MSM and Obama Disrespect Unborn as Expected

30 comments

Obama is set to sign an executive order today lifting the ban on U.S. federal aid for abortions. This is no surprise.

Reagan originally put this ban in place in 1984. It essentially restricted organizations who receive U.S. funds from using that money to then perform or promote abortions with it. In other words, Reagan thought that as Americans we should not be forced to pay for the killing of babies.

Bill Clinton disagreed and lifted the ban. George Bush, of course, put it back into place. And now Obama is lifting it again. So now you can rest assured that your tax dollars – a certain percentage of your work day – is going to support the funding of abortions. Feels good doesn’t it?

In related news, the Main Stream Media (MSM) is pathetic. The lack of coverage of the March for Life in Washington by the main stream news websites is unconscionable.

An estimated crowd of “tens of thousands” to “hundreds of thousands” (depending on who you ask) marched to the steps of the Supreme Court building yesterday marking the tragic anniversary of Roe v. Wade. And most of America has no idea that it even happened.

CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC each barely had a little, tiny link on their websites for a portion of the day mentioning it. Today – good luck finding anything about it.

Yesterday, CNN’s little tiny headline read: “Amid protests, Obama backs ‘right to choose’ on Roe anniversary.” And the only mention they give to the pro-life “protests” is half a sentence saying “Obama affirmed his support for a woman’s right to choose…as thousands of anti-abortion activists descended on the National Mall to challenge his position.” And then they included a short paragraph of Obama’s invitation to speak at the march. And that’s it!

Unbelievable. The rest of the article talks about Obama and gets a couple paragraphs of quotes from the president of the National Organization for Women – a pro-abortion organization.  Fox News and MSNBC were slightly better.  But quite obviously covered the event as minimally and as quietly as possible.

I don’t get it.  I understand there is lots of news going down right now with Obama transitioning into power.  But it seems that something as huge as the March for Life would actually be an important part of that news coverage. Just the shear numbers of people and associated festivities warrant front page pictures and serious headlines.

I’m convinced that if a million pro-lifers wanted to gather and have a secret meeting on the white house lawn they could do it. Because the country would never hear about it. The headline would read, “Amid White House picnickers, Obama continues to amaze us by walking to his car and acting totally awesome the entire time.”

30 comments Add comment

memoriadei January 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm

How true…a picnic on the lawn ! Well, until enough anti-abortion people want to band together to boycott the MSM altogether including the commercial advertisers, I doubt they will cover anything pro-life. They already silence the cures of stem cells…NOT embryonic, by the by. And, maybe it’s time for orthodox of Christians, Jews, Muslims faiths to band together to put on their own TV network. Can’t agree on everything but certainly agree on LIFE. I couldn’t be more disgusted, too. As well, when the media controls what we see, isn’t that a bit “communism”? Thank God for EWTN.

Marsha January 23, 2009 at 12:27 pm

“a certain percentage of your work day – is going to support the funding of abortions. Feels good doesn’t it?”

That quote alone disturbs me beyond belief.

Anna January 23, 2009 at 12:28 pm

!!!!

You are awesome. Thank you for this post. I twitted it…I plan on writing about it later. I’ll even digg it, if that’s okay.

-Anna

Matthew Warner January 23, 2009 at 1:47 pm

Yes, of course you can Digg it if you dig it! And tweet it and link it and whatever. It is all much appreciated! God bless you!

Michele Simpson January 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Sadly our media has its own agenda. They report on what furthers their agenda and make anyone who does not agree with them look bad. What ever happened to facts being reported. I mean true facts. Recently I have heart the media report and say things that are not even true. It is out of control.

Phil January 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm

I don’t think other churches and religions have the same beliefs about life issues. There could be arguments. We could each do our part with whatever we do believe as they, if conservative broadcasters of their respective faiths, would be more conservative than this administration.

