.

    Care or not, though, Jackson certainly sings Abortion Papers as a polemic, his voice addled with paranoia both general and sexual. By then, for every straightforward love song there was one in which passion was all-consuming and half-unknowable, the cause of as much anguish as pleasure. I Just Can’t Stop Loving You and The Way You Make Me Feel hinted at this, an ineffable, inescapable force that, in the latter video, drove Jackson to night-time stalking (it’s not played quite so sinister, though the undertones are there).

    By Dangerous, it’s downright malignant. “Don’t try to understand me / just simply do the things I say,” Jackson says on seething Give In To Me, and though the first half is probably just another instance of Jackson fretting about being misunderstood, it’s just as easily understood as sexual terror. I Can’t Let Her Get Away sounds more tense than heartbroken; She Drives Me Wild so pleased it’s almost accusatory. The only consolation, though it isn’t really, is that Jackson is not the only one susceptible to this lust; In the Closet begins with Princess Stephanie of Monaco panting about desire she cannot resist, contain or hide. All Jackson vetoes is the hiding.

    It’s well documented that in Jackson’s material, women don’t always come off well. As early as the Jacksons, he’d sung about cheating accusations by “wicked women” in This Place Hotel. Then come the well-known examples: brazen groupie Dirty Diana and scorned and pregnant one-night stand Billie Jean, neither treated sympathetically. Then comes the violence, whether cartoonish (Thriller, in which the demons might as well be wingmen) or sexualised (Smooth Criminal, in which it’s probably on purpose that Annie’s struck down in the bedroom).

    Not until late, minor track Blood on the Dance Floor would the gender dynamic be reversed, and even there, it’s still much the same story: inevitable seduction leading to possible pregnancy to blood and revenge. And there come many, many admonishments, most tellingly in Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’: “If you can’t feed your baby / then don’t have your baby.”

    Compared to this, Abortion Papers drips with kindness. It’s another admonishment (“I’d like to have my child” doesn’t come off as the woman speaking), but all the sex occurs offscreen, all the violence is cushioned by religion and any judgment is cushioned by empathy. It’s still controversial, perhaps – but only if shorn of context.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/michael-jackson-abortion-papers-controversial?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

    So now the media has started a new tune – Michael Jackson is a monster for women, denying them their rights, their sexual freedom, a religious accuser, you name it…

    The best reaction to this article is the one found in the comments to it. It shows how artificial and far-fetched the article is:

    Pendragon57:

    “Is Ms St Asaph writing a thesis for her masters in psycho-analysis? This is just a song dearie – not an autobiography by its creator – lighten up for God’s sake!”

  4. September 28, 2012 2:26 am

    “I believe this song was released at the right time (now) and proof of that is the level of press it’s getting.” – Susan

    Susan, exactly. And even if the song doesn’t go to Number one (which would be a shame as it is astounding) it moves the public a huge step forward in understanding that Michael was innocent. Now it becomes clear that believed in God to such a degree that he was ready to break all rules of the industry and introduce this controversial subject at a risk of being heavily ridiculed and criticized. This boldness can mean only one thing – he truly believed in what he preached and was ready to fight to defend his convictions.

    “he could never be accused of being luke-warm and indifferent. He was bold, courageous and always thoughtful.”

    Yes, I think that Michael is the epitomy of honesty, truth and courage. And also endurance.

  5. September 28, 2012 2:01 am

    Susanne, your words are the words of great wisdom. Let me repeat them:

    “I think many people read too much into this song.

    While I also think that this song proves Michael’s true nature and is especially another proof for his innocence, as you described it, I feel that people make too much fuss about the song. This song is simply another one of his many awareness-raising songs that should make people think about various problems of mankind. To me this song mainly shows confusion, responsibility and the difficulty to make the right decision. It just describes a perplexed situation and his wish to preserve life according to his faith.

    Noone is judged with this song. Though Michael in general probably didn’t like the idea of abortion (as we all should), because as we all know he loved children most on earth, I’m sure he would have looked at each case separately and wouldn’t have condemned a woman in despair if she had made this decision (for example due to rape or a life-threatening problem for her). This needs to be seen more complex, not just pro or con abortion.

    With this song Michael cannot be put on a strict pro or con position, even though of course he first would choose life. Those who now put MJ in a certain corner are not able to evaluate the problem from all angles, as Michael usually did. And Michael wouldn’t have wanted to be used as a poster boy by certain groups for the promotion of their views. He never wanted to be pigeonholed. That’s why some groups now are astonished about this song, because they had pegged him as something.

    But Michael always simply was walking on a straight way of truth, honesty, morals, values, faith and above all, LOVE (What about love…..?).

    Each word of it is true, Susanne!

    Of course Michael never condemned. And the way I see it (strange as it might seem) the main reason why he didn’t condemn was because he was a true believer in God. Our Father does not condemn. He always leaves a choice and gives freedom to us. However it is exactly this freedom that often becomes the person’s own ruin. This is why Michael is singing to the girl: “[You] don’t know the worst”.

    This worst may be many years of the girl’s torture of living in a dispute with herself – whether her decision was correct or not. The worst may also be a break-up as a result of that decision in the relationship with the man she loves. The worst may be a denial to her to be able to have a child when she finally wants it. There may be very many “worsts” which we are simply unable to know and foresee.

    I think that situations like rape or danger to a woman’s health are different – over there the decision is more obvious and therefore easier, thus involving fewer “worsts” – I mean the pricks of conscience and the inner feeling of guilt. However the reward for the right decision in those terrible circumstances is also higher. The mother of Justin Bieber is the example. Another example is a Swedish singer of ABBA who was also born as a result of a rape. Often such children become the best consolation for their parents. This is what all the Heavenly justice is all about. How this works I don’t know, but it works as the life stories of many people prove it.

    Unfortunately people begin understanding these things when they grow much older, after they have seen all these developments with their own eyes and have gone through some suffering themselves. Very often they begin to understand it when it is too late to change anything. This is why making the right decision at the right time is so invaluable.

  6. September 28, 2012 1:06 am

    – “‘Sister don’t read’–this is the opening line. This seems to be saying that she is illiterate? That she can’t read the abortion papers she signed? This is a very surprising opening line and I wish it would be analyzed in terms of the song.” – aldebaranredstar
    - I don’t think the lyric means she is illiterate. Sounds to me more like the phrase; what you don’t know wont hurt you.” Tatum-Marie

    And is it possible to interpret it as if she would not even like to know what’s written in those papers? Even despite all his prayers?

    Sister don’t read, she’ll never know
    What about love?
    Living a Christian soul
    What do we get, she runs away
    What about love?
    What about all I pray?

    I have the impression that Michael is so vehement in his cry also because it concerned someone in his family – one of his sisters. He describes it pretty clearly – father is confused, mother’s in despair and brother is cursing. Could this be one of the many reasons why Michael didn’t release the song? Because at the last moment he or someone else decided not to turn the family anguish into a public discussion? I say at the last moment because the song is practically finished and must have taken very much time and thought to polish – and nevertheless it was put aside.

  7. September 28, 2012 12:27 am

    Here are some other comments on the song which I find very thoughtful and true:

    NYFon says:
    I love the song for the way it so precisely describes the moral ambiguity of the situation, and the genuine emotional conflicts the character/narrator is going through. I totally empathize with Michael *as an artist* when he said it had to be done carefully; and I think he succeeded in taking what might have been a dogmatic stance on a highly controversial issue and casting it in a complex light.

    Of course, people will read it in whatever manner accords with their own perspective. This is true of all art, and especially when the art deals with a matter that’s as hotly debated as abortion.

    Plus, I love the catchy tune! And his voice…. forceful and beautiful as always.

    Joe Vogel:

    Jackson isn’t the first recording artist to explore the controversial subject of abortion in song. It has also surfaced in the work of Neil Young, Madonna, Sinead O’Connor, and Lauryn Hill, among others. In “Abortion Papers,” Jackson approaches the matter carefully (and ambiguously): rather than presenting a dogmatic political perspective, he personalizes it through the story of a conflicted girl raised in a deeply religious home and her Bible-admonishing father. In his notes for the track, Jackson wrote, “I have to do it in a way so I don’t offend girls who have gotten abortions or bring back guilt trips so it has to be done carefully….I have to really think about it.” Jackson narrates the track with a strong, passionate vocal. Ironically, the main drawback of the track is its catchiness. It feels a bit strange wanting to dance and sing along to a song about abortion, but that’s exactly what the addictive groove inspires. Kudos to Jackson for attempting to tackle a sensitive issue in a thoughtful manner, though it appears even he wasn’t quite sure about how it would play to listeners.

    Matt Forger
    : “This was a song that we initially missed during archiving. It was titled ‘Song Groove’ on the box so we overlooked it. Once we figured out what it was we started to put the pieces together. It was recorded by Brian Maloof and Gary O., a couple of engineers who worked with Michael for a brief time. When we heard it we knew it could be controversial, especially with what’s been going on politically. But when you listen to the song there’s a story being told. Michael really reflected on what the approach should be. He wasn’t sure how to narrate it. There were different variations with vocals-he didn’t want it to be judgmental. He was very clear about that. But he wanted to present a real, complicated situation.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/09/abortion-fame-and-bad-listening-to-michael-jacksons-unreleased-demos/262242/

  8. September 28, 2012 12:08 am

    I’ve found a great comment from a reader in response to a tabloid journalist who rolled her eyes at the song and, as usual, called it “bizarre”:

    Diane Anderson • Top Commenter • Santa Fe, New Mexico

    Michael never shied away from tackling many difficult and sensitive topics – racism, unwanted children, domestic abuse, betrayal, starvation, war, etc, etc – in his 40 years of song writing. This is no different – just more jarring for our queasy sensibilities. And for the record, he was not espousing a pro-life stand – read his notes. He was too sensitive to the plights of others to judge anyone but he knew there was a lot of pain involved with a woman having to make such a decision and a potential father losing his child.

    He wrote this song in his mid to late 20s when he was still very involved with the Jehovah Witness church and probably heard a lot of judgment re abortion. Even if he was pro-life, why doesn’t he have the right to his own feelings and opinions like everyone else? Of course, because it’s Michael Jackson, all of a sudden – according to some so called “experts” – he’s a misogynist, a sexist, a destroyer of women’s rights, blah, blah, blah. More tabloid journalism…

  9. September 27, 2012 11:29 pm

    “To touch on a topic like this one in a judgmental manner is not his style, I don’t know why people are making this song something it’s not”. – Tatum

    If we talk of Michael’s detractors it amazes me to see that people who not only judged Michael but threw stones at him are hypocritical enough to accuse him of being “judgmental” and deny him the right to say what he thinks about anything at all. These are double standards. They can say whatever they like about him (and it is okay), but he cannot say anything about – no, not about them, but about things that simply worry him (because it is none of his business, he should stop being judgmental, etc.).

    This is extreme hypocrisy.

    And as to MJ’s fans I thought that at least they should know what Michael was like. He never accused anyone – even Jordan Chandler, even the Arvizos, even the media. All he said about them is that he didn’t understand why they were doing it to him.

    And over here he also sounds like his whole being doesn’t understand how the situation could come to those abortion papers and the need to kill a little life. His song is simply an outbreak of a very deep pain. How could it really come to that? What about love? What about life? What about God? What about our hearts?

    These questions are repeated again in the Earth song in a cry about simple but forgotten truths:

    What about sunrise
    What about rain
    What about all the things that you said we were to gain..
    What about flowering fields, Is there a time…
    What about all the dreams that you said was yours and mine…
    What about Abraham…
    What about death…
    Do we give a damn?

    Some will say that the Earth song is also judgmental. But then it means that we deny Michael the right to sing about what really worried him. And we deny him the right to be himself. But isn’t it what we like about him most?

