Five hours before the January 22 March for Life rally even began, Newsweek blogger Krista Gesaman posted a highly misleading piece on the March’s age demographics as well as the route itself.
In a piece entitled, “Who’s missing at the Roe v. Wade anniversary demonstrations? Young women,” Gesaman wrote:
Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, and droves of women are prepared to face rainy weather to support their positions during the annual Washington, D.C., demonstrations. But there will be one major difference with the demonstration route this year—it’s shorter.
The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says.
So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home.
First, whoever Stanley Radzilowski is, he got his facts way wrong on the March for Life’s route. It was the same this year as it has been for several years:March for Life 2007:
And here’s the 2010 route:
Furthermore, the March rally location was moved in 2008 from 4th Street to 7th Street – further away from the Supreme Court Building.
So while it is conceivable some pro-lifers might have taken a shortcut to Constitution Ave. from 4th Street for the 2007 March, they have lost that option. In other words, the facts are opposition of Radzilowski’s contention.
As for the geriatric inclination of pro-lifers attending the March for Life, Gesaman need only to have actually attended it to have seen that the bulk of participants were young people.
Her pro-abortion colleague, Robert McCartney, at Newsweek’s sister publication The Washington Post, actually did the journalistic groundwork of investigating before writing, and came away observing this:
The antiabortion movement feels it’s gaining strength, even if it’s not yet ready to predict ultimate triumph, and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous….
I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.
“We are the pro-life generation,” said signs carried by the crowd, about half its members appearing to be younger than 30. There were numerous large groups of teenagers, many bused in by Roman Catholic schools and youth groups.
Gesaman’s post was so egregious, commenters on Newsweek’s blog rightfully demanded that it post a retraction.
While it is common for MSM to ignore this largest sustained annual protest in Washington, D.C., Gesaman went beyond the pale to write such outrageously false information about the March for Life as to merit a public declaration of pro-abortion bias and journalistic malfeasance.
For more media malfeasance, take a look at this video:
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
75 Comments
Maybe the demonstration participants will be older – time will tell – but the implied message that pro-life views are just held by old maids is just wrong.
A recent Marist survey shows that:
"Millennials" (those 18-29) consider abortion to be "morally wrong" even more (58%) than Baby Boomers (those 45-64) (51%). Generation X (those 30-44) are similar to Millennials (60% see abortion as "morally wrong"). More than 6 in 10 of the Greatest Generation (those 65+) feel the same."
http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/news/releases/detail...
Newsweek printing lies? Never!
To be brutally honest here, most news "services" get things completely wrong. A friend of mine works for a school in California that had a write up in a local paper. The article claimed the school's test scores declined in a big way. That was great, except they didn't decline they went up.
Another example, in a stats class in college one of the exercises was to grab an article from any paper that based its argument on statistics of some sort. Quite a few of the articles were basing opinions on faulty math. The one I brought in was a New York Times article about gun control. The author flat out lied and made up numbers.
And now for the worst, even fox news regularly screws up. Pick any science article and it's bound to have glaring errors. One particularly funny article was one claiming that astronomers had located an "Earth like planet" and that it was "within a few light years" of our solar system. I know the group that found this "Earth 2.0". First, it was old news, they released their findings some 8 months prior to the article. Second, it wasn't earth like at all, the size of the planet was closer to Jupiter. Third, they found traces of Oxygen but in no way does that mean it was an Earth like atmosphere. And of course, no, it wasn't within a few lightyears. More like ~400.
At college it was a regular thing to grab science articles and post them in the student lounge. The objective being to display how wrong they reported.
"where are the young, vibrant women supporting their … pro-choice positions?"
Uh, dead? I'm not a scientist, but if pro-choice mothers chose abortion, it's harder for their children to show up 20 years later at pro-choice rallies.
"In other words, the facts are opposition of Radzilowski’s contention."
Jill, you're being poliet and you're being a lady…I'm neither, so…allow to me to restate for you…
"In other words, Radzilowski is a degenerate LIAR. A progressive, lying liberal masquerading as "Newsweek blogger".
Funny how that works when you kill off your future supporters.
Young people are not so far removed from the notion that unwanted children include *them*, that they might be the "mistake" that a young mother should not be punished with, to fail to apply the pro-abortion rhetoric to their own life and their own value as a person.
They might be convinced that they're bravely crusading for the *other* young people who can't help but get knocked up, but one typical characteristic of teenagers is that they hate be condescended to.
Having been at the actual march this year, I, too, was struck by the number of young women at the event. In fact, I even pointed this out to one of the people with me at the march. I am not surprised that the MSM refuses to acknowledge the truth. In fact, while you quote Robert McCartney's take on things as sort of a recognition by even the media "left" of the youth in the current pro-life movement, something else he wrote struck me as significantly disingenuous. He referred to those in attendance as numbering in the "tens of thousands." Maybe he was someplace other than the same march I attended. There were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people at the march this year, not "tens of thousands." It took us more than 3 hours to get from the rally on the mall all the way around the march route. Then again, I guess I'm naive for expecting the left-leaning media to be honest about the number of people in attendance when they completely refused to even cover the event in the first place.
By the way, I'm not sure if anyone got a count on the number of counter-protesters supporting abortion rights. I saw exactly five during the day- no joke.
"The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says."
This sounds a lot like what was reported for an annual MLK march In SanFran that stopped due to lack of interest and attendance by young people.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...
Waddayasayin', Jamesb? Just kidding. What do you have to do to your own mind to rationalize killing someone who should have been a member of your own family? It has always seemed to me to be a merit badge of contemporaneity for the acutely delusional.
The fact that the abortion debate continues 37 years after the Supreme Court decided that they would settle the matter once and for all shows why we should be very wary of Obama, Reid and Pelosi pushing through any legislation that nobody wants.
Leftist death-cult followers/supporters lie? Say it ain't so…The disinformation machine spins 24/7 ….if one is not at least curious, the lies embed themselves into the psyche and you become a drone liberal who lives in their foggy world of fraud…There is no other way to say it…It's the lazy, mis-informed preaching to the uninformed
They (the lies) start in the Public School Madrasas and never really ends…Sometimes, I feel like it's 1984, and I'm Goldstein…
I never read Newsweek, so I was unaware of this nonsensical reporting. While these are the dedicated people who will be out on a cold January day supporting Life, there are multitudes who support Life but are at work, school, and so forth. The Amercian people support Life and the elections continually reflect this position. The Newsweek article should have accurately reported these people simply represent those multitudes.
WOW!!! Very informative and eye-opening video and article. It is sad to see such media distortions, though wholly expected. In the University that I am involved with, I have noticed a large amount of young women that oppose abortion, which is surprising because it is in a university, I know. 50 Million souls slaughtered for a progressive/socialist agenda. Another young individual, Tebo (the football guy, sorry dont know details, I leave that to my jock son who keeps me informed on sports related items), and he is going to do a pro-life (and why do the supporters of abortion get away with not being referred to as pro-death) commercial. So, seeing so many young conservative that no the "real deal" social and political issues gives me hope that we will survive the age of Obama with ease.
Pretty typical. Like the stink over the Focus on the Family superbowl commercial. Why is someone dubbed as "pro-life" considered so sinister and laughable by these people? Does anyone else see something wrong with this picture?
Before this aging geriatric lost her ability to walk very far I attended many Marches and at the last one in 2004 I marveled at and interviewed many of the young people present. I described it in my NY Sun column
http://aliciacolon.com/2004/jan2304.html
Reporters see what they want to see. Krista Gesaman probably didn't even bother to show up and "reported" the article in the comfort of her home and made a quick call to a contact who also probably wasn't present to get a quote she could use.
That wouldn't be the first time in which that style of absentee reporting has been used by reporters.
As I read the comments, it seems they could apply to either side… and probably do apply to the anti-life side. So, yes bad journalism in generalizing based on what the feminazis are doing/who they are age-wise. I don't know any young women who strongly support abortion… most the pro-aborts are mid 50s, because it's not about abortion itself for them, it's about power!
Sorry, I meant the blog post by Gesaman, not the "comments" in general.
Blogger Susan Swift brilliantly explains this tragic irony on another BJ post:
http://bigjournalism.com/sswift/2010/01/22/thirty...
OK, I changed my mind after reading the whole blog post. It’s just plain bad journalism.
Krista Gestaman’s question, “Who’s Missing at the Roe v. Wade Demonstration” should be answered this way. “Any of the millions of innocent souls snuffed out as a result of Roe v. Wade, that’s who.”
Abortion–the nightmare that keeps on giving–brought to you by self-absorbed, space-taking Illiberals and Regressives and possibly a few judges from the 70s who didn’t want to pay child support. The ultimate hate crime.
Everyday i thank the lord jesus i do not live i in the US. A woman's choice is a woman's choice and no person under whatever pretence should be allowed to determine what she is able to do with her body.
question?
whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?
Why should anyone be surprised that it is the youth who will lead the charge to ban this despicable practice? They have been taught by their leftist teachers and professors to have love and compassion for anything that moves (except conservatives and Christians of course) why are we surprised that they have naturally included innocent unborn children into this worldview? In fact, I am rather amused by the irony that the "progessives" didn't see this natural progression.
Add to that the advances in our ability to see the child in the womb and the fact that these images are being shown to high school age kids and it is only natural that they would be repulsed at the thought that it is "only" a fetus or zygote.
Future generations will look back on this time of infanticide with utter horror, disgust and awe that "civilized" people could be so barbaric as to butcher their own children.
What is the difference between denial of human rights to a slave and denial of human rights to a fetus?
What does this have to do the separation of church and state? What an idiot!
Women have every right not to engage in acts that lead to pregnancy you imbecile! Once a child is conceived its rights should trump the rights of some selfish adult. Go crawl back under your bridge you pathetic troll!
I am blown away at how you moronic leftists can't grasp the simple concept that a woman is choosing what is done to the unborn babies body, not hers!
Future generations will see the notion that the woman's right to "own" the fetus as property in exactly the way we see the slaveholder's right to own another human as property. Both were/are widely accepted in their time. Both are perversions of human rights. And BTW, slavery is still widely practiced in some barbarian nations.
I had an experience of this when I was in college and attended a protest at an abortion clinic. Those of us sitting in front of the clinic were committed to non-violence and sat meekly praying and singing the whole time. A group of counter-protesters came banging drums, yelling horrible slurs, spitting and even roughing us up. Many were dressed in Goth attire and their overall demeanor was angry and violent. In the local news coverage that I saw that night they spoke about an anti-choice protest and showed images of the angry protesters abusing some of us. The images made it look as though we, the ones being abused, were actually the pro-choice people. I couldn't believe the disingenuous reporting. I could see that the we peaceful protesters were being depicted in the worst and most untrue light.
I've been to the March for Life many times. On two occasions I happened to be at the steps of the Supreme Court when a carload of NOW protesters arrived with their pro-choice signs. Wouldn't you know that the cameras from the news organizations arrived at the same time and snapped some shots. We took note of this and shouted, "Hey, why don't you take pictures of all of us?"(Indicating the continuous stream of people walking by the steps as part of the march.) After about a half an hour, and certainly after the pictures were taken, the carload of counter-protesters left. It would be interesting to see if the same people are in the picture they trot out for the counter-protesters year after year.
It's OK though, because the people that go are set aflame and they know the truth. They come back and do the quiet work of spreading joy and love in their communities. This is an indomitable force that will overcome.
I had an experience of this when I was in college and attended a protest at an abortion clinic. Those of us sitting in front of the clinic were committed to non-violence and sat meekly praying and singing the whole time. A group of counter-protesters came banging drums, yelling horrible slurs, spitting and even roughing us up. Many were dressed in Goth attire and their overall demeanor was angry and violent. In the local news coverage that I saw that night they spoke about an anti-choice protest and showed images of the angry protesters abusing some of us. The images made it look as though we, the ones being abused, were actually the pro-choice people. I couldn't believe the disingenuous reporting. I could see that the we peaceful protesters were being depicted in the worst and most untrue light.
Stanley Radzilowski clearly needs to get out of the office a bit more. His assessment of the age of the marchers could not be more off the mark unless he tried real hard and spoke a deliberate falsehood, which I suppose may be the case in this instance. The truth will always find a way to emerge, no matter how hard they try to suppress it.
Pro-Choicers cherish total absolution for what they know, deep down, is immorale and wrong. They look to others for this absolution and will never feel better until they get it from all. Problem is, other people do not have the ability to grant the absolution they need, That absolution is between them and their god. Good luck with that.
I remember from Operation Rescue Days how violence against pro-life demonstrators was either ignored, or, when footage of pro-lifers being roughed up showed up on screen, was simply said that the demonstration was "violent" without mentioning that the violence was one-side against the pro-lifers. Kinda similar to the Lamestream's coverage of SEIU violence at Tea Parties and Town Meetings.
I head NOTHING about this year's march on the Lamestream, so it must have been bigger than usual.
It was shown on FoxNews several times and was covered extensively on EWTN.
I was at the march and the most striking thing that I have commented on over and over was the incredible number of young girls who marched for life. In our group just from Saint Louis there were over 1,400 young women in attendance. This reporter is gushing forth with her wishful thinking and related liberal bilge. The ONLY news media in attendance was FOX, that was it. No wonder people are abandoning MSM outlets left and right; with morons like Krista reporting the "facts", there is no reason to listen to anything they have to say.
What does one expect from the MSM W.H.OR.E.S..?
As a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia highly conservative Quaker, who believes God loves and treasures all creatures, I would prefer to see BigJ concentrate more on factual, less idealogical news stories. I don't care if young women were at the rally. What does it prove?
As one who believes man's "special place" arrogance is turning us into a "trash species" — like roaches, rats and kudzu — achieving more balance would, I think, be most welcome. And, more kind and humane that birthing the unwanted and those who will suffer terrifyingly painful and slow deaths. The SPCA is an appropriate role model for man as well as beast.
…..Lady in Red
As a pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia highly conservative Quaker, who believes that God cares lovingly for all his creatures, I would prefer that BigJ concentrate more on news and facts which are less ideological. I don’t care if young women were at the march or not. Why is it important?
Man with his self-designated “special privilege status” is rapidly turning humans into a trash species – like rats, roaches and kudzu. Better that the unwanted are unborn and those who will suffer slow agonizing deaths. The SPCA is a potential model for loving treatment of all. …….Lady in Red
PS: I posted this comment several minutes ago. It appeared, then disappeared. I do hope it was a glitch, that BigJ is not monitoring, editing, or removing its readers’ honest comments. That would make me sad indeed.
When I was in college in the 80s, I attended two abortion protests, urged on by the all-female leadership of my college's pro-life club. The first was a March for Life and the second was a pro-abortion march as a counter-protester. I watched how the media covered both events, even then. At the March for Life, they went out of their way to find people who looked overtly religious, were wearing costumes, looked nutty, or some combination of those things while ignoring the large groups of normal Americans and young people because that fit their narrative. At the pro-abortion march, on the other hand, did they cover the usual left-wing nuts who were out in force? Of course not. They went out of their way to make them look like normal people (here is a great article about the media's bias in protest coverage).
Die, mainstream media, die*. You've pandered your propaganda long enough.
(* By "die", I mean that I want them to go out of business, not that I want any individuals involved to actually expire. I figured I'd add that before some seminar poster decided to complain about the irony of a pro-life person wanting people to die.)
When I was in college in the 80s, I attended two abortion protests, urged on by the all-female leadership of my college's pro-life club. The first was a March for Life and the second was a pro-abortion march as a counter-protester. I watched how the media covered both events, even then. At the March for Life, they went out of their way to find people who looked overtly religious, were wearing costumes, looked nutty, or some combination of those things while ignoring the large groups of normal Americans and young people because that fit their narrative. At the pro-abortion march, on the other hand, did they cover the usual left-wing nuts who were out in force? Of course not. They went out of their way to make them look like normal people (here is a great article about the media's bias in protest coverage).
Die, mainstream media, die*. You've pandered your propaganda long enough.
(* By "die", I mean that I want them to go out of business, not that I want any individuals involved to actually expire. I figured I'd add that before some seminar poster decided to complain about the irony of a pro-life person wanting people to die.)
No, it was a glitch. But your comment makes me sad. Very sad indeed. Both times.
Recognizing that a baby in utero whose heart is beating is a human life has nothing to do with the separation of church and state…..it has everything to do with protecting the right of that baby to live. The baby has just as much of a right to life as its mother does.
I am pro-choice…If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, then she has the CHOICE to either be abstinent or use two forms of birth control (one as her main contraceptive and one as back-up). It's called being responsible. My friends who have had abortions had them because being pregnant was inconvenient or embarrassing and they had chosen not to use birth control before having sex. The vast majority of abortions (and I mean VAST) are performed as retroactive birth control, not out of medical necessity or as a result of rape or incest.
