Abortion Ad "Too Controversial"

There's been plenty of buzz about the proposed Pain-Capable abortion legislation currently running the gauntlets of the Texas legislature and the US Senate. I can't help but to wonder whether the pro-choice movement has lost its momentum (perhaps that's why many seem reduced almost entirely to one-liner rhetoric and name-calling). I say this because fewer and fewer folks are OK with abortion. Especially, it seems, among those under the age of 35. Abortion remains a hotly contested and complicated issue, and most of those same youngsters who find abortion morally questionable aren't comfortable making abortion illegal.

This data compels us to ask why. Why the decline? My guess? We can see what we're talking about now. Sonograms and ultrasounds are clearer and more available than ever before, and when expecting parents see the fingers and toes of the little life they've created, it's immensely powerful. Before the faintest hint of a baby bump, we can now see what is otherwise entirely unseen.

And expecting parents aren't the only ones with this new sight. What's the first thing you do these days with the first photo of your little one? Post it to all your sundry social media outlets of course, which exposes countless folks to the (literal) face of what, in this type of scenario, no one calls a fetus.

With these images, something that once was abstract becomes concrete. This is the motivation behind the following ad in support for the Pain-Capable Act and why several newspapers refused to run it, claiming the image is "too controversial."

According to World Magazine, these papers based their censor on alleged ambiguity as to whether the child is dead or alive, which is why one of the publications agreed to run the ad with an alternative image of the same remarkably developed gestation stage en utero (the other two still refused to print it).

It's odd, really. Those three papers should know better. They should know that the quickest way to make sure everyone sees what you're trying to hide is to ban it.

Blame the Media for 'Burn a Koran' Day and its Aftermath

Last September, I pleaded with Terry Jones asking him not to burn the Koran in a pointless demonstration.  It was a useless waste of time, but I had to try.  He did postpone the event for some reason, but this March he decided to light a Koran on fire after all.  It sparked protests in the middle east and now people are asking if Terry Jones is responsible for the violence and deaths that have gone on there.

He's not.

Burning a book - any book - is dumb.  But I'll bet he's not the first person to set that particular book on fire.  So, why was this such a big deal?  Because the media wanted it to be.  Everyone thinks that Terry Jones is a bit crazy, which may be why he didn't understand how this demonstration would do more harm than good.  But what excuse does our media have?  Are all of the journalists in our country also slightly insane?  (I'm willing to entertain the notion.)  It's very irresponsible to make this story so prominent when doing so could lead to violence.  Do we really need the story of one nutty preacher burning a book  on the nightly news?  The media gave him his platform, and now the media thinks that the aftermath of 'Burn a Koran Day' is his fault.  It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

So, stop blaming Terry Jones.  Blame the journalists who could have been reporting on real news, but chose to create violence and hatred by telling the story of one crazy man's demonstration.  (Currently, the same people are trying to convince you that Charlie Sheen's love life is front page news.  It's not.)  If we had ignored Jones then no one would have noticed when one angry man set a book on fire in front of a few people.  I recommend we start ignoring the media.