Do the Orthodox speak out? You never hear from them in the media. Sometimes, you hear of an outspoken Jewish person or group. The world Council of Churches churches and the Episcopaleans went bye-bye on birth control as a whole since the ’30s, though there are very conservative church communities within those denominations.

Muslims, except for some who are practically not (like some moderates, who get corrupted in college), are pro-life, though they have their death squads amongst them. We have The Mob, amongst the believers, but all countries have a mob or so. In profession, they’re religion is pro-life. They’ll be running the world as the wealthy nations die out from attrition of numbers to maintain sovereignty (I think that was the idea of NWO types); that, and getting rid of the poor with contraception and saying to them it’s being responsible (it’s sad college kids aren’t smarter than the uneducated who buy it, though more uneducated probably don’t buy it than those who are educated, though a decent number of the world’s uneducated do fall to other crimes to feel power.
God help us, I think it will take a cleansing by fire by God, or allowed by Him, to cure the world.

Anna January 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm

Of course they didnt cover the March. The media is one sided and liberal. If it were any other rally that had that many people there, it would have been all over the news. But because it was the March for Life, they wont even right a decent paragraph about it. I was there in DC yesterday and it was beautiful! Too bad the rest of the world couldnt see.

memoriadei January 23, 2009 at 4:38 pm

The Orthodox Church speaks plainly to their own in the homilies. They were at the March for Life at the podium speaking up….as well as an Orthodox Jewish rabbi…as well, all the main orthodox heads get together with The Catholic League to make things happen. No, the media isn’t going to carry it unless they have a twist they would like to put on it to change it from truth into either marginalized or simply making it sound like a bad thing.

rich January 24, 2009 at 8:31 am
Womanchief January 24, 2009 at 4:21 pm

Now, let me see if I’ve got this right. “Lifers” oppose federal funding for abortions,federal funding for stem cell research.

But, it’s OK to spend federal funding on Viagara, but not birth control; federal funding for all those unwed mothers and
to religious institutions who do not help in any way except to take money from those same unwed mothers and pocket it.

If there were no federally funded abortions, there will be privatly funded ones. Take away those and back alley abortions will come back. Then, women as well and the fetus will die. Maybe your wife. Maybe your sister. Maybe your
daughter. There have alwasys been abortions, there always will be.

Nicholas January 25, 2009 at 11:02 am

3 words : Massive World Overpopulation.
Also, removing a first trimester growth in a woman’s stomach is not the same as killing a baby, no matter how many times you say it.
If the same people that support pro-life legislation were as adamant about promoting proper sex education (sex education that relies on teaching facts rather than weak pacts made by horny teenagers) the number of teen pregnancies, ergo abortions, would dramatically drop. There are already numbers proving it thanks to Bush’s failed experiment – Abstinence training.

Matthew Warner January 25, 2009 at 11:03 am

Womanchief – There have also always been murders and rapes…does that mean we should also make murder and rape fully legal and fund it with federal dollars as well?

The state has a duty to protect the natural, God-given rights of every human being…especially the most innocent and defenseless in the womb.

Nicholas January 25, 2009 at 11:07 am

Also, the only reason the MSM would be liberal-slanted is because journalists generally have to be educated both through academia and world experience, unless they’re spouting out irrational, fear-based rhetoric on Fox.
You’ll find that these “Liberal” Media sources are actually overwhelmingly owned by fat-cat conservatives.

marsha January 25, 2009 at 5:02 pm

Nicholas,

For christians life begins at conception, which means at any point in the pregnacy choosing to terminate that pregnancy is murder.

Any idea that the media is more educated than the conservative american is a joke. When generalizing you should state facts that prove your bold statement or dont say it.

The media should do what they are supposed to do and that is report the facts of what is going on in the world. If the media would just report straight facts then americans could make their own educated opinions. They should cover all news at equal non-biased coverage and this goes for liberal and conservatives in the media.

Nicholas January 25, 2009 at 8:30 pm

This is not a Christian country, it is merely inhabited predominantly by Christians. Life beginning at conception is based on how you define life. You can’t legislate your opinion on how to define that, it doesn’t allow others to behave according to their own personal/religious beliefs and philosophies, within reason.

