CBS "Public Eye" editor Brian Montopoli explained in an April 18 post that when covering today's Supreme Court ruling upholding an abortion ban, "CBSNews.com has decided to go with this phrasing whenever possible: 'what the law calls a partial birth abortion.'"
And the reason?
"Both 'late term abortion' and 'partial birth abortion' are now phrases that signify a position, so we will use this phrasing though it is cumbersome," CBS editorial director Dick Meyer noted in an e-mail to CBS staffers.
Of course, it's cumbersome and ridiculous to imagine that language being used to describe a number of other things defined under federal law, but on a more basic level, "partial-birth abortion" is not political invective, it's descriptive layman's language to describe a medical procedure.
We often use layman's terms that are completely noncontroversial and descriptive and pertain to medical phenomena or procedures. For instance, a "heart attack" is the layman's term for the medically-correct term "myocardial infarction."
Similarly, the term "partial-birth abortion" is an accurate layman's description of the federally-banned "intact dilation and extraction" (D&X) or "intrauterine cranial decompression" (fancy words for sucking out the unborn child's brain matter and deflating the head while still in the womb).
Why is it so difficult for the media to embrace terminology that accurately and vividly describes an abortion procedure that partially births an unborn child in order to abort it?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Ken,I am shaking my head at t
April 18, 2007 - 18:05 ET by BlondeKen,
I am shaking my head at the total, total hypocricy of "what the law calls a partial birth abortion".
Perhaps we should advocate for the phrase "crack open an unborn baby's skull and suck its brains out". That kind of covers it.
What vile and disgusting people these liberals are who try to couch such a thing in a lie and a stab at "the law".
On second thought, maybe we should stick to the basics, here.
Infantacide works.
I agree, Blonde....the baby
April 18, 2007 - 20:53 ET by motherbeltI agree, Blonde....the baby is partially born, and then it is aborted. Sounds like partial-birth abortion to me.....ya think?????
That's like saying "a procedure that opponents call partial birth abortion" as opposed to what advocates call it, which is what? Oh, that's right, I forgot....it's
an issue of "women's reproductive health". I want someone to explain how abortion is a reproductive "health" issue. It's certainly a "health" issue for the baby, but......
motherbelt,It's vile.There's
April 18, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Blondemotherbelt,
It's vile.
There's nothing to "reproductive health".
As a woman, one has the right to choose to become pregnant, or not. In this day and age, it's as simple as that.
Although, I must digress...."reproductive health" means being careful. Not sleeping with people who would give one a disease...if one so chooses to sleep around.
Having said that....
There is absolutely no reason for becoming pregnant, if one chooses to sleep around indiscriminantly.
Birth control is legal.
Abortion is an idiot form of birth control.
Abortion is killing a baby. Infantacide.
Nothing less. Killing a baby.
It's actually partial birth m
April 18, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Sonny LykosIt's actually partial birth murder. But do not ever partai birth abortion turtle eggs or you'll go into the slammer.
When even as big a liberal
April 19, 2007 - 05:21 ET by motherbeltWhen even as big a liberal as (the late) Daniel Patrick Moynihan calls it "infanticide", as he did, you know you've got a problem.
Remember when Rick Santorum and Barbara Boxer debated this issue in the Senate? Boxer couldn't refute his facts, and had a meltdown! ("The baby is born when the baby is born" was one of Babs' pronouncements that will live in history). Someone posted the exchange, taken from the congressional record, on FreeRepublic; here is a link to it. It shows the panic libs experience when confronted with facts.
Santorum/Boxer Debate
I could live with that
April 18, 2007 - 18:06 ET by tumbler_2007Sure; let them call partial birth abortion "What the law calls partial birth abortion"
But while these qualifiers are in vogue, the media also ought to say abortion, not: "the right to choose." Let them stop the foolishness and write what is actually afoot in this society.
And Hillary calls it "an
April 18, 2007 - 21:05 ET by motherbeltAnd Hillary calls it "an erosion of our constitutional rights." Do you think anyone in the MSM will ask her which amendment guarantees the right to kill a baby as it is in the process of being born? Frankly, I think every representative and senator in favor of this "right" should be required to read the procedure aloud in the well of the House, and then say "and I think this should be legal."
Right you are tumbler.I wishe
April 18, 2007 - 21:12 ET by bigtimerRight you are tumbler.