Hear, hear!
@Rich
You are aware that there are ATHEIST pro-lifers.
If not, check out atheist David Harsanyi's secular explanation for why he no longer supports abortion:
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidHarsanyi/2009...
There was a Right to Life march! nothing about it in the media in my neck of the woods. no local news even mentioned it. It was mentioned at church. I guess that is where I need to go to get the news.
I had an experience of this when I was in college and attended a protest at an abortion clinic. Those of us sitting in front of the clinic were committed to non-violence and sat meekly praying and singing the whole time. A group of counter-protesters came banging drums, yelling horrible slurs, spitting and even roughing us up. Many were dressed in Goth attire and their overall demeanor was angry and violent. In the local news coverage that I saw that night they spoke about an anti-choice protest and showed images of the angry protesters abusing some of us. The images made it look as though we, the ones being abused, were actually the pro-choice people. I couldn't believe the disingenuous reporting. I could see that the we peaceful protesters were being depicted in the worst and most untrue light.
I've been to the March for Life many times. On two occasions I happened to be at the steps of the Supreme Court when a carload of NOW protesters arrived with their pro-choice signs. Wouldn't you know that the cameras from the news organizations arrived at the same time and snapped some shots. We took note of this and shouted, "Hey, why don't you take pictures of all of us?"(Indicating the continuous stream of people walking by the steps as part of the march.) After about a half an hour, and certainly after the pictures were taken, the carload of counter-protesters left. It would be interesting to see if the same people are in the picture they trot out for the counter-protesters year after year.
It's OK though, because the people that go are set aflame and they know the truth. They come back and do the quiet work of spreading joy and love in their communities. This is an indomitable force that will overcome.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: via @BigJournalism What the MSM Got Wrong About the March for Life: Most Everything Important http://bit.ly/dAv7v7 #tcot…
None.
Since you brought it up, has anyone noticed that like slavery abortion has inflicted devastating damage on Black people in America?
The blog Black Genocide further spells out these frightening stats:
http://www.blackgenocide.org/home.html
The site above was one of the ways God convinced me that abortion was a vile sin instead of a harmless "choice."
You got that right, Lady in Red stakes out a positon that is hard to understand and hard to believe that anyone could seriously think this way. I have now in my house, safe asleep at this very moment, two "unwanted" little girls that thankfully were born and who through the miracle that is adoption, are part of a loving family. How incredibily arrogant to presume that these two girls, who have their whole lives in front of them, should never have been born.
This line of thinking is very dangerous and leads to a place that could very well resemble Hitler's reich.
By the way, what does it mean to be "unborn"?
I am glady you have your wonderul little girls. Bless you. Sadly, most — the great majority of unloved and unwanted babies — are not as lucky as yours.
I am happy for you. I am sad at the life to which you condemn others because of your "knowing" — not just for you, but for everyone in the world. It is as flip-side arrogant as the "right" to blow up innocents with suicide bombs.
But, this comment was not about a debate, but about my wish to see BigJ, which I have enjoyed, avoid what I would consider ideological, fringe topics, not of interest to many sincere conservatives. ….Lady in Red
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by alexashrugged, Vince Humphreys, Live Action, Janet Barnes, Mary Eileen and others. Mary Eileen said: RT @LiveActionFilms: BigJournalism: What the MSM Got Wrong About the March for Life: Most Everything Important http://zgvhn2.xrt.me [...]
question?
whatever happened to the seperation of church and state?
Actually, that isn't in the Constitution. Try again.
Having been there myself with my family, I must say we were pleasantly amazed by the large numbers of young people (particularly high school and college age) that participated in the march. We were at the front of the march and remained to see the end. It went on for hours. I would say there were more young people than old. I was excited to see Ivy League groups from places like Princeton. Last year, I did see one "Keep abortion legal" sign.This year, I never saw a shred of opposition. I understand from family members, that in years past, many were on the sidelines screaming obscenities at the pro-life marchers. It was a very inspiring experience and suggested very strongly that the thinking is changing in our land. Yes, Newsweek got it all wrong!
Well, you lost me on the "knowing" thing. Is it not yourself who presumes to "know" that someone would be better off dead or never having been born? This seems extraordinarily arrogant to me that one would claim to have such knowledge. 50 million abortions in the US since the passage of Roe is actually seen by many sincere conservatives as more than a fringe topic.
I suppose we should agree to disagree and see you here next year after the next right to life march.
Go Saints! Become a fan of facebook page here: Colts Will Lose Super Bowl 2010!
[...] Rick Sanchez, openly wondered which group was larger. Jill Stanek writing for Breitbart’s Big Journalism, took Gesaman to task for her characterization of March for Life participants as geriatric. Young [...]
Personally I won't be satisfied until all innocent babies are destroyed by wontons! Pierogi might be acceptable too, though not as satisfying.
The "MSM" is own by corporations, not liberals. Why don't you ask the corporations why the news isn't covering these events more? Perhaps they're more worried about pushing deregulation and for more tax cuts than they are YOUR agenda. But you're kidding yourself if you think the "MSM", as you call it, is controlled by liberal pro-choice groups.
Newsweek? I am pro-choice and I do not know of anyone that reads that worthless low budget propaganda anymore.
I wonder what type it is that would still bother looking at it with its record of total fabrications a mile long?
Don't call them Leftist death-cult followers, "death-cult" sounds way too sexy.
In fact, it would make a killer band name!
Thanks. Those "wontons" are VISCIOUS! My widdle brain moves faster than my non-typist fingers and the old mental editor falls asleep at the switch sometimes.
Wontons and sea kittens – mmm mmm good!
Your blog has been recommended to us as a interviewee's favorite blog!
We would like to do an interview with you about your blog for Blog Interviewer. We'd like to give you the opportunity to give us some insight on the "person behind the blog."
It would just take a few minutes of your time. The interview form can be submitted online here Submit your interview.
Best regards,
Mike Thomas
The millennial generation has been I'm afraid, misinformed. Through abstinence only education and not being made fully aware of the options available to them as women. I am 35 a bit older. When I was in school we were taught the biology behind pro-creation. We knew how to use condoms to protect ourselves from pregnancy and disease. Consequently, lower teen pregnancy rates. If you want to stop abortion why not start with education? Also, do they really believe that abortions are morally wrong or have they just been told that? Besides, who are we to judge if something is morally wrong? Isn't that up to God to decide and isn't that between you and your maker?
A fetus that cannot live outside a women's body is not a human yet. That is the difference.
Why are you attacking someone because they disagree with you? You know, what amazes me is that you will stand up for the rights of a baby when it is inside another persons body. However, I bet once it is born you will call her all kind of names if she cannot care for it. What about when the baby gets older and it didn't get a good education because its mom couldn't afford to give it a good start? Will you be in favor of protecting that persons life further by giving them healthcare? A college education? Housing assistance? Food to eat? Or will you say every man for himself and call the people that try to help that person socialist?
BTW…. not all women wind up pregnant by choice. Women are raped, coerced and have birth control failure as well.
Fred, that is very nice of you to watch out for the poor black folks. I am married to a black person. They don't really see it that way. They would prefer to just be left alone and treated like a person as opposed to a "black" person.
Did it occur to you that perhaps the black people were trying to live within their means? You know birth control doesn't always work. Also, sometimes pregnancy happens by accident. Don't you think that it is a more mature choice to make a decision not to have a child if you cannot provide for it than to hoist that burden onto society? Once born would you be in favor of offering child care assistance, housing subsidies, food assistance, assistance with health care, educational costs etc.?
Sometimes birth control doesn't work. Trust me. Also, are you as protective of this persons (baby) rights once they are born? For example, if mom cannot afford to care for the baby are you in favor of giving her child care assistance, medical coverage, food assistance, assistance with job training etc? Otherwise, its best just to let her make the responsible choice which is to have an abortion if she does not have the financial/social support necessary to raise a child to be a productive member of society. It's not about what you think, its about who takes care of the child.
What? Yes it is. Look it up. Seriously!! Check your bible too. It doesn't say anything about abortion being wrong. It also tells us that it is not our place to judge another persons actions. That is between a person and their maker.
Are you as protective of these fetus's once they are born and become a burden to society? Or are you in favor of healthcare, childcare, educational assistance? If you are going to love the fetus enough to save them you are going to have to love the child and the person enough to help them on their feet when mom cannot afford to. You can't call folks who are trying to do that socialist.
I think that they just want something to love. They like the attention they get for being a new mom. That quickly wears off once they realize that the people who supported them having the baby are not willing to support the child. Besides, these girls have been taught abstinence only. That's not a lefty thing. The left believes in education. For example, here is a condom. It is best to wait until you are self sufficient to even think about having sex because abstinence is the only 100% effective means of birth control. However, if you are going to do it protect yourself with a condom. That will protect you from pregnancy and disease. Now remember, if you don't want to have a baby don't have sex. However, remember, if you do be sure to protect yourself.
Sex is glorified in this culture. Girls don't even know they have the right to say no. They think that their body was made to be objectified and used by men for pleasure and that is where their worth lies. Just turn on your television.
They are confused. I don't think future generations will look back at abortion as infanticide. I think they will look back at the women who were brave enough to make the choice to have an abortion because they could not afford to care for their child and know that it was an enormously difficult but honorable choice. Something only a truly loving mother could do.
Not quite the same thing. Again, do you really care? I mean wouldnt' your rather the mother take the child out before it becomes a drain on society? I think it is wrong to say that you want to protect the fetus but not the mother and child. It's hypocritical.
If you cannot care for a child yourself, you do have the option of giving your child a chance for life…there are many people on waiting lists to adopt a child here in the United States. Please don't pretend that the reason that people have abortions is because they cannot afford to care for the child…..they are very aware that adoptive parents CAN afford to raise that child.
Anyone with a beating heart is considered 'alive' by the medical establishment….you can be brain dead, unable to breathe without a ventilator, and on life support…..but as long as your heart is still beating, you are 'alive'. They certainly cannot live without the help of life support, but they are still considered alive.
I would consider a beating heart to be the definition of when life begins and ends, since medical professionals declare someone dead when they cannot detect a heartbeat and sinus rhythm anymore. A baby's heart begins beating at about 5 or 6 weeks gestation. A baby with a heartbeat is alive and is a human being.
No one has the right to free childcare assistance, jobs, etc…..those aren't RIGHTS! You have the right to life, to liberty, to free speech, to bear arms, to vote (if you're a citizen). Nowhere in the Constitution does it enumerate the RIGHT to be given cradle-to-grave healthcare and free food!!!! Please cite for me where any of things that you mentioned are RIGHTS.
If a woman cannot afford to raise a child, then she can choose to 1) not have sex, 2) use two forms of birth control to ensure that she won't get pregnant, 3) marry the father so that one parent can raise the child while the other parent provides for the family, or 4) allow the child to be adopted by a family who does have the resources to raise that child. Abortion is not the only answer to being poor and pregnant.
No, Izzy….I suggest youlook it up….why don't you read the Constitution. I am not particularly religious, but I do love the Constitution and it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That means that Congress does not have the right to establish a national religion (like the Church of England) or to deny people the right to worship as they wish. Nowhere does it state that religion cannot act to inform the conscience of those who govern or that public schools should be barred from allowing students to pray.
Even if you are an atheist, I would hope that you believe that murder is wrong. Murder is the willful taking of innocent life….and I cannot think of any life more innocent than a baby.
Umm, I don't even know where to start….
All the 'girls' I know who have had abortions were college-educated women and certainly knew HOW to prevent pregnancy. They didn't get pregnant because of a lack of education and knowledge. And they didn't have an abortion because they were unable to afford a child (in fact, one woman was married and had the abortion against her husband's wishes because the timing interfered with her career plans). They had abortions because having a baby was inconvenient.
Abortion because of poverty is not an honorable choice. Abortion because of unplanned pregnancy is not an honorable choice. Abortion as a result of rape or incest is certainly understandable, but may possibly be just as traumatic as the sexual assault itself.
A truly loving mother would not kill her child. If she could not take care of her child, she would find someone who could and she would allow her child to be raised in a loving, financially-stable family.
No Izzy, we don't prefer that the 'mother take the child out' before it becomes a drain on society. As someone married to an adopted man, I am very thankful that he was born before abortion was legal. If it had been legal, there is a good possibility he would have been killed before he had the chance to become an incredibly smart, productive, creative, loving husband, father, and citizen. Please remember that children grow up….they don't need to be taken care of forever. They deserve a right to life and the right to fulfill their own destiny. It is not for YOU to decide whether or not they are destined to be losers or productive members of society.
You must be logged in to post a comment.