There’s all this fawning press about this amazing group of protesters in Wisconsin. I decided to compare that protest with the March for Life. And I’ve come up with:
7 Reasons the March for Life is better.
1) They say the crowds are huge in Wisconsin at about 25,000 but the March for Life is more than ten times that size.
2) Unions make up about 11.9% of Americans. Pro-lifers are about 50%. So Ha!
3) Pro-lifers show up knowing they’re not going to get any media attention. Unions show up because they know that when one or more are gathered in the union name the media will be there.
4) Union members brag that they forced Democrats to leave the state. Ha! The March for Life chased the President of the United States (George W. Bush) out of D.C. for eight straight years because he didn’t want to be seen with them. Now that’s power!!!!
5) We both say it’s about the children. But which one’s really about the children. Come on. Really?
6) Who would you rather hang with?
7) Let’s face it, if the unborn could pay union dues we wouldn’t need a March for Life.
February 22, 2011 at 5:13 am
Why can't one be pro-life and also support the right to Unionize?
February 22, 2011 at 5:41 am
Ah, but the objection is not against a 'right to unionize'. The objection is against the relative merits of the Pro-Life movement and what's happening in WI and the (as usual) mal-reporting from the MSM of these events.
It's about power… who has it and who doesn't. The media and unions wield a lot of power, while the unprotected, voiceless victims of abortion continue to die every day. Catholics who are paying attention know that the right to life is the fundamental, inalienable human right from which all other rights and goods flow; all other concerns are secondary.
February 22, 2011 at 11:12 am
Why does one have to be 'better' than the other – surely both are very important issues with significant ramifications? Supporting one does not somehow cancel out the other one. I am at a loss as to why this post was considered necessary.
February 22, 2011 at 12:49 pm
The post seems to be more about the odd disconnect in the way the media portrays both events. Or rather, how it really doesn't portray anything about the March for Life, even though it is much larger and more peaceful.
It's like reporting on a fender bender when there's a 10 car pile-up on the freeway.
February 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Your seventh point is great.
February 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm
#4 is a calumny. Not only did Bush not flee the March, he invited Nellie Gray and the organizers to a White House reception. He stayed away because security concerns would have made it very difficult for the march to be as free as it is.
Here's a list of 22 things Bush did to build a culture of life. http://www.wheatandweeds.com/2008/10/i-cant-stand-it.html
February 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm
Bush did do many good things for the culture of life. But eight years and not one appearance at the March for Life?
February 22, 2011 at 2:54 pm
With respect, I think the MfL could not afford the security that would be necessary for a president to attend. Have you attended an inauguration? Every road has to close, and all foot traffic has to pass through specific security stands. No non-profit has the budget to make that happen. Bush honored not the March not only with phone calls to the crowd, but by inviting its organizers to breakfast receptions at the WH. One of the most powerful means a Prez has to honor people is via invitation to the WH. That was Bush demonstrating publicly his solidarity with the March. Nellie Gray was happy.
"President Bush was also very nice to us and would invite us in for breakfast before the march," Gray said.
http://www.uscatholic.org/node/6382
February 22, 2011 at 3:21 pm
I have my issues with W. His stand for life isn't one them.
February 22, 2011 at 3:22 pm
Sorry, that should say "His stand for life insn't one OF them."
February 22, 2011 at 5:06 pm
To Anon #3: Sorry. One does have to be 'better' than the others because, objectively, it is. The right to life presupposes all other other rights. When life is denied, it is an injustice that surpasses all others… an injustice that must be dealt with if we are to be a civilized society.
When you go to a hospital, they will take the life-treatening wounds and illnesses before the broken bones and odd aches and pains. Is it fair? Probably not. It is right? Absolutely.
Should the hospital take people with more money or political power or media influence who have a hangnail over a poor person having a heart attack? Of course not.
Do you ignore the other patients? For a while, but eventually you address these important needs too, in due time and with due consideration.
February 22, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Not to be mean, but in #6, the girl looks like the typical greased up college girl, while dude looks like the poor man's Owen Wilson.
February 22, 2011 at 6:19 pm
We were at the March for Life when GWB was president and he phoned in. It was broadcasted on the speakers. I think your portrayal of him is unfair. He was the most pro-life president we've had since Roe v. Wade.
February 22, 2011 at 6:57 pm
I don't believe any sitting President has ever attended the March for Life. As everyone else has stated, the security concerns are absurd. Every time the President's motorcade rolls by they have to seal off the surrounding area. I couldn't even walk to the main entrance of my office building the day of the Prayer Breakfast because the street was blocked off, and the President was already safe and inside the hotel across the street. So yeah, it would be a spectacular nightmare for any President to attend.
February 22, 2011 at 8:39 pm
This is the same excuse that Obama uses when asked why he doesn't go to church on Sunday. Security concerns. I don't buy it.
I think it's telling that no sitting Republican President has ever spoken at the March for Life.
February 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Security concerns. I don't buy it.
That's your prerogative (channeling Bobby Brown on the spelling), but it's a very legitimate rationale. Can you name any other rally that presidents normally speak at?
I think it's telling that no sitting Republican President has ever spoken at the March for Life.
It is – it tells you that security concerns of speaking at an outdoor rally are the same for all administrations.
February 22, 2011 at 9:10 pm
I hope you're right and that I'm getting paranoid in my old age.
February 22, 2011 at 11:15 pm
A little from column a and a little from column b 🙂
Seriously, I don't blame you for your skepticism, but I think that this is one time where you might be a little too tough on W.