I wished they would quit hiding behind the right to choose..either add on the right to choose to kill my baby, or the the right to choose to kill my baby.
(I repeated that for those in Rio Linda)
Abort even is too clinical for the masses, it sounds so okay, like I am going to have my tooth extracted, instead of I am going to get my tooth pulled..the masses understand the latter in todays society created by the leftist nanny state we live in.
I'M PRO-CHOICE, BT...10 OUT O
April 19, 2007 - 11:17 ET by TruthMongerI'M PRO-CHOICE, BT...10 OUT OF 10 BABIES WILL ALWAYS CHOOSE LIFE - IF GIVEN THE CHOICE THAT IS...
Not a choice
April 18, 2007 - 18:59 ET by c5thenMurder should never be a choice.
Terms are important
April 18, 2007 - 19:02 ET by c5then"Why is it so difficult for the media to embrace terminology that
accurately and vividly describes an abortion procedure that partially
births an unborn child in order to abort it?"
Because then 50% of those who say they are in favor of "choice" would realize that it was the dismemberment of a baby and murder.
I guess we should be happy -
April 18, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Dee BunkI guess we should be happy - we couldn't even get "what the law calls terrorists" we got "insurgents" and "freedom fighters".
Why don't they say "what the law calls right to die" instead of "right to die"?
What about "What the law
April 18, 2007 - 19:23 ET byWhat about "What the law calls traitors" or "What the law calls subversives" or "What the law calls aiding and abetting the enemy" to describe the MSM
A observation...
April 18, 2007 - 19:34 ET by goldenthroatMaybe abortion should be made retroactive to the mothers of the proponents of abortion. Think they would change their tune? Oh yeah - this falls under the 'when hell freezes over' category.
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
goldenthroat, there is an i
April 18, 2007 - 21:00 ET by motherbeltgoldenthroat, there is an issue which turns up in the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" from time to time, called "the Roe effect." It says that that there is less support for abortion now. And that this may be because the liberal women who were in favor of the "right to choose" may have aborted daughters who would have carried on in their shoes. Conservatives, on the other hand, gave birth to their babies, and raised them to be in favor of life. So in their zeal to "choose", the liberals may have "chosen" to deplete the ranks of the future generation of feminists who would fight for "choice." A sweet irony, indeed. Kind of like being hoist on their own petard.
Hi Mother, I think the filter
April 19, 2007 - 07:38 ET by ts88Hi Mother, I think the filter on the gene pool is working
What I cannot believe is th
April 18, 2007 - 19:35 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWhat I cannot believe is that we're still arguing about this procedure and whether or not it should be allowed when we know that a baby can be born and survive at 21 weeks (5 months for those of you in Rio Linda).
How can we sit by and allow this murder to go on. Quit saying infanticide... sounds like a bug spray. Just say Murder. Leftists are murderers. Anyone who supports late term abortion is a murderer.
I've always held the belief that the choice is BEFORE sex, not after pregnancy. But I do hold that for the first four weeks after conception, I can hold my nose. But I would say anything after that is murder and should be classified as murder and prosecuted.
____________________________________________________
"It's not that they're [liberals] not aware of all the things we're aware of, it's that they need to reject them in order to remain in this five-year-old utopia that they've been told is the only hope for mankind." ~ Evan Sayet
Sorry, LBZ,Matrcide, Fratrici
April 18, 2007 - 19:42 ET by BlondeSorry, LBZ,
Matrcide, Fratricide, Infanticide.
Kill your mother, kill your father, kill your baby.
It is what it is.
There are specific terms, for specific things.
"Partial Birth Abortion" is infanticide. The killing of a baby human being.
Libs
April 18, 2007 - 20:16 ET by iveseenitallIf partial-birth abortion doesn't make you realize the evil that is liberalism, nothing will. Thirty-five hundred of these murders every year (and millions of other abortions) in America, with virtually no consequences for the perpetrators. Sad and dangerous.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
our glorious president
April 18, 2007 - 21:48 ET by tumbler_2007Troops:
Let us rally a moment in support of our great President Geo. W. Bush; the forgotten man in this glorious moment of long-awaited justice. Our President is lambasted and laughed at every day in this nation; the Left as well as so many fair weather friends of his on the Right have launched open season on him;
Yet HE is the man who must be given credit for this small reversal in favor of LIFE; Geo W Bush appointed those new Supreme Court Justices who make this stupendous difference; who upheld the Constitution and the will of the American people as well. --GEORGE W. BUSH ! America will remember you for today. We applaud our President and we support him! God bless him every day of his life ! ! ! !
I do tumbler.Now we need a re
April 18, 2007 - 22:05 ET by bigtimerI do tumbler.
Now we need a real conservative to get in more than ever in '08.
SC Judges are on the line...and soon.
Thompson/Hunter/Tancredo
..hear, hear...all hail GWB -
April 19, 2007 - 11:21 ET by TruthMonger..hear, hear...all hail GWB - he's been kicking terrorist/liberal a** for almost 8 years now...
yeah he's sure kicking libera
April 19, 2007 - 11:23 ET byyeah he's sure kicking liberal a**. Republicans really took over in the 2006 election.
oh yeah and osama's still free, iraq's a terrorist training ground, and the taliban has gotten stronger.
pack it up, Syg
April 19, 2007 - 11:29 ET by tumbler_2007Get yourself a life, Kid. No more Kool Ade for you !
haha. Am I wrong? Did the r
April 19, 2007 - 11:30 ET byhaha.
Am I wrong?
Did the republicans not lose control of both houses of congress last year?
Is Osama not still running around free?
Some points...
April 19, 2007 - 11:37 ET by Mr. Bishop1. Did the Democrats lose in 1994?
2. Was last year's election, one election?
3. Is this a War on Terror, or a War on Al Qaeda, or a War on Osama bin Laden?
4. How many opportunities did Clinton have to capture or kill bin Laden?
5. How would capturing or killing bin Laden stop the War on Terror?
6. How has the War on Terror equated, suddenly, to the War on bin Laden, except for a matter of convenience for liberals?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
1. Who cares we're talking
April 19, 2007 - 11:47 ET by1. Who cares we're talking about NOW?
2. Yes it was one election, where democrats swept up based largely on American's negative view of Bush
3. I'm not sure what it is. If i had to choose one of your selections I'd say our response to 9/11 should first and foremost be a war on Al Qaeda since they're the ones that attacked us
4. Again, this has no impact on the current situation - Clinton didn't capture him but 9/11 also didn't happen under Clinton's watch
5. It wouldn't stop the War on Terror, but it would fulfill Bush's promise to capture him and hold him accountable for the murders of our innocent countrymen and women.
6. How do you not care that the leader of our enemy is free?
...the dems (not necessarily
April 19, 2007 - 12:44 ET by TruthMonger...the dems (not necessarily liberals however) may have won a midterm election that they were supposed to win historically anyway...big whoop syggie...GWB is still kicking your ass - and OBL's ass - anyway you slice it - and your drool-bucket rantings here simply help prove it:)...
By the way you mention it's wise to confirm OBL's demise...we also went in to Iraq to confirm the WMD thingy - are you libs suddenly back behind these prudent conservative philosophies now...? Make up your minds and get back to us...
Osama is still free? What you
April 19, 2007 - 11:30 ET by bassndudeOsama is still free? What you mean is we havent killed him yet. Free? Not hardly. The guy cant move around, cant go to the store, cant do squat without fear of being terminated. You call that free? How would you like to live like that?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
He's still free and unpunishe
April 19, 2007 - 11:31 ET byHe's still free and unpunished for his actions against America.
Furthermore, you have no idea where Osama is, what he's doing, or how amenable his livings conditions are.
So I take it you would have n
April 19, 2007 - 11:38 ET by bassndudeSo I take it you would have no problem living like he is. I have a good idea about his living conditions. You havent seen him make a video lately, havent even heard an audio. He will not use a phone, land line or cell. He wont even use the internet any more. He has become paranoid that the US will know where he is if he uses any of these. He dosent go out in public. He is living like a frightened little boy. This we know.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
If we had had a democrat pres
April 19, 2007 - 11:43 ET byIf we had had a democrat president in office for the past 8 years and he had failed to capture the mastermind of the most violent attack on American soil I'd be willing to bet you wouldn't be so complacent.
He's free. He's unpunished. Why is this excusable to you? I fail to see how his living conditions have anything to do with the fact that he should have been caught by now.
Capture Bin Laden
April 19, 2007 - 11:46 ET by JJVHow do you even know he's still alive?
