NPR Doesn’t Like “Pro-Abortion”
Those who work in the mainstream media these days tend to be quite liberal. (Yes, I know, stating the obvious). It’s not a secret, though they seem to want to deny it in favor of representing themselves as “objective.” But, whenever polls are taken, it is found that something like 85% of journalists vote Democrat. They also give money to Democrat party causes. Thus, the news about NPR reworking their semantics in regard to abortion language doesn’t surprise me. As American society becomes more pro-life, those in the mainstream media are scrambling to do whatever it takes to try to persuade people to be more pro-abortion. For instance, now at NPR journalists can still call pro-lifers “anti-abortion.” (fine by me – I’m definitely anti-abortion). However, they are now forbidden to call pro-choicers “pro-abortion.” Most pro-choice people I’ve spoken to vehemently deny being pro-abortion, because they like to think that abortion is only about a woman’s rights, and, of course, most people say they would never force someone to have an abortion. Unfortunately, many abortions are coerced, but they don’t want to acknowledge that. Look around you. The intellectual elites have become more and more pro-abortion, even while the mainstream public has become more pro-life. Our government just passed a health care bill that is all about abortion and making sure that women have more abortions and that our entire society funds those abortions, like it or not. Our government exports abortion around the world and even ties it to financial aid for other countries. And we wonder why other countries don’t like us so much? Hmmm….here, take our money, but stop polluting our earth with your babies. The caricature and stereotypes in the mainstream media of pro-life people are absurd. It has been interesting and annoying to watch the media characterize the Tea Party folks in the same way. But, of course, for someone who is pro-life it can be extremely frustrating to read over and over again about the crazed, ultra-right-wing obsessed Christian fanatics who are frothing at the mouth waiting to stomp on these poor innocent women going in for abortions. The stereotypes are plain wrong, not to mention insulting. I doubt that any journalist who characterizes pro-lifers that way has ever attended a prayer vigil at an abortion clinic, has never seen the love and prayers aimed at those very women. With few exceptions, violence at abortion clinics is perpetrated by those who are pro-choice, though you never see it reported in the MSM.
I am pro-life for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that I am a woman who has carried three children to term. From the moment I found out that I was pregnant, I knew exactly what was growing inside me, every woman does. Science tells us we are individuals from conception. Nature made us to want to protect what we have conceived. Abortion is the seedbed of violence in our society. When you stop caring for each and every human life and some lives become expendable, then all life loses its inherent God-given dignity. Through the widespread acceptance of abortion, we have taught our children that violence is a legitimate way to solve problems, and then we are surprised when they turn to violence in school, in the mall or anywhere else it suits them to deal with their own problems.
For environmentalists and animal-rights crusaders, it’s especially perplexing the lack of logic involved in the thinking. Do animal-rights activists really believe that as a society we will ever respect animal rights if we don’t respect the rights of unborn children? If even the most vulnerable among us, unborn children, lack the most basic respect and protections, what on earth makes them think that we, as a society, will ever respect an animal? Environmentalists often believe in a woman’s right to choose, because they’re caught up in the idea that people are a pollutant to the planet. While we have definitely misbehaved as good stewards of the earth, as we have misbehaved in every other way, it is people that will one day find the right solutions to earth’s problems. By doing away with people, we do away with the potential to solve our problems. You don’t have to be a Christian to see the logic. There are plenty of pro-life atheists. I will, however, leave you with some beautiful words of wisdom from our current pope, Pope Benedict the XVI from his encyclical Caritas in Veritate:
When “human ecology” is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits….In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural death, if human conception, gestation, and birth are made artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the environment, but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word, integral human development. Our duties toward the environment are linked to our duties toward the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment, and damages society.