  10. September 27, 2012 7:14 am

    I like the song, but from a promotional stand point I can understand why some felt or maybe Michael himself decided not to release it. This song could have easily been twisted, like it is now into a political statement. There is no judging or condemning, he’s simply telling a story. Michael’s songs usually consist of more subtle ways of speaking truth to make it more palatable for the public. To touch on a topic like this one in a judgmental manner is not his style, I don’t know why people are making this song something it’s not.

    @ Aldebaran
    I don’t think the lyric means she is illiterate. Sounds to me more like the phrase; what you don’t know wont hurt you.

  11. September 27, 2012 6:01 am

    Aldebaran, I don´t have any idea of those first words in the lyrics. Maybe he meant she should not have even asked for papers like that.A good point in my opinion is that he states “I want my child”. Not himself ofcourse, but the presumptive father of the child to be. That could certainly reduce the need for abortions if men took the full responsibility for what is to follow.

  12. September 27, 2012 12:17 am

    ‘Sister don’t read’–this is the opening line. This seems to be saying that she is illiterate? That she can’t read the abortion papers she signed? This is a very surprising opening line and I wish it would be analyzed in terms of the song.

  13. Truth Prevail permalink
    September 26, 2012 11:55 pm

    Great take on the different reactions the song has generated among different people.

  14. September 26, 2012 3:57 pm

    Another example of a ‘catchy’ tune layered over verses of significance…’Black or White’
    Great insight, Helena, thanks.

  15. September 26, 2012 3:55 pm

    “I think that the dispute is all about what decision to take in a complex situation when for some reason a pregnancy is an unwanted one.”
    Right, Helena. I think many people read too much into this song.
    While I also think that this song proves Michael’s true nature and is especially another proof for his innocence, as you described it, I feel that people make too much fuss about the song. This song is simply another one of his many awareness-raising songs that should make people think about various problems of mankind. To me this song mainly shows confusion, responsibility and the difficulty to make the right decision. It just describes a perplexed situation and his wish to preserve life according to his faith. Noone is judged with this song. Though Michael in general probably didn’t like the idea of abortion (as we all should), because as we all know he loved children most on earth, I’m sure he would have looked at each case separately and wouldn’t have condemned a woman in despair if she had made this decision (for example due to rape or a life-threatening problem for her). This needs to be seen more complex, not just pro or con abortion. With this song Michael cannot be put on a strict pro or con position, even though of course he first would choose life. Those who now put MJ in a certain corner are not able to evaluate the problem from all angles, as Michael usually did. And Michael wouldn’t have wanted to be used as a poster boy by certain groups for the promotion of their views. He never wanted to be pigeonholed. That’s why some groups now are astonished about this song, because they had pegged him as something. But Michael always simply was walking on a straight way of truth, honesty, morals, values, faith and above all, LOVE (What about love…..?).

  16. September 26, 2012 12:34 pm

    Sorry again, This was not the article I wanted to post that topic on.

  17. September 26, 2012 12:33 pm

    Im sorry, but there is no reason why Michael should have not been in Oprah’s top 25 moments. It’s one of the most watched interviews in history if not no 1.

  18. September 26, 2012 10:25 am

    Helena, I thoroughly enjoyed your take on this magnificent song. Great research and links. Isn’t it just amazing? I believe this song was released at the right time (now) and proof of that is the level of press it’s getting. It’s an astounding song. The beat is simply irresistable. It pulls you in and you just have to listen to it and then, you can’t get it out of your head! Did he write this and decide not to release it with the original Bad album by design? Who knows? I know one thing, though, he could never be accused of being luke-warm and indifferent. He was bold, courageous and always thoughtful. If people used their brains with just one tenth of the degree that Michael Jackson used his, why we’d be well on our way to addressing (and solving!) the many social ills of our world and….our beautiful planet would finally be getting the attention it so desperately needs. Oh, God I miss him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 983 other followers

%d bloggers like this: