Pro-Life Groups Pit Abortion Against Animal Cruelty – How Much People Care Outrage
A brief recap, if you are new to my blog:
- I am pro-life on the abortion topic, I am right wing, pretty socially conservative, and have voted Republican my entire life. None of which is to say I always agree with how social conservatives and Republicans handle or speak about every issue.
I follow a few pro-life accounts on Twitter, because I am pro-life.
Though I am pro-life, I do not always agree with every last stance of pro-life groups, or how they choose to speak out on the topic.
Unfortunately, Pro-life organizations and individuals tend to idolize the nuclear family and shame or criticize women who are infertile, who use IVF, who are child free, or who never marry, for whatever the reason.
Some of them do this in part because they wrongly assume the Bible or God commands all, or prefer for most, to marry and have children, and they also assume God feels that a woman’s only supreme purpose in life is to have children. I have written of these issues before (Link): here and (Link): here, among other posts.
I recently “got into it” with a pro-life Twitter account, again. More about that in a few moments.
First I wanted to discuss a trend I’ve seen going on in the last few years, because I feel this is pertinent to my discussion with the person manning the Pro Life Twitter account.
Here is that trend described in a nutshell:
People get very worked up if they feel their particular “pet cause” is not receiving enough attention or outrage by the media or by society.
I recall a few weeks ago, when the terrorist attack took place in Paris, France, some of the BLM (#Black Lives Matters) participants became outraged, and they sent out Tweets essentially saying who cares about a bunch of Parisians getting shot and killed, since the media was focusing on that at the expense of BLM?
Here is some media coverage of that:
- After at least 129 people were killed in coordinated attacks on Friday in Paris, several protesters took to Twitter to express anger at “losing the spotlight” in the media.
- “Racist white people kill me, you want everyone to have sympathy for YOUR tragedy, but you have none for ours,” wrote user Melanin Monroe under the Twitter handle @NeonElectricity in a post that has since been removed.
Just a couple of days ago, I had a friend on Facebook post a photo of dozens of people, standing in a big group, dressed up in Star Wars costumes, in excitement over the opening of the new Star Wars: The Force Awakens movie with text atop the photo reading: “Imagine if people got this excited over stuff that REALLY matters.”
Clearly, my friend, and whoever the creator of that Meme is, believe that people should not care about Star Wars at all, or not as much as they do about some other topics in life.
When (Link): Cecil the Lion was hunted and killed several months ago, there was immense outcry on social media and on television, in opposition to the hunter taking the lion’s life.
Most of the shock and anger over this event came from everyday, average Americans.
I then began seeing right wing news sites, including Fox cable news hosts, express indignation or incredulity that people were upset over the lion at all, or that the rest of the media were covering the lion’s death far more than they were the item about Planned Parenthood selling dead baby parts.
Here is a link or two about the PP (Planned Parenthood) story, if you are unfamiliar with that:
- (Link): Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy (via Wikipedia)
- (Link): Creator of Undercover Videos Says They Reveal ‘Three Basic Revelations’ About Planned Parenthood
During the first few weeks of the PP (Planned Parenthood) story, outlets such as Fox cable news, which tends to be right wing, even put together segments showing how while they, Fox, devoted 90% air time (or what have you) to the Planned Parenthood story, their liberal counterparts only devoted 5% (or whatever amount) of coverage to the same story.
Some of the conservative media even began mentioning that the liberal channels were devoting more air time to the dead lion story than the dead human baby story, and they felt this was a disgrace, and showed that some people, especially the liberal media, have priorities that are out of whack.
I am someone who follows both right wing AND left wing news sources, especially on social media, although I am right wing.
It was impossible for anyone on the internet in particular to miss the PP (Planned Parenthood) story, whether they were right wing, left wing, or pro- choice or pro- life.
I have seen studies that say that television is not the only source from which Americans get their news:
(Link): How Americans get their news (2014 article)
- Americans follow the news on a wide variety of devices, including through television, radio, print versions of newspapers and magazines, computers, cell phones, tablets, e-readers, and devices such as an Xbox or Playstation that link the internet to a television.
- Americans on average reported that, during the past week, they followed the news using four different devices or technologies.
- The most frequently utilized devices include television (87 percent), laptops/computers (69 percent), radio (65 percent), and print newspapers or magazines (61 percent).
You will find some articles saying, as of 2013, that TV is a primary source of news for Americans, but the newer articles are confirming a lot of Americans are using their cell phones or desktop computers to listen to news podcasts or to read news sites.
Here is an article from 2010:
(Link): Survey: More Americans get news from Internet than newspapers or radio (via CNN)
Here are some examples (I saw many Tweets with links to articles like these after the first few weeks of the controversy showed up in my Twitter feed):
- (Link): Planned Parenthood An ‘Abortion Factory That Sells Dead Babies,’ O’Reilly Says (via Huffington Post – Liberal site)
- (Link): No, Planned Parenthood Is Not Selling Aborted Fetal Body Parts (via Gawker – Liberal site)
That left wing media television cable outlets were not covering the dead baby story AS MUCH as right wingers would wish for them to do does not mean that leftists did not hear about the story, because they sure as heck did.
I started seeing Tweet after Tweet by left wing sites such as Huffington Post, Gawker, and maybe Jezebel, whose liberal authors penned stories saying that the expose of PP was incorrect. So, the word did get out, even among liberals.
Secondly, why would any right winger or any pro-lifer expect left wing media to oppose abortion and want to cover a story that makes an abortion provider look bad?
In the same way, I would not expect left wing media to devote any, or much air time, in defending American citizens owning guns.
The left wing media and average left wingers, as well as liberal politicians, also have a tendency to downplay violence by radical Muslims and will seldom even use the words “Islam” or “Muslim” when discussing terror acts committed by Muslims because of Islam.
It comes as no surprise to me that many liberal mainstream media television outlets are not going to devote huge swaths of air time to the allegations by the undercover Pro-Life group that claims that Planned Parenthood makes a profit off dead baby parts, and that abortion providers tend to be very cavalier and flippant about taking the lives of unborn children.
If you are a Christian, or a right winger, why on earth are you so naively expecting liberals, agnostics, secular humanists, and atheists, to care as much about Planned Parenthood’s flaws as you do?
Of course they don’t care as much.
Of course they’re not as likely to expend as much air time covering stories that paint Planned Parenthood in a negative light.
Many American journalists are left wing, and are socially liberal. I expect nothing less from them.
This is similar to Christian tendencies to get involved in culture wars. I used to be one of them. In the last few years, though, I’ve come to see the folly in most of it.
There are some Christian who get outraged over anything and everything and loudly broadcast it on social media and sometimes on cable news shows.
I do believe that American culture is now largely hostile towards Christians and anyone who is not in line with progressive social views. I do not support lawyers, liberals, special interest groups, or politicians who harass Christians over having Christian views.
For example, I tend to recoil at groups or attorneys who sue or harass Christian bakers who want to opt out of baking wedding cakes for homosexual marriages.
On other fronts, however, such as Christians who get deeply offended over a sales associate saying ‘Happy Holidays’ to them at the cash register rather than ‘Merry Christmas,’ I am not so sympathetic.
The Apostle Paul did not encourage Christ followers to whom he wrote to battle sinful, fallen culture on points such as those and some of the Christians Paul wrote to were living in very shady, vulgar cultures. Paul instead instructed them to help each other out and to quietly live godly lives.
Jesus Christ died on the cross to give a chance to sinful man to reconcile himself or herself to God. Jesus did not die on the cross to purify or save culture.
The Bible says that change in a man must come from the inside, via God – ergo, Christians yelling and screaming at liberals and atheists on TV news reports or on blogs or in Tweets about how smutty culture is will not “win” those non-believers over and produce lasting change.
Life Has Purpose Twitter Account
A few hours ago today, on Twitter, I responded to a Tweet from a Twitter account @lifehaspurpose (LHP, Life Has Purpose).
The LHP tweet was retweeted by Life Site News or some other pro-life account I follow.
The LHP account posted a photo of (I take it) an abortion provider, a woman, named Cecil (or Cecyl; I don’t recall the exact spelling).
The text atop the photo LHP tweeted said something to the effect that many were outraged by the death of Cecil the Lion, but not enough outrage has been expressed by the public over Cecyl the Liar abortion provider, or however it was worded.
I tweeted to this LHP account to let them know I am right wing and am pro-life but that I found their tweet ineffective, and a little insulting and a bit cavalier about animal suffering.
They are attempting to create a mutually exclusive proposition: that one has to either care about dead babies (ie, abortion) or dead animals, but that one cannot or should not care about both.
Or, LHP is attempting to say it is wrong for a person to care “more” about animal suffering than an abortion mill selling dead human baby parts.
LHP is not the only one guilty of this: I have seen other pro-lifers, whether groups or individuals, argue this same point on conservative blogs: “Oh dear, how awful, people get more upset over animal abuse than they do abortion.”
It never seems to occur to these persons that one can care about both abortion and animal cruelty. I should know, I am one of those persons. I am opposed to abortion and to animal abuse.
I am rather baffled, too, that pro-life groups think it is their place to dictate HOW MUCH people should care about abortion vis a vis some other topic.
Let’s suppose that on a scale of one to ten (1 to 10) with 1 being “cares very little” and 10 being “cares a whole lot” that I personally…
- (set 1)
- Cares about abortion: 2
- Cares about animal cruelty: 8
- (set 2)
- Cares about abortion: 10
- Cares about animal cruelty: 3
- (set 3)
- Cares about abortion: 9
- Cares about animal cruelty: 9
In the end scheme of things, who cares? Why would it matter if I, or other people, fall under categories 1, 2 or 3? Why are we measuring degrees of caring in this manner?
Why do some pro-life groups think it’s okay for them to sit in judgement of other people’s degree of caring?
And what do they hope to accomplish by shaming people or offending them if they do happen to care more about a dead lion vs. Planned Parenthood selling dead baby brains?
As I told the person behind the LHP (Life Has Purpose) account, if they cannot hope to win me over – and I am sympathetic to their pro-life position to start with – how on earth do they hope to win over staunch pro-choice liberal types?
Criticizing pro-choice segments of the media or culture who care about animal suffering is not going to convert them over to suddenly caring about dead babies via abortion, or caring more for one than the other.
And why do we want someone to care “more” about abortion than animal cruelty? Shouldn’t we be happy if they care about abortion at all, instead of shaming them for “only” being a two or five or what have you, on a scale of one to ten of caring?
A better approach to capitalize on a tragedy like Cecil the Lion’s death (not that I am a fan of people exploiting animal suffering to support their non-animal welfare related cause, but here is how you do it without unnecessarily alienating people who care about animals, whether they be pro-life or pro-choice):
- Empathize with those upset by the animal’s death.
- Tweet a photo with a lion’s image with text saying something along the lines of:
- “We here at XYZ Pro-Life Inc. stand with you in your sorrow and outrage over Cecil’s death. We believe all life is precious, lion life, dog life, horse life, and human baby life.
- So won’t you please support us here at XYZ Pro Life Inc in battling Planned Parenthood, to stop them from taking human baby life.”
An individual can be opposed to abortion without disregarding animal suffering or criticizing those who are moved by animal suffering.
An individual or group can oppose both abortion and oppose animal cruelty. The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.
I note the irony that a group calling itself “Life has purpose” on Twitter is not apparently concerned about ANIMAL life.
Animals are living beings. Animals have feelings, nerve endings, and experience fear and pain too. Animals are also God’s creatures.
How can a group be so freaking passionate about baby human life and not seem to care at all about animal life, or mock those who do show concern for animal life?
Even the Bible says (Proverbs 12:10):
- “A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal…”
Jesus Christ did not criticize Jews for caring for their animals on the Sabbath; he was only critical that the Pharisees did not want to extend similar help to a woman that they would a donkey in peril (Luke Chapter 13):
- But the Lord answered him and said, “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall and lead him away to water him? “And this woman, a daughter of Abraham as she is, whom Satan has bound for eighteen long years, should she not have been released from this bond on the Sabbath day?”
I want to remind any readers again: I am right wing and Pro-Life.
I am not a liberal, nor am I pro-choice.
I am very tired of conservative Pro-Life organizations or persons who constantly shame or berate anyone for caring about animal abuse, or for supposedly caring “more” about animal abuse than they do abortion.
The wider culture and the media are going to care about what they care about. Shaming them and scolding them over any of this is not going to produce the effect you’re looking for.
And, I have to say, seeing Pro-Life Twitter accounts or right wing reporters on TV complaining about a dead lion getting more coverage than stories about abortion reminds me of the spoiled liberals who complain about things like Paris terror attacks getting more attention than their Black Lives Matter protests.
If you are a right winger, do you really want to resemble liberals on this score, in how you react to national stories that you find upsetting, by whining and tsk-tsking people (specifically culture and the media) for caring more about whatever their pet cause is than in yours?
As someone who is both pro-life and pro-animal welfare, I am very put off by Pro-Life groups or conservatives who would seek to minimize animal abuse and cruelty, or shame anyone who does care about animal suffering.
It is not necessary to argue against the pro-choice perspective by arguing against animal welfare, or by shaming people who care about animal suffering, even if, in your view those persons care “more” about animal abuse than abortion. I would remind you again taking that route is actually counter productive to your cause.
Edit. I got a few more tweets from both pro-life Twitter accounts, including LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ)
The person (or persons) behind that account claimed I was erecting straw men or defining their beliefs for them, so I asked them to clarify:
Do they in fact think it’s acceptable for people to care just as much, or more than animal suffering than about abortion?
They so far have not replied to that but told me to “move on.”
You can follow one thread of the discussion under this Tweet by them:
You can view some of my responses and questions to them under that first main tweet. I flat out asked in (Link): this tweet “So, you think it’s fine for folks to care “more” about animal cruelty than abortion?”
They told me in one Tweet they don’t have a problem with people being concerned about animal abuse, but I then asked, why then do you bother bringing up Cecil the Lion in your tweets or blog posts?
They, the pro-life sites, are the ones who post these tweets basically conveying sentiments such as: “Shame on President Obama for signing lion protection laws but boo hiss on him for not taking tougher stance on abortion.”
Why is it wrong for the President to enact laws to help lions? Isn’t that a good thing? Does this Pro-Life twitter account have something against Lions?
If you’re upset Obama is not pro-life enough, then stick to that as a criticism; don’t besmirch whatever pro-animal efforts the man is making.
I’ve read enough editorials by other Pro-Lifers, and comments by Average Joe pro-lifers on the internet to tell you – without having to go read these specific articles these pro-life Twitter people keep telling me to read – that their first reaction is to shame or criticize anyone for caring about animal abuse at all, or for caring more about animal abuse than they do in being outraged or upset over abortion mills killing babies.
Hey, I’m pro-life too – I’m no supporter of abortion providers and how they suck brains out of living babies in the womb – but I’m not opposed to abortion at the expense of feeling that animal cruelty is no big deal and insult people who do care about animal life, or who may even care about animal cruelty more strongly than they do abortion.
Edit. Dec 28, 2015 (there is another edit below the lion image below)——–
One of these pro-life groups I follow on Twitter recently posted a tweet lamenting that an animal group wants protection for insects and fish but none for babies; you can view that here:
This is the same song, different note.
Expecting a pro-animal group (which may lean liberal) to care as much as, or more, about aborted babies as they do animal life is pretty unrealistic.
Caring about animal life is not a bad thing, but the way these pro-life groups discuss animal rights activists suggests that it is stupid, immature, or out of place for anyone to care about animal welfare.
You’re not really doing your pro-life stance any favors by being cavalier about animal suffering, or scolding people for caring about animal suffering.
Edit. Jan 26, 2016——–
Today, pro-life account Life News tweeted this: (Link): Tweet where they are upset that the media covered a panda story more this past week than they did abortion. Not this again.
Look, there’s all kinds of things the media bloviate on more than abortion, including snow storm 2016 and Donald Trump. Yet I don’t see these pro-life accounts complaining about the amount of snow blizzard stories or Trump coverage.
Complaining about how often the media discuss animals or animal cruelty is not likely to win pro-choicers over to the pro-life position, and in the meantime, they are needlessly alienating animal-loving yet pro-lifer persons such as myself.
Edit, January 2020 ——-
This month, two pro-life Twitter accounts once more engaged in this behavior of dismissing anti-animal cruelty commentary, because the person making the anti-animal cruelty statements is also pro-life about abortion.
I left both Twitter accounts replies to that. I don’t agree with that approach.
<blockquote class=”twitter-tweet” lang=”en”><p lang=”en” dir=”ltr”>Television Networks Covered Panda 26 Times More Than March for Life <a href=”https://t.co/K1tKoJksJ4″>https://t.co/K1tKoJksJ4</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/k_yoder”>@k_yoder</a> <a href=”https://twitter.com/hashtag/MarchForLife?src=hash”>#MarchForLife</a> <a href=”https://t.co/jTgVMw2WZx”>pic.twitter.com/jTgVMw2WZx</a></p>— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) <a href=”https://twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/692195472136605700″>January 27, 2016</a></blockquote>
(Link): Hypocrisy: Conservative Christians / Catholics Pressure Women To Feel Their Only Worth is in Becoming Mothers, But If Women Try to Use Medical Technology to Get Pregnant, the Women Are Condemned by The Same Groups
(Link): Pro-Life, Yet Anti-Celibacy, Anti-Childless Christian Site Tweets Story about Mother Who Slit New Born Infant Son’s Throat to Save Her Sex Life (Christians equating single or childless / childfree women to women who murder their babies)
(Link): Why Christians Need To Stress Spiritual Family Over the Nuclear Family – People with no flesh and blood relations including Muslims who Convert to Christianity – Also: First World, White, Rich People Problems
(Link): “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” – one of the most excellent Christian rebuttals I have seen against the Christian idolatry of marriage and natalism, and in support of adult singleness and celibacy – from CBE’s site