I don't. But I do know he's
April 19, 2007 - 11:49 ET byI don't. But I do know he's not captured either way.
So if he's dead...
April 19, 2007 - 11:51 ET by JJVSo if he's dead, it really doesn't matter, does it. Or to use a phrase you guys love, Mission Accomplished....next!
Well, don't you think we shou
April 19, 2007 - 11:59 ET byWell, don't you think we should find out and confirm?
Who cares Syg? He is a non pl
April 19, 2007 - 12:05 ET by bassndudeWho cares Syg? He is a non player today. They think he is not even involved in this anymore. He as been cast aside. He cant even get money any more.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
By your rational why capture
April 19, 2007 - 12:10 ET byBy your rational why capture any criminals? Might as well just let all murderers go free.
It's called principle and accountability. I know it's not something the right is comfortable with, but it's about time they got used to it.
To argue that it's not important to catch osama is insane and disrespectful to those that died on 9/11.
Yeah...
April 19, 2007 - 12:14 ET by Mr. BishopIt's simple -- bin Laden is irrelevant. Whether he is caught or killed, the War on Terror is still the War on Terror. It will not be over with his capture or death, so why obsess over it?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Most...ridiculous...post...ev
April 19, 2007 - 12:22 ET byMost...ridiculous...post...ever...
So the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of 3,000 Americans is irrelevant?
What are you talking about.
Your grasping at straws syg.
April 19, 2007 - 12:15 ET by bassndudeYour grasping at straws syg. We know he was wounded, we know he is hidding, we know he is not a current player in this war. We are also still looking for him. He knows it. Sometimes it takes a while, but we find them. And there are many in the intelligence community that think he is dead.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass,Yeah, I'm sure if
April 19, 2007 - 12:20 ET by Dave Rbass,
Yeah, I'm sure if we just off Osama (assuming we haven't already), then all of a sudden this 1400 year old war is going to just stop. Sure it will.
Syg, you really need to go look at a map showing the Muslim controlled areas near the end of the Classical Period, just before the fall of the Byzantine Empire (the collapse of which the Muslims were partly responsible for, by the way) which helped bring about the sad period we know as the Dark Ages. Compare that to the areas they have re-conquered since the Crusades.
Maybe then you will get a little better idea of the history of all this, and why Osama is destined to be only a footnote before this centuries-long struggle actually ends-if it ever does.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Screw Osama. If he is st
April 19, 2007 - 11:53 ET by Dave RScrew Osama. If he is still alive (and I have my doubts) and hiding in a cave somewhere, his relevance (or effectiveness) to aid the cause of jihad in this nearly 1400 year-old struggle has been diminished to the point of being insignificant.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Simple
April 19, 2007 - 11:51 ET by Mr. BishopFirst, Clinton had 8-years to make it happen... he failed, yet you'd excuse it. Second, this is a war on terror, not war on bin Laden. How does his capture or death, somehow end it? Third, by what logic do you make the statement, "... he should have been caught by now."? How many fugitives do we have, in this country, that are not caught for times longer then 6-years? Osama bin Laden isn't even in this country, and his exact whereabouts are unknown. We can only guess that he is along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan, but that is not a guarantee. In addition to that... I ask again, what would his death or capture do, in terms of ending the War on Terror?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
We had a democrat in office f
April 19, 2007 - 11:54 ET by bassndudeWe had a democrat in office for 8 years and failed to do anything! OBL was involved in the first WTC bombing, in blowing up two embassies, and several attacks on US citizens, (USS Cole, Kobar towers) just to name two. That democrat was offered OBL on a platter, and he refused. OBL may not be as free as you think. According to latest intelligence, he will not come out of his hidding place, and there is only a hand full of people that know where that is. He will not meet with anyone. As a matter of fact, it has been reported that he IS hidding and scared half to death that Americans will find out where he is. His living conditions are worse now than they would be if he was captured. I for one have no problem with that. At this time, he has been relagated to history. In present day activity, he is a non player.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Syg's crickets chripping...fi
April 19, 2007 - 12:09 ET by bassndudeSyg's crickets chripping...figures.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
what do you want me to say?
April 19, 2007 - 12:11 ET bywhat do you want me to say? the argument isn't about the quality of OBL's life it's about the fact that we haven';t captured him.
Your points are irrelevant. So why would i waste my time to respond.
Oh I see. Those points are on
April 19, 2007 - 12:21 ET by bassndudeOh I see. Those points are only relavant if a republican is in office. The fact that clinton dident do squat about OBL is ok. It is only the repubs that are responsibile. Even tho, the 9/11 killers trained in the US under clinton. I get it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
holy sh.,t, Syg !
April 19, 2007 - 12:23 ET by tumbler_2007I maintain that many other enemies of our nation-- al Qaeda sympathizers --are free. YOU are CERTAINLY one of them! And you're free to dump on our President and unwilling to credit him for
Helping to end the trafficking in bloody babies at Planned Parenthood; at least the partial-birth aborted innocents. Babies actually being BORN, you coconut !
I'm willing to settle for what we can get out of ANY Republican president. But for naming responsible Supreme Court Justices BUSH earned himself our undying gratitude. --SYG -- Think of all those innocent babies who now have been given the RIGHT TO LIFE ! Dwell on that for a while; AND REMEMBER; GEORGE W. BUSH HAS ACCOMPLISHED THIS ! --HE SAVES LIVES !
INNOCENT LIVES!
the more I think about this
April 19, 2007 - 11:27 ET by tumbler_2007The more I think about it, the more I see McCain getting the GOP nomination. I'll be watching him over the coming months. He should be squaring things with the right wing of the Party; I think he's wising up.
He'll name Condi Rice for his Veep; either she or a smart Republican lady out of the provincial south. WHO ? Are you available, bigtimer ? We'll follow you and McCain.
Save a murderer, but kill all
April 19, 2007 - 07:44 ET by ts88Save a murderer, but kill all the babies you want with no limit, it's open season on the kids. Pat
lbz,Your point is well taken.
April 18, 2007 - 22:03 ET by bigtimerlbz,
Your point is well taken..the masses will understand the word murder as plain as day. Abortion is a word the masses have come to be immune too, thinking it is as easy as getting a tooth extracted (Instead of saying pulled), just about as meaningless too.
I tried to explain exactly the point you are making in another thread I think, anyway I agree...you just did a much better job.
hi BTI had to run to Walmart,
April 18, 2007 - 22:39 ET byhi BT
I had to run to Walmart, on the ride listening to Mark Levin the news came on and they had a story on "what some call partial-birth abotion" unbelievable!
ABC what some call news.
Evening bot,It is past sicken
April 18, 2007 - 22:59 ET by bigtimerEvening bot,
It is past sickeningly pathetic for me...has been for years.
Levin is the best, has been for me for years!
I don't know if others know it here, but lbz is thinking of running for office, I think he would be a great representative, we may not all agree all the time, but I want to encourage him, we need more like him to do this, instead of the empty suits, if I had known what I know now and was his age I would run too, in a heart-beat!...
Just wanted to throw that in here!
time to callit a day.the crap
April 18, 2007 - 23:05 ET bytime to callit a day.
the crap that the 'news' agencies throw at us how stupid do they think we are, anyway what' TP doing here Art Bell is on?
nite
You have a good one botg...I
April 18, 2007 - 23:19 ET by bigtimerYou have a good one botg...
I do not think I am going to be far behind you tonight.
Abortion
April 18, 2007 - 20:10 ET by pocomocoThe Democrat’s motto: Abort a baby, pick up a vote.
To put it in perspective, 1 million abortions a year equates to 1 million votes for the Democrats. And, 30 million abortions over the past 30 years has equated to 30 million votes – and counting.
This is why they continue to worship at the sacred altar of abortion. Sorry girls, but A Women’s Right To Choose hasn’t got a damn thing to do with it.
For if they found that supporting Right To Life would get them votes, there never would have been a Roe vs Wade.
It’s just a matter of expediency to them, and nothing more.
Well, I guess we won't have
April 18, 2007 - 21:08 ET by motherbeltWell, I guess we won't have to argue about it any more. SCOTUS threw it out. Do you think Liberals and feminists will let go of it now? Will we hear their usual pronouncement of "The Supreme Court has spoken" as they said when Roe v. Wade was decided? Maybe, finally, after this, they will favor letting the abortion issue go back to the states.......
...but what about the 40 mill
April 19, 2007 - 11:24 ET by TruthMonger...but what about the 40 million kids that would have been raised mostly by Dems and now starting to vote Dem...?
Abortion may actually be depleting the Dem's voting base long term...