Why the Media Supports "legal" abortion
WHY THE MEDIA SUPPORTS LEGAL ABORTION
The moral conscience, both individual and social, is today subjected, also as a result of the penetrating influence of the media, to an extremely serious and mortal danger: that of confusion between good and evil precisely in relation to the fundamental right to life..... Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, # 24.
People often wonder why the mass media supports abortion. Why is it, that virtually all of them support killing unborn children and dehumanize the person who we all used to be? The reason is what we might expect. The bottom line is involved. But how does it tie in?In business, expanding the market maximizes corporate profit. Sadly, due to efficiency, the media's main tool for it is abusing sex. Their commercials, soap operas, sit-coms and movies are virtually filled with it. As more people accept abusive depictions of sexuality, more people become lured to their shows and their market expands. As their market expands their dollar volume increases proportionally.
Conversely, virtue acts the opposite way since people with values would see such depictions as moral filth and tune-out. This is what the media wants to avoid. With over 200 million potential viewers, a small change to virtue (1% = 2 million viewers) means a very big change in dollar volume. Truly "big bucks" are at stake. Marketing analysts know it. So do the media's executives who are very driven by the bottom line.
This is why they support a culture without values, EVEN TO THE POINT OF DESTROYING UNBORN CHILDREN. To them, the public mustn't see, or at least not fear the consequences of sexual abuse. Here's their modus operandi.
On AID's they turn a blind eye to abstinence which would completely eliminate the deadly disease. Comparing AID's deaths here to combat deaths in Iraq, illustrates their silence. Many more Americans die here each day from AID's. So why is the killing in Iraq given great coverage, while the true answer for AID's is given virtually no time at all? Aren't they the one's who present themselves as concerned about killing? The answer to the inconsistency lies in great part with selling themselves. A public that trivializes sexuality equates to a bigger audience. Minimizing the AID's problem is one of many ways it's done.
The same for pornography. Here, the behavior it fosters puts one at risk of deadly disease, pregnancy outside marriage and unaccountable fathers. All is overlooked, while banning it is misrepresented as restricting "freedom of speech," even for children in libraries.
On harms from the "pill," the media is mute. Combined with pornography, the "pill" has created promiscuity like nothing else. The shocking result is that every fourth American (65 million) now has an incurable STD (45 million herpes cases / 20 million HPV cases / over 1 million people with the HIV virus). (1) Also, since the "pill" became available many more children are born outside marriage, not many less. In 1960, 5.3% of children were born this way. The figure has climbed to a staggering 33.2% of children today. (2)
Another, never made known "pill" tragedy is from estrogen overexposure. The National Cancer Institute lists it as a breast cancer risk factor. Since 1973, invasive breast cancer's lifetime incidence has increased by 40% to more than 1 of 8 women from less than 1 of 12.(3) The "pill" is the most common form of estrogen overexposure.
Worst of all, the "pill" is abortifacient. Either, directly or indirectly it has caused enormous harm to women, children and life itself. Every bit is ignored.
And what about homosexuality? Here, adopting children is called a human "right" for "gays." Never is the perverseness a topic. Would any parent really want homosexuals to adopt their own children if something tragic happened to them? Of course not. Simple common sense brings the problems to light. In the media world these are purposely hidden.
On abortion, the media protects it. Here, you'll note they misapply the word "right" to killing itself (i.e. "right" to abortion, "right" to choose, etc.). At the same time one never hears them apply this word to the most fundamental rights of all - to life and to be born. Also, negativity is never shed on abortion (psychological harm / the crime of forced abortion in China).
Friend, from killing the unborn to killing ourselves from deadly disease, the media shuns genuine answers. No one knows better than they that "sex sells." The problems produced could not be more grave yet they'll say virtually nothing to inhibit it for any reason. No better served are they than with a valueless culture. Since abortion is the linch-pin, they protect it. If it were outlawed, public pressure would then focus on their major profit tool, defined away as only "lifestyle." It all ties together.
Do other reasons exist for their disrespect of life?
Yes, and again it's profit related. Examples are embryonic stem-cell "research" and cloning. Stories fill time slots and print pages. Stem cell "research" from destroyed human embryos gives them much to produce and has vast potential for future stories. Establishing a Human Life Amendment, or banning cloning and embryonic destruction outright, closes the door on their stories which means the related profits vanish. As a result, media executives don't want embryonic stem-cell destruction or cloning banned.
Is it why pro-life legislators are presented as "extremists"?
Yes it is. Since the media produce stories to make a living, it's logical that legislators who would outlaw its subject matter would get attacked as "extreme." For the same reason, this is why those who support such destruction are called "centrists" and "moderates." In elections, negative imagery works against pro-life legislators and positive imagery works for the human destroyers. In the end pro-life laws are obstructed and the media continues cranking out its anti-life depravity under the falsities of "rights" and "progress."
In conclusion, the real extremists are the media elite since killing is the most extreme act of all and they are the force protecting it. For them, the inspired words of St. Paul: "For the root of all evils is the desire of money," (1 Timothy 6:10) could not apply more. The "bottom line" is at the bottom of the carnage they support. Enormous social demise, death and disease have been the result. Truly, they are Public Enemy #1 and they need to change.
In order to change let's be sure to:
1) Turn them off and put wholesome activities into our lives.
2) Boycott subscription media.
3) Boycott nationally advertised brands which pay the salaries of non-subscription media.
Such is not a sacrifice. Let's recognize we're in a culture war where the stakes could not be higher. Most importantly, we mustn't feed our enemy - the enemy of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters.
(1) C.D.C. (2) U.S. Census Bureau (3) National Cancer Institute*
* The lifetime incidence of breast cancer has increased from 98.5/100,000 to 139.1/100,000 women/year since 1973.
- Life is the best thing there is -
By: Ron Galloy, Director
Life: God's Sacred Gift
Be encouraged to copy and distribute. No credit required.
Rev. Paul B. Marx, O.S.B. / Joan (Andrews) Bell Right to Life Advocate / Msgr. Philip J. Reilly, Helpers of God's Precious Infants / Anne Byrne, Pregnancy Help for Women in Crisis / Teresa Bonopartis, Post-abortion Healing / George Isajiw, MD, Catholic Medical Assn. / Margarita Lassalleta, MD, Cath. Med. Assn. / Stan Tomkiel, Esq.
Gordon Ohlhausen, CPA
SacredGift.org (unfortunately Ron's website is down)