I didn’t say anything about the conservative American – you made that leap. I just said that successful journalists have to be college educated and probably have been around the world, giving them first hand experience and broader perspectives. There is, however, a pretty direct relationship between being liberal and having reached higher levels of education.

Matthew Warner January 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm

Nicholas – I would encourage you to check your facts on this “massive world overpopulation” you speak about. It’s a myth and many people have shown that to be the case since all the overpopulation theories of the past decades.

The Planet can more than handle our population plus many many more. And there is plenty of food to feed them too. The problem is loving them, getting the food to them, etc.

A pro-choice person sees an unloved or unwanted human and says “it would be better that they were dead. We should end their life so they won’t suffer.”

A pro-life person says it would be better for them to be loved. We should love them so they won’t have to suffer.

You say too many people. I say not enough love. It seems the obvious answer is to increase love – not to terminate innocent people.

You can discriminate between killing an unborn human in its first trimester, killing some other baby, killing a deformed person, a mentally handicapped person, an old person, or somebody you don’t like or that you don’t think deserves to live. But they all end the life of a human person. And as a human – they have rights.

Christians don’t arbitrarily believe that life begins at conception. Science tells us that. A new unique and separate human life is present at the moment of conception. That’s not just some blind religious dogma – it’s informed dogma. And as Christians (and as fellow humans) we recognize the dignity of that human life.

Matthew Warner January 25, 2009 at 9:14 pm

And Marsha is right – journalists should report the truth without bias as best as possible.

You’re right though, Nicholas, that journalists (instead of having learned integrity and honesty and applying that to their journalism) apply their own biased liberal education and elitist attitude (that they received when they “reached higher levels of education) and tell us what THEY want us to hear. That’s not journalism.

And it is irrational to say that we can’t legislate when life begins or legislate somethign against people’s religious or personal beliefs. WE must and we DO. If your religion says that you should kill 1 yr old babies, we legislate that you CAN NOT do that. Because you violate the right to live of another human being. The same principle applies to a baby in the womb. Unfortunately, our country has legislated currently that you CAN kill that person. A dangerous idea.

Again, science very clearly tells us when a new, unique and separate human life begins – conception. Christians respect the dignity of that life. Pro-choice people do not. Our constitution respects the dignity of that life – our laws don’t. The brilliant “educated” MSM does not. I know plenty of little kids, mentally handicapped people, and uneducated people that do.

You tell me who is truly educated.

Nicholas January 25, 2009 at 11:40 pm

Your spin is flawed, ridiculous, desperate and naive. Every word of it is. I have neither the time nor energy to break down the misinformation and questionable ethics that characterizes that entire harangue, knowing full well the inefficacy that said unpacking would produce among people who claim to have some sort of secret God hotline. Bush claimed that God decided all his major decisions and look how horribly that turned out.

Science does not support you and you can not legislate your faith. If you love religious tyranny so much, you should look to countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia for guidance; it certainly isn’t American.
Our forefathers were progressives, liberal elitist, radicals and deists.

Catholic debating pro-life April 26, 2010 at 7:59 pm

You are clearly full of hatred; I will pray for you.

Nicholas April 26, 2010 at 9:40 pm

I’m full of love, but I see the world empirically. If you want to waste your breath on mystical deities, pray that progressives will save this country.

C.P. April 29, 2010 at 8:33 pm

All right dude, you’ve given NO evidence to support your views. Matthew has given a wealth of evidence supporting his. Furthermore, you’re understanding of the Catholic concept of God is ridiculously ignorant and flawed. You hate theists because you claim that people in history have done bad things who were supposedly motivated by God, as if that means that they really were. Furthermore, you act as if reason and religion cannot be compatible, which is such a flawed, skewed view of the Church that it proves that you have no understanding of how Catholicism and really theism in general works.

If you’re really full of love then we’re on the same side.

Nicholas April 30, 2010 at 12:41 am

Catholics believe in mystical deities and talking snakes: That’s all I need to know to stop listening.
For Catholics, life begins at conception because… i dunno… The holy spirit swoops in and breathes a soul into a fertilized egg?
Legislating in favor of that ludicrous idea is a direct attack against my freedom of religion.

In my world, the removal of a mass of non-thinking, non-feeling flesh is just like any other surgery. True, at a certain point in pregnancy a baby becomes an actual being. It grows a heart and a brain, it gets cute little fingers, etc, and I agree that abortion at those stages is wrong. However, the idea that a young woman should be forced to ruin the rest of her life because someone else values a lump of flesh with the potential of life more than actual living life is absurd.
There needs to be more wiggle room than religious fanatics are willing to ever concede.

Matthew Warner April 30, 2010 at 1:39 am

Nicholas, there is a little more to it than that. I recommend checking out this post here if interested: http://www.fallibleblogma.com/index.php/when-does-science-say-human-life-begins/

Nicholas April 30, 2010 at 2:03 am

It just explained what I already said. You believe that a single-celled organism is the same as a fully developed human. You’re ridiculous for thinking that. Bacteria is more complicated than that, but I’m still not going to stop using soap.

What a joke: “Hey, that’s kind of like humans at any stage.” Yeah, microorganisms have nuclei that tell them how to function. What’s his/your point? It’s still just a lump of non-thinking, non-feeling flesh, and not even that at the beginning. You’re not arguing for life, you’re arguing for the potential of life. They’re very different concepts.

Matthew Warner April 30, 2010 at 8:42 am

Actually that’s not true at all. Not sure you read it. Scientifically at conception(fertilization) there is an individual, self-directed LIFE. And it is of the species homosapien. So it’s a HUMAN LIFE. That’s what science says.

You are the one being unscientific suggesting that if something can’t think at the level you require or can’t feel to a certain sensitivity then it is not “life” – only “potential life.” That’s not what defines a human life. I’m just trying to be logical about it.

Saying that if a human life is a “lump” or can’t feel then it is OK to kill it is simply not logical. And it would be very dangerous, too.

You say “It grows a heart and a brain, it gets cute little fingers, etc, and I agree that abortion at those stages is wrong.”

Do you know when a baby gets a heart and a brain? They start forming between weeks 1-3. And the heart starts beating around week 4. The brain has activity around week 6.

And the “cute fingers” are just a few weeks after that, actually…if that’s what you’re really going to base your definition of “life” on.

Nicholas April 30, 2010 at 10:23 am

It says that a single cell organism is the same as a human being, using the fact that the cell knows how to grow (“self-direct”) as evidence. That’s ridiculous.
You say “start forming,” which you know translates to “they’re still just unthinking, unfeeling lumps of flesh.” It’s a very misleading argument you’re trying to make.

I don’t encourage abortions, however, a living woman’s life is worth more than a mass of growing cells.

Matthew Warner April 30, 2010 at 2:03 pm

And no, I’m saying precisely what science shows us…that it is an individual, human life at the moment of fertilization.

And a beating heart and an active human brain is far from a “mass of growing cells.” If that’s a “mass of growing cells” then so am I.

Either way, your criteria for what makes somebody a “human” is rather arbitrary. What constitutes “thinking” for you? Does it have to be to a certain ability? Or just brain activity? Is an unconscious, unthinking adult human not a human being anymore for you? What constitutes a “lump” of flesh? I’m a really big lump of flesh. How big does it have to be in order for you to respect it as a human? I’m not being misleading. I’m being precise. And you are being vague and calling anything you disagree with “ridiculous”.

Nicholas April 30, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Let’s take this from a new angle. With in vitro fertilization, generally multiple eggs are fertilized outside of the womb and then one is selected and the others are destroyed. In your world, the mother should be required to carry all of them because these single-cell organisms are “human lives?”

30 comments Add comment

Previous post:

Next post: