How Some MSM See Pro Life People

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HagiaSophia

Guest
Deadline was three hours away and the Rocky Mountain News was bracing for a new wave of abortion protests. I raised a style question while working on a religion-angle story. Why is it, I asked an assistant city editor, that we call one camp “pro-choice,” its chosen label, while we call the other “anti-abortion,” a term it abhors?

The city editor began listening. We could, I said, try to use more neutral terms. I wasn’t fond of “anti-abortion.” It seemed to fit Jesse Helms and not Mother Teresa. But it was literal. On the other side, I suggested a phrase such as “pro-abortion rights.” This might be wordy, but would help avoid the editorial spin of “pro-choice.”

The assistant editor said “pro-choice” was accurate, because the real issue was choice, not abortion. In that case, I said, we should be even-handed and use “pro-life.”

The city editor stepped in. Minus a few descriptive words, here’s what he said: Look, the pro-choice people are pro-choice. The people who say they are pro-life aren’t really pro-life. They’re nothing but a bunch of hypocritical right-wing religious fanatics and we’ll call them whatever we want to call them.

getreligion.org/?p=939
 
I read an article today in my local paper that came from the Los Angeles Times. It was about the involvement of Mrs. Robert’s in a “pro-abortion” organization FFL. I was so angered by this article because it blatantly tried to paint her as some fanatic who must certainly have some influence over her husband. It was a disgusting display of ignorance in journalism. They gave no real info about FFL or the great strides they have made in helping women and children. Shame on that journalist.
 
Oooops, I ran out of time to edit…That should read “anti-abortion”.

:o
 
I don’t understand why their use of the term “anti-abortion” on us pro-lifers is a bad thing… We ARE anti-abortion, why should we abhor it when they recognize us as such? Heck, we should be glad they’re actually using the word “abortion” as opposed to some euphemism like “reproductive rights”… :rolleyes:

The one that does bug me a little is when they call us “anti-choice”, because then you can really tell they’re trying to make us out as the Bad Guy to the audience. As if the audience needs any help in thinking that… :banghead:
 
40.png
Cradle:
I don’t understand why their use of the term “anti-abortion” on us pro-lifers is a bad thing… We ARE anti-abortion, why should we abhor it when they recognize us as such? Heck, we should be glad they’re actually using the word “abortion” as opposed to some euphemism like “reproductive rights”… :rolleyes:

The one that does bug me a little is when they call us “anti-choice”, because then you can really tell they’re trying to make us out as the Bad Guy to the audience. As if the audience needs any help in thinking that… :banghead:
Click to expand...
I used to agree with you about “anti” abortion. But, the pro-choice/pro-abortion camp has decided that they want to be called pro-life or that they are truly pro-life and not the “anti-abortion” activists.

Here is the article I mentioned. I found it was slanted to imply that Mrs. Robert’s is some kind of fanatic. IMO

latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-wife21jul21,1,3108997.story?coll=la-headlines-politics&ctrack=1&cset=true

Why wouldn’t this writer tell it like it really is? That Mrs. Robert’s is pro-life and supports an organization that helps women and their children. Not once in the article do they refer to her as pro-life. Which, btw, is the original moniker adopted by those who opposed roe/wade over 30 years ago.

(I want to add that the article that was printed in my local paper was shortened and does not have the added info regarding Judge Robert’s and his more recent comments regarding Roe/Wade)

:eek: Oh my goodness, I know this is going to sound really dorky but I just read the link that HS provided in her 1st post. I truly did not realize that it was also refering to the article that I presented here. This shows me that my feelings regarding this article were not off base or that I was wrong in my assumption with my 1st impression of this article when I discovered it in my own local newspaper. Wow, I am truly amazed.
 
One side is 'pro-death, ‘anti-life’
The other is 'pro-life, ‘anti-death’.

Sticks and stone may break my bones who WORDS can never hurt me.

When meanings of words change, feelings are hurt. It’s the meanings that hurt and what we assign them. No longer in this time in history that words are NO LONGER portraying The Truth.
 
I don’t have a problem with being called “anti-abortion”. It’s true; but I also feel the proper term fo the other side is “pro-abortion”. The term “pro-choice” is ridiculous. If they believe that people should be free to choose *anything *without law enforcement being involved, they are anarchists. The choice they are in favor of offering is *abortion, *therefore they are pro-abortion. I don’t see them fighting to protect the right of Chinese women to choose NOT to have abortions, after all.
What also annoys me is the term “anti-choice”. Their whole attempt to frame the issue as being about “who decides” is bunk - I never met a pro-lifer who favored abortions forced on women by the government, which we would if our goal was to have the govenment decide!
 
40.png
cove:
I read an article today in my local paper that came from the Los Angeles Times. It was about the involvement of Mrs. Robert’s in a “pro-abortion” organization FFL. I was so angered by this article because it blatantly tried to paint her as some fanatic who must certainly have some influence over her husband. It was a disgusting display of ignorance in journalism. They gave no real info about FFL or the great strides they have made in helping women and children. Shame on that journalist.
Click to expand...
Funny how people concerned about Hilary’s opinions and actions as potential First Lady were painted as small-minded bigots, but now it’s a legitimate issue when the tables are turned. Things just don’t change with these liberals. :rolleyes: :hmmm:
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
Minus a few descriptive words, here’s what he said: Look, the pro-choice people are pro-choice. The people who say they are pro-life aren’t really pro-life. They’re nothing but a bunch of hypocritical right-wing religious fanatics and we’ll call them whatever we want to call them.

%between%
Click to expand...
oooh, showing his true colors, eh?
 
I am anti-abortion, pro-life, AND pro-choice. I just happen to believe that women should only be allowed to make morally good choices, and if they make morally evil choices, those choices should not be LEGAL!

I wouldn’t want a woman to choose to post-natally abort her two-year-old either. The entire argument is ridiculous. Abortion advocates want us to believe that age, development, and location confer personhood. They talk about the viability of an infant as if newborns placed on a table, never touched or fed, are viable. I think not.

We need to take the terms back. We are pro-woman–not wanting woman to choose procedures that are bad for their health, minds, and spirits. We are pro-life–women not ready to be parents can choose new families to nurture their child, and we do have programs to help those woman who choose to parent, too.

We need to expose the ad hominem, by the beard, call to authority, and begging the question fallacies used by the pro-aborts to muddy the issue. It all boils down to “What is the unborn?” (See prolifetraining.com/ to learn how to recognize and help others recognize some of these fallacies).

If life isn’t sacred, it’s because we deny the Creator who made us, and then might makes right, and the ends justify the means–a dog eat dog world. Civilization used to be considered to have progressed as those stronger and in power cared for those weaker, and/or in need of care. These life issues before us today will determine whether we continue to be civilized or whether we regress back into barbarianism.

{{{Getting off her soapbox and apologizing for the rant.}}}

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX
 
Robin L. in TX:
I am anti-abortion, pro-life, AND pro-choice. I just happen to believe that women should only be allowed to make morally good choices, and if they make morally evil choices, those choices should not be LEGAL!

I wouldn’t want a woman to choose to post-natally abort her two-year-old either. The entire argument is ridiculous. Abortion advocates want us to believe that age, development, and location confer personhood. They talk about the viability of an infant as if newborns placed on a table, never touched or fed, are viable. I think not.

We need to take the terms back. We are pro-woman–not wanting woman to choose procedures that are bad for their health, minds, and spirits. We are pro-life–women not ready to be parents can choose new families to nurture their child, and we do have programs to help those woman who choose to parent, too.

We need to expose the ad hominem, by the beard, call to authority, and begging the question fallacies used by the pro-aborts to muddy the issue. It all boils down to “What is the unborn?” (See prolifetraining.com/ to learn how to recognize and help others recognize some of these fallacies).

If life isn’t sacred, it’s because we deny the Creator who made us, and then might makes right, and the ends justify the means–a dog eat dog world. Civilization used to be considered to have progressed as those stronger and in power cared for those weaker, and/or in need of care. These life issues before us today will determine whether we continue to be civilized or whether we regress back into barbarianism.

{{{Getting off her soapbox and apologizing for the rant.}}}

In Christ’s peace and joy,

Robin L. in TX
Click to expand...
Robin:

Well said.

You don’t need to apologize for the rant.

BTW, have you ever noticed that the only Amicus Curae briefs that NARAL and the other "Abortion Rights Groups have ever filed in the cases of the Chinese women asking for asylum on the basis that they don’t want to be FORCED to have an ABORTION by the PRC have been briefs on behalf of the People’s Rep. of China? That not one single one of these groups has filed one single brief on behalf of ANY of the women who has CHOSEN to have the child?

And, they have the GALL to call themselves PRO-CHOICE???

They’ve only been “Pro-Choice” in those instances when the choice was to have an Abortion or in support of the “Red” Chinese Government’s “CHOICE” to FORCE the women to have an Abortion!

Do you know which groups filed briefs supporting the women’s Right to Choise NOT to have an Abortion??

You guessed it - National Right to Life and people like that filed Briefs Amicus Curae supporting the Women’s Right to Choose to have the Baby…

Anybody want to argue the “Pro-Choice” position - Ask them about the above and if those groups are Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion…

Just so you know, this is the point that finally forced me to stop mindlesly repeating the NARAL/PP LINE and to look seriously at the issue. My feeling is that it will have the same result in other supporters of “Abortion Rights”.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael
 
Traditional Ang:
Robin:

Well said.

You don’t need to apologize for the rant.

BTW, have you ever noticed that the only Amicus Curae briefs that NARAL and the other "Abortion Rights Groups have ever filed in the cases of the Chinese women asking for asylum on the basis that they don’t want to be FORCED to have an ABORTION by the PRC have been briefs on behalf of the People’s Rep. of China? That not one single one of these groups has filed one single brief on behalf of ANY of the women who has CHOSEN to have the child?

And, they have the GALL to call themselves PRO-CHOICE???

They’ve only been “Pro-Choice” in those instances when the choice was to have an Abortion or in support of the “Red” Chinese Government’s “CHOICE” to FORCE the women to have an Abortion!

Do you know which groups filed briefs supporting the women’s Right to Choise NOT to have an Abortion??

You guessed it - National Right to Life and people like that filed Briefs Amicus Curae supporting the Women’s Right to Choose to have the Baby…

Anybody want to argue the “Pro-Choice” position - Ask them about the above and if those groups are Pro-Choice or Pro-Abortion…

Just so you know, this is the point that finally forced me to stop mindlesly repeating the NARAL/PP LINE and to look seriously at the issue. My feeling is that it will have the same result in other supporters of “Abortion Rights”.

Blessed are they who act to save God’s Little Ones, Michael
Click to expand...
Wow - to me more than any other point this shows what their agenda really is - death to babies, period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top