Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Liberal doesn't always equal pro-choice


 

Poll

Question: Please vote:

Options:

Conservative: pro-life

Liberal: pro-life

Conservative: pro-choice

Liberal: pro-choice

can't decide


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 63

View Results

How does a person who seemingly opposes biased information manage to author such a biased article?

Inconvenient Headlines

Mona Charen's column is released once a week.

It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.

It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion — a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.

But recent headlines have not been similarly cooperative. In Florida, the legislature is considering a variant of the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," which would require that abortionists provide medical assistance to infants who are "accidentally" born alive and kicking during an abortion. (Then State Senator Barack Obama vociferously opposed similar legislation in Illinois.)

Ms. Alisa LaPolt Snow, representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified against the bill. Florida representative Jim Boyd, apparently unsure that he had understood her correctly, asked:

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I'm almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?"

Ms. Snow responded that her organization "believes that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family and the physician." In short, as the Weekly Standard summarized, Florida Planned Parenthood is in favor of "post-birth abortion." This is consistent with the position of the president of the United States and most members of the caring party.

Ms. Snow was asked why she didn't support simply transporting a breathing, moving infant to a hospital where he or she would have the best chance of survival. Snow developed a sudden concern for ambulance convenience: "(T)hose situations where it is in a rural health care setting, the hospital is 45 minutes or an hour away, that's the closest trauma center or emergency room. You know there's just some logistical issues involved that we have some concerns about." Really? Logistical concerns?

So if a baby is brought to a rural clinic suffering from, say, meningitis, and the nearest trauma center is 45 minutes away, does Planned Parenthood have "concerns" about the "logistical issues" involved? Or does Planned Parenthood stand for the principle that when a woman chooses abortion, she is entitled to a dead baby?

Snow's testimony comes at an inopportune moment for the deniers — the "abortion rights" absolutists who hotly deny that infants are ever born alive during botched abortions — because in Philadelphia, an abortionist is on trial.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is on trial for murder in the deaths of one woman and seven second trimester babies. The 41-year-old woman had sought an abortion and was given an overdose of narcotics at Gosnell's clinic. The seven babies were all born alive, according to the indictment. Gosnell then used scissors to "snip" their spinal columns. One of his assistants, who pled guilty to third-degree murder, said that such "snippings" were "routine" for late-term abortions — so there were probably many more than seven.

Gosnell wasn't at all particular about gestational age. An ultrasound technician recorded the age of one baby as 29.4 weeks, or about 7.5 months. In Pennsylvania, abortions are not permitted after 24 weeks (and survival is above 85 percent for babies born at 27 weeks). In one case, a nurse testified that a baby cried after being born. Gosnell snipped his neck and told the nurse that there was nothing to worry about. He was placed in a basin on a counter. Another large baby was disposed of in a shoebox, but he was too large and his feet dangled over the sides. In another case, Gosnell allegedly joked with a nurse that a baby was so big "he could have walked to the bus stop."

Gosnell seems to be a particularly freakish "provider." He kept fetal feet in jars in an office prosecutors described as a "house of horrors." (Pictures are on the Internet, but beware: They are graphic.)

Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer of California who engaged in an unwise colloquy with then-Senator Rick Santorum about when infants deserve to be treated as people, spoke for many of the caring elite when she said that life begins when "you take the baby home from the hospital."

Some day, our descendants will look back at this and ask how we could have tamely accepted such barbarism. A special obloquy will attach to the Orwellians who call it compassion.


by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 7:17 AM
Replies (21-30):
AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:32 AM
I'm glad you liked it. I've been snickering to myself ever since I typed it

Quoting Bookwormy:

I should get a hanger inscribed to say, "Anti-Privacy Compassion: G-d Hates You".



Thanks for brilliant idea!





Quoting AdrianneHill:I keep special scissors with the words Liberal Compassion inscribed on one blade. The other blade says God hates you

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:35 AM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting Billiejeens:

 

 

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Billiejeens:

I normally only skim articles, but since Mona Charen is an icon, I took the time to actually read it.

What did you find biased?


It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.

It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion — a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.

 

 I am of the understanding that you mean the red part.

How is it bias to state the Liberal Position?

It is biased to isolate a liberal position without context, which the author does by 1) omitting the fact that social conservatives also believe they are the "moral" party;  and 2) writing an entire piece without mentioning the actual rationale behind the liberal pro-choice position (which is about women's liberty over their own bodies). 

Of course the piece is biased -- it's intent is to not simply inform, but to persuade the reader that liberals are not, in fact, moral people. 

Euphoric
by Bazinga! on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:41 AM

 Ditto

Quoting rfurlongg:

I never met anyone that fits in a neat little label box.

 

www.cafemom.com/group/116692
jehosoba84
by Jenn on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

 The things described in this article are horrifying! What is wrong with that doctor's head?  He's so detatched from his own humanity that he can kill living and breathing babies with scissors and not even blink an eye!

Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:42 AM

 


Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

 

Quoting Billiejeens:

 

 

Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Billiejeens:

I normally only skim articles, but since Mona Charen is an icon, I took the time to actually read it.

What did you find biased?


It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.

It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion — a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.

 

 I am of the understanding that you mean the red part.

How is it bias to state the Liberal Position?

It is biased to isolate a liberal position without context, which the author does by 1) omitting the fact that social conservatives also believe they are the "moral" party;  and 2) writing an entire piece without mentioning the actual rationale behind the liberal pro-choice position (which is about women's liberty over their own bodies). 

Of course the piece is biased -- it's intent is to not simply inform, but to persuade the reader that liberals are not, in fact, moral people. 


 Apparently you did not, read and/or understand the article.

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 10:58 AM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting Billiejeens: 

 Apparently you did not, read and/or understand the article/

Nope, I read it, and correctly determined the author's goal in writing the piece.  If you've got a different interpretation - state it.  If you can't, that's okay too -- not everyone has post 8th grade reading comprehension skills.

Billiejeens
by Gold Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 11:03 AM

 


Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

 

Quoting Billiejeens: 

 Apparently you did not, read and/or understand the article/

Nope, I read it, and correctly determined the author's goal in writing the piece.  If you've got a different interpretation - state it.  If you can't, that's okay too -- not everyone has post 8th grade reading comprehension skills.


 No need to get grumpy - JJ.

MsDenuninani
by Silver Member on Apr. 2, 2013 at 11:16 AM
1 mom liked this

 


Quoting Billiejeens:

 

 

Quoting MsDenuninani:

 

 

Quoting Billiejeens: 

 Apparently you did not, read and/or understand the article/

Nope, I read it, and correctly determined the author's goal in writing the piece.  If you've got a different interpretation - state it.  If you can't, that's okay too -- not everyone has post 8th grade reading comprehension skills.

 

 No need to get grumpy - JJ.

Not grumpy - genuinely baffled that the purpose of the article is not obvious to you. After all, I'm not calling the author dumb, or wrong.  Just biased.  She's writing persuasively - when you write persuasively, you're going to be biased.  (I'm not persuaded because I know better.)

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 12:18 PM


Quoting Billiejeens:



Quoting Veni.Vidi.Vici.:


Quoting Billiejeens:

I normally only skim articles, but since Mona Charen is an icon, I took the time to actually read it.

What did you find biased?


It's a deeply felt conviction among liberals that they are the caring party. It's not too much to say that liberals are quite confident that they are nicer, more moral people than conservatives.

It must require truly titanic powers of denial for the "moral" and "compassionate" party to maintain its position on abortion — a position that leads them into some macabre rationalizations. Consciences among the morally superior party are agreeably quiescent.


 I am of the understanding that you mean the red part.

How is it bias to state the Liberal Position?

I don't find people to be politically 'typical' in this day an age. FTR I'm no longer a SAHM. =)

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Apr. 2, 2013 at 12:19 PM


Quoting rfurlongg:

I never met anyone that fits in a neat little label box.

THANK YOU!

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN