The golden tongue and the golden dome
Though timeless wisdom says you can fool all of the people some of the time, even Barack Obama can’t evade the scrutiny of alternative media. And even the prestigious University of Notre Dame cannot control the tangled web it weaves in trying to spin its way out of controversy.
Because the web has some savvy members. Like Carl Olson, who called out the same MSNBC article I quoted on radio (you can’t help but notice its…reporting. Starting with the headline: “Abortion Foe Declines Notre Dame Award”). He wove it together with other fanciful words. With the threads of critical thinking (starting with Tom McFeely’s astute response to Obama’s remarks):
“Mr. President, here’s a reminder for you about one of the tragic consequences of America’s regime of legal abortion of which you are such a strong supporter. There is a legion of American citizens who won’t be privileged to be included among the audience when you make your “inclusive†speech at Notre Dame — the millions of unborn babies, killed in their mothers’ wombs by legal abortion, who as a consequence were denied the chance to grow up, attend college and celebrate their graduation at a commencement ceremony.”
Olson takes it from there…
I recall that when then-candidate Obama, while in a debate with Sen. McCain, was asked by Rick Warren at what point a baby gets “human rights,†Obama famously said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.†So he won’t actually take part in the debate, but he’ll happily go to Notre Dame and receive the honorary law degree, etc.
Right. Exactly.
And here’s the money quote…..because this is exactly the reaction I had to the MSNBC piece:Â
It’s worth noting that the MSNBC.com piece refers to Glendon as being “conservative,” as an “abortion foe,” and as being “staunchly anti-abortion.” All of that is true, of course, but the piece never identifies Pres. Obama as being an abortion supporter, or as “pro-abortion.” (Yes, I know: he insists that no one is pro-abortion.) Which gives the impression that it is Glendon who has taken the extreme position, even though she is the one opposed to the killing of unborn innocents.
Yes. Thank you, Carl. Big kudos. Is anyone ever referred to as staunchly pro-abortion? Staunchly anti-life? No. No parity in the language.
The style book is clear for mainstream media. It’s ‘pro-choice’ and ‘anti-abortion’. Like MSNBC here: “Anti-abortion forces have already stated they plan to be out in force…”
What double standards big media have.
Are they still big? They seem so small…
0 Comment
Each side of the abortion debate has its own key phrases — which generally aren’t used by the other side. So, no, most people who are pro-choice don;t also call themselves pro-abortion, because the focus is on the choice — ultimately, a woman/couple in tandem with a medical professional has to decide what to do concerning a pregnancy. If society decides that it is NOT a woman’s/couple’s choice, then the end result is that some other authority — “the state” — will make and enforce that choice.
Conversely, the pro-life/anti-abortion side would also never call themselves “anti-choice,” because choice isn’t the issue on this side — only life.
Although I support the individual’s right to choose what to do next when pregnant, I do have to grudgingly give recognition to the people who are most consistent in the abortion argument — those people who are against abortion in all cases, even in cases of incest and rape. Although I support choice, i could never understand anti-choice people who made exceptions for rape and incest — if every life is sacred from the moment of conception, then why should the means of that conception make any difference.
That being said, taking this decision away from the individual and giving it to the state is very wrong.
If not the state, who then do you suggest protect the choice of the individual in the womb?
While it’s an interesting observtion that each side has its own key phrase, It begs the question to say argue whether the woman or the state should make the “choice.” The only issue of any relevance to anybody is “what” is being chosen. Why don’t pro-choice supporters agree to restore science to its rightful place and acknowledge, along with any embryologist, that a unique, human life begins at conception, and ends with an abortion.