Biased News Media-44th Annual March for Life

[siv1]

We all know the MSM is biased, but I didn't realize HOW biased it is. Yesterday was the Forty-Fourth (yes, 44th) annual March for Life Rally. Where were all the news reporters? I found very few articles on it.

Last weeks Pro-Abortion march was all over the news. Why wasn't it all over MSM that Pro-Life marchers were BANNED from last weeks march? If it was for women's rights as you they said, why were certain groups of women banned? Hypocrites? Sounds like it to me.

 

[ruby59]

We all know the MSM is biased, but I didn't realize HOW biased it is. Yesterday was the Forty-Fourth (yes, 44th) annual March for Life Rally. Where were all the news reporters? I found very few articles on it.

Last weeks Pro-Abortion march was all over the news. Why wasn't it all over MSM that Pro-Life marchers were BANNED from last weeks march? If it was for women's rights as you they said, why were certain groups of women banned? Hypocrites? Sounds like it to me.

I addressed it here, but it was ignored

 

[missy]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

 

[siv1]

We all know the MSM is biased, but I didn't realize HOW biased it is. Yesterday was the Forty-Fourth (yes, 44th) annual March for Life Rally. Where were all the news reporters? I found very few articles on it.

Last weeks Pro-Abortion march was all over the news. Why wasn't it all over MSM that Pro-Life marchers were BANNED from last weeks march? If it was for women's rights as you they said, why were certain groups of women banned? Hypocrites? Sounds like it to me.

I addressed it here, but it was ignored

Sorry Ruby. I'm sure this will be ignored too. But that's ok. They can't have a serious discussions. How dare anyone disagree with them. And they claim they are so tolerant.

Off topic, I was thinking of you yesterday. Hugs.

 

[siv1]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

 

[missy]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

Pro choice doesn't mean you are pro abortion. It means you support the woman's right to choose what to do with her own body. Pro-lifers want to take away the woman's right to choose therefore it isn't a choice. It is an anti choice. Pro choice supporters are for choice of the individual to make the right decision for herself while Pro lifers take away that decision and say there is only one option which means no choice.

 

[lovedogs]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

1. The march was a "women's march", not a "pro-choice" march.
2. Pro-life/anti-choice groups weren't banned, you should check your sources on that.
3. Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Many people who believe in a women's right to choose dislike abortion and wouldn't choose it for themselves, but that's the entire point. It's about the right to choose what happens to your body. Hence the term pro-choice.

EDIT: nope, pro-life/anti-abortion isn't a choice. It's a group who is trying to force their beliefs on the entire country.

 

[siv1]

Thanks Missy. I can understand that to a point. I'm think a woman has the right to choose, but I also don't approve of abortion in most cases. Are women's rights for all women? What about future women? I imagine around half of the babies aborted are female. Don't they have the same rights? Or is it just for females that have been born? That's the way my mind works.... lol. I'm a little ADD.

I'm Pro-adoption. I am very blessed to have my granddaughters through the foster system and now finally adoption. I believe in rights for all humans.

 

[siv1]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

1. The march was a "women's march", not a "pro-choice" march.
2. Pro-life/anti-choice groups weren't banned, you should check your sources on that.
3. Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Many people who believe in a women's right to choose dislike abortion and wouldn't choose it for themselves, but that's the entire point. It's about the right to choose what happens to your body. Hence the term pro-choice.

EDIT: nope, pro-life/anti-abortion isn't a choice. It's a group who is trying to force their beliefs on the entire country.

Thanks for responding lovedogs. The "women's march" IMO was not a women's march if not all women could participate. Since pro life groups were banned, again my opinion, how can it be called a womens march?

 

[lovedogs]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

1. The march was a "women's march", not a "pro-choice" march.
2. Pro-life/anti-choice groups weren't banned, you should check your sources on that.
3. Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Many people who believe in a women's right to choose dislike abortion and wouldn't choose it for themselves, but that's the entire point. It's about the right to choose what happens to your body. Hence the term pro-choice.

EDIT: nope, pro-life/anti-abortion isn't a choice. It's a group who is trying to force their beliefs on the entire country.

Thanks for responding lovedogs. The "women's march" IMO was not a women's march if not all women could participate. Since pro life groups were banned, again my opinion, how can it be called a womens march?

I agree that IF certain groups were banned that would be against the spirit of the march. But I think in the other thread people talked about how pro-life groups weren't excluded, and some were at the march. Others were protesting it, but by their own choice, not because they weren't allowed to participate.

 

[missy]

Siv, perhaps it is the way you refer to it that turns people off because it is not Pro abortion it is PRO CHOICE. We can just as easily refer to pro life and ANTI CHOICE if that is how you are playing the game.

To me it is not a game however and let's call it what it is. The right to choose which is still LEGAL in this country. Thank goodness.

Missy. If the rally last weekend was "Pro-Choice", why were "Pro-Life" organizations banned? Isn't Pro-Life also a choice? Or if the march was for Women's Rights, why were some women banned? IMO, it's hypocrisy. I'm just trying to understand.

Thanks for responding.

1. The march was a "women's march", not a "pro-choice" march.
2. Pro-life/anti-choice groups weren't banned, you should check your sources on that.
3. Pro-choice isn't pro-abortion. Many people who believe in a women's right to choose dislike abortion and wouldn't choose it for themselves, but that's the entire point. It's about the right to choose what happens to your body. Hence the term pro-choice.

EDIT: nope, pro-life/anti-abortion isn't a choice. It's a group who is trying to force their beliefs on the entire country.

Thanks for responding lovedogs. The "women's march" IMO was not a women's march if not all women could participate. Since pro life groups were banned, again my opinion, how can it be called a womens march?

No group was banned from the march siv. All women and all men could participate if they so chose to participate.

 

[missy]

Thanks Missy. I can understand that to a point. I'm think a woman has the right to choose, but I also don't approve of abortion in most cases. Are women's rights for all women? What about future women? I imagine around half of the babies aborted are female. Don't they have the same rights? Or is it just for females that have been born? That's the way my mind works.... lol. I'm a little ADD.

I'm Pro-adoption. I am very blessed to have my granddaughters through the foster system and now finally adoption. I believe in rights for all humans.

We all do Siv. The difference is women and many other people don't have those equal rights still and hence the need for our fight to continue. It's a travesty in this day and age so many are still discriminated against for merely being women, or black, or Muslim, or Jewish, or transgender and so on and so forth. But it's a fact and that is why the need to continue to fight for our rights exists.

 

[siv1]

Thanks Missy. I can understand that to a point. I'm think a woman has the right to choose, but I also don't approve of abortion in most cases. Are women's rights for all women? What about future women? I imagine around half of the babies aborted are female. Don't they have the same rights? Or is it just for females that have been born? That's the way my mind works.... lol. I'm a little ADD.

I'm Pro-adoption. I am very blessed to have my granddaughters through the foster system and now finally adoption. I believe in rights for all humans.

We all do Siv. The difference is women and many other people don't have those equal rights still and hence the need for our fight to continue. It's a travesty in this day and age so many are still discriminated against for merely being women, or black, or Muslim, or Jewish, or transgender and so on and so forth. But it's a fact and that is why the need to continue to fight for our rights exists.

Exactly. Everyone should have the same rights. But don't those rights also include babies that aren't born? That's what I can't understand.

 

[ruby59]

Thanks Missy. I can understand that to a point. I'm think a woman has the right to choose, but I also don't approve of abortion in most cases. Are women's rights for all women? What about future women? I imagine around half of the babies aborted are female. Don't they have the same rights? Or is it just for females that have been born? That's the way my mind works.... lol. I'm a little ADD.

I'm Pro-adoption. I am very blessed to have my granddaughters through the foster system and now finally adoption. I believe in rights for all humans.

We all do Siv. The difference is women and many other people don't have those equal rights still and hence the need for our fight to continue. It's a travesty in this day and age so many are still discriminated against for merely being women, or black, or Muslim, or Jewish, or transgender and so on and so forth. But it's a fact and that is why the need to continue to fight for our rights exists.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-01-19/the-womens-march-on-washington-errs-in-excluding-pro-life-feminists

Many other articles as well. Yes Pro life women were excluded from the March. Some came anyway.

As quoted from this article:

On Monday, it was revealed one of the sponsors of the march was removed from the event list due to outrage over the sponsor's pro-life views. The group, New Wave Feminists, based out of Texas, is comprised of pro-life women who oppose Trump's election. The organizers of the march claimed the platform is a pro-choice one which advocates for "open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people," which is ultimately why the pro-life group is no longer welcome to participate. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are sponsors of the event, but sadly there is no room for a pro-life group at a march representing and celebrating the diversity of feminism.

 

[missy]

written by siv

But don't those rights also include babies that aren't born? That's what I can't understand.

Rights of the mother outweigh the rights of the unborn fetus. They are not yet born and the question is when do they become individuals with rights. Rights that trump the mother in addition to having rights because what about the rights of the mother. She has rights.

And it's complicated siv so can't just discuss it in quick bullet points but as it stands:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fetal+Rights

case roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy. She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term. In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is, after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother.

 

[AnnaH]

Photos of the very large, under-reported prolife march.
No one could control who marched in the women's march, but the sponsors refused to partner with prolife groups. Their right as the organizers, but a mistake, imo.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/27/march-life-2017-photos-washington-dcs-pro-life-rally/

 

[wildcat03]

First, there was plenty of media coverage. I see articles from a number of sources on Google News. Was there as much as there was for the women's march? No. Is that unexpected? Not really - it was a much smaller event.

Second, to paraphrase from a meme I've seen multiple times - how interesting is a march of total hypocrites - people who pretend that the lives of 4 cell embryos are more important than the lives of refugees? Not very. Don't really care if the news I read doesn't have too much to say about it. If you want your anti-choice, anti-anyone who isn't a WASP news, feel free to read Breitbart.

 

[OreoRosies86]

First, there was plenty of media coverage. I see articles from a number of sources on Google News. Was there as much as there was for the women's march? No. Is that unexpected? Not really - it was a much smaller event.

Second, to paraphrase from a meme I've seen multiple times - how interesting is a march of total hypocrites - people who pretend that the lives of 4 cell embryos are more important than the lives of refugees? Not very. Don't really care if the news I read doesn't have too much to say about it. If you want your anti-choice, anti-anyone who isn't a WASP news, feel free to read Breitbart.

I believe it was something like "If you believe this (a cluste of cells) has more right to life than this (picture of a refugee child) you're going to have to stop pretending your concerns are religious."

It will be a cold day in hell before the government gets involved with my reproductive system and an even colder one when a pro lifer is able to effectively shame me for it.

 

[VRBeauty]

It was covered in my primary news sources:

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/51207...t-not-necessarily-pro-trump-at-march-for-life
http://www.wnyc.org/story/on-abortion-goals-of-back-to-back-marches-couldnt-be-more-different/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/...edCoverage&region=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article128984074.html
http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/article129082779.html

I think it's understandable that the women's marches that were staged in hundreds of locations worldwide and involved an estimated 4.5 million people would get more coverage.

In terms of immediate effect - well, the anti-abortion marchers will most likely get the news they're longing for (a conservative Supreme Court nominee) fairly soon. We'll probably never know whether the march itself played a role in that decision. The long-term impact of the women's march remains to be seen. But, one could argue that the women's march is the beginning of a movement, while the anti-abortion march is almost the culmination of a movement.

 

[Calliecake]

Can't wait for the alternative facts to come out saying this Pro Life March was the largest ever. They are delusional.

 

[Matata]

I think Joan Chittister is spot on about the need for broader discussion on the pro-life issue.

 

[Calliecake]

I think Joan Chittister is spot on about the need for broader discussion on the pro-life issue.

Matata, All you have to do is read the replies here from Pro Lifers. It angers them to no end that someone would get assistance for food for their children. I've always been amazed that so many of the same people that scream about government assistance are often one step above needing assistance themselves and could easily find themselves in the same situation.

 

[missy]

I think Joan Chittister is spot on about the need for broader discussion on the pro-life issue.

Matata, All you have to do is read the replies here from Pro Lifers. It angers them to no end that someone would get assistance for food for their children. I've always been amazed that so many of the same people that scream about government assistance are often one step above needing assistance themselves and could easily find themselves in the same situation.

Matata and Callie, spot on.

 

[E B]

Matata and Callie, spot on.

Yep. We've had a lot of topics here where people are mocked for receiving assistance, their grocery choices scrutinized. What about cheering for/supporting a president and members of congress ready to repeal the ACA without a plan to replace?

"If you're pre-birth, you're fine. If you're pre-school? You're f*ed." - George Carlin

 

[telephone89]

I think any march/event/etc has the right to exclude whoever they want. Perhaps a cynical view, but the march wasn't just a march - it was a statement. If you don't agree with that statement, why would you want to be there and why would you expect them to welcome you there? This is like a BLM march excluding neo-nazis. I think it's totally fair and well within their rights to do so.

 

[missy]

I think any march/event/etc has the right to exclude whoever they want. Perhaps a cynical view, but the march wasn't just a march - it was a statement. If you don't agree with that statement, why would you want to be there and why would you expect them to welcome you there? This is like a BLM march excluding neo-nazis. I think it's totally fair and well within their rights to do so.

But they didn't exclude anyone. If you wanted to join (or protest) you could have.

 

[telephone89]

I think any march/event/etc has the right to exclude whoever they want. Perhaps a cynical view, but the march wasn't just a march - it was a statement. If you don't agree with that statement, why would you want to be there and why would you expect them to welcome you there? This is like a BLM march excluding neo-nazis. I think it's totally fair and well within their rights to do so.

But they didn't exclude anyone. If you wanted to join (or protest) you could have.

They did exclude sponsors, not individual people, who were of course welcome. But I don't even mind or care.

 

[missy]

I think any march/event/etc has the right to exclude whoever they want. Perhaps a cynical view, but the march wasn't just a march - it was a statement. If you don't agree with that statement, why would you want to be there and why would you expect them to welcome you there? This is like a BLM march excluding neo-nazis. I think it's totally fair and well within their rights to do so.

But they didn't exclude anyone. If you wanted to join (or protest) you could have.

They did exclude sponsors, not individual people, who were of course welcome. But I don't even mind or care.

Gotcha. Yeah I'm with you. Too bad. Individuals were welcome and that was what it was about.

 

[lovedogs]

First, there was plenty of media coverage. I see articles from a number of sources on Google News. Was there as much as there was for the women's march? No. Is that unexpected? Not really - it was a much smaller event.

Second, to paraphrase from a meme I've seen multiple times - how interesting is a march of total hypocrites - people who pretend that the lives of 4 cell embryos are more important than the lives of refugees? Not very. Don't really care if the news I read doesn't have too much to say about it. If you want your anti-choice, anti-anyone who isn't a WASP news, feel free to read Breitbart.

I believe it was something like "If you believe this (a cluste of cells) has more right to life than this (picture of a refugee child) you're going to have to stop pretending your concerns are religious."

It will be a cold day in hell before the government gets involved with my reproductive system and an even colder one when a pro lifer is able to effectively shame me for it.

Yuuuup. For many it is about control, not religion. It's about controlling women under the guise of religion. And F being shamed. No way no how.

 

[AnnaH]

First, there was plenty of media coverage. I see articles from a number of sources on Google News. Was there as much as there was for the women's march? No. Is that unexpected? Not really - it was a much smaller event.

Second, to paraphrase from a meme I've seen multiple times - how interesting is a march of total hypocrites - people who pretend that the lives of 4 cell embryos are more important than the lives of refugees? Not very. Don't really care if the news I read doesn't have too much to say about it. If you want your anti-choice, anti-anyone who isn't a WASP news, feel free to read Breitbart.

No propaganda in this particular report. Thought the OP and others would like to see the photos.
I support the unborn. Color doesn't matter to any prolifer that I personally know. In fact, though few here will accept it, the abortion rights movement has old ties to reducing the number of black children. That's not a current goal, of course, but there is sad history there.
Many who are prolife are involved in assisting refugees. Many (not me personally) have gone to war torn areas risking their own lives.
Not just you, WC, but several have made unfair assumptions about people they don't know.