Coverage of Aurora Planned Parenthood protest
I was pleasantly surprised news organizations covering the Aurora Planned Parenthood protest Saturday approximated our numbers accurately, calling it “huge” even. Good photo in the Daily Herald.
But there were other signs of bias. Sometimes it is subtle, but it’s usually there.
Chicago Tribune:
… Efforts to shutter the clinic continued with an abortion protest Aug. 16 that drew 400 abortion opponents… and a few dozen abortion-rights proponents….
Why are we “abortion opponents” and they “abortion-rights proponents”? The word “rights” codifies their position….
The Aurora Beacon News, a member of the liberal Chicago Sun-Times news group:
Police estimated that 1,200 people peacefully picketed… with the large majority of them being anti-abortion advocates carrying signs, praying the rosary or chanting slogans.
They heavily outnumbered the 20 or so pro-choice advocates….
The Sun-Times News Group is behind the times, likely on purpose. The bigger news organizations do not use the word “pro-choice” any longer.
That said, I hope you’re sitting down for the next example, from the AP:
More than 1,000 abortion protesters gathered today outside Aurora’s Planned Parenthood facility that’s under construction…..
About 25 pro-abortion protesters also showed up to today’s event.
My oh my. “Pro-abortion” rather than “pro-choice”?!
Fox News Chicago was quite fair, calling us “pro-life”:
Thanks to moderator Bethany for preparing the direct link to the Fox News video.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Ha! When’s the next picket? Sign me up! We will never stop, ever!
The term pro-choice is a euphemism for the term pro-abortion. What is interesting to me is that abortion itself is a euphemism. Abort means to stop a process. On the Feminists for Life site, I found quotes from famous feminists using the term of their day, child murder. We pro-life folk are against the murder of children. The point of using a euphemism is so you don’t have to use the direct description. If you ask people if we should legally be able to kill children, they say “no”. If you ask if we should legally be able to stop a process in our own body, the issue is clouded. If you further cloud the issue by asking if we should be allowed the “choice” to have children then you can get even more people to follow along because the question doesn’t use the direct description. In this case a euphemism isn’t enough to gain support, therefore a euphemism for the euphemism had to be invented.
Hippie,
I agree completely, but i’m feeling a little dizzy.
My John pointed out to me on Saturday that someone had placed two crosses over the “N”‘s in Planned Parenthood on their sign…if you look closely you can see them in the video…too funny that they made it onto Fox News!
Bethany just sent me this video…notice how peaceful Saturdays demonstration was compared to these…not that I expect many of you from the pro-choice side to watch it all the way thru…but on the odd chance…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TVJrDmhn8g&mode=related&search
Pro Choicers are not all that tolerant.
Hippie: The term pro-choice is a euphemism for the term pro-abortion. What is interesting to me is that abortion itself is a euphemism. Abort means to stop a process. On the Feminists for Life site, I found quotes from famous feminists using the term of their day, child murder. We pro-life folk are against the murder of children.
No – being for the choice, either way, is not the same thing as actually being “for abortion.”
Pro-Choicers are also against the murder of children. Regardless of how much you don’t like abortion, it’s not murder. That’s a legal term, independent of your opinion.
Doug
Doug,
Pro-Choicers are also against the murder of children. Regardless of how much you don’t like abortion, it’s not murder. That’s a legal term, independent of your opinion.
Abortion is legal today, so for today, according to the strictest definition, it is not murder.
Abortion was not legal 35 years ago, and so for then, it was murder.
Abortion may be illegal 10 years from now, and it will once again be murder.
If I kill a woman that is pregnant today, in some states it will be considered murder.
If I kill a woman that is pregnant in other states today, it might not be considered murder.
In one state it is murder through the whole pregnancy.
In other states it is murder only past viability.
Do you see where your insane theory of moral relativism gets you?
The fact that murder can so easily be defined and redefined, to me, is permission for anyone to call it murder at their whim.
Well my whim is to call abortion murder always.
You can argue all you want, but your “definition” stinks. It can’t even make up it’s own mind.
Doug, an abortion IS murder.
Bravo MK!
The term pro-choice is a euphemism for the term pro-abortion. What is interesting to me is that abortion itself is a euphemism. Abort means to stop a process. On the Feminists for Life site, I found quotes from famous feminists using the term of their day, child murder. We pro-life folk are against the murder of children. The point of using a euphemism is so you don’t have to use the direct description. If you ask people if we should legally be able to kill children, they say “no”. If you ask if we should legally be able to stop a process in our own body, the issue is clouded. If you further cloud the issue by asking if we should be allowed the “choice” to have children then you can get even more people to follow along because the question doesn’t use the direct description. In this case a euphemism isn’t enough to gain support, therefore a euphemism for the euphemism had to be invented.
Posted by: hippie at August 27, 2007 3:31 PM
The cloud is your maryjane brain. Having a shroom flashback whenever doesn’t impress anyone.
Doug, an abortion IS murder.
No, Heather, it’s not. No matter how much you don’t like the idea of abortion, that does not make it “murder.”
“Pro-Choicers are also against the murder of children. Regardless of how much you don’t like abortion, it’s not murder. That’s a legal term, independent of your opinion.”
MK: Abortion is legal today, so for today, according to the strictest definition, it is not murder. Abortion was not legal 35 years ago, and so for then, it was murder.
Nope. While the act of abortion was indeed illegal in more circumstances than it is now, it was not “murder.”
…….
MK: Abortion may be illegal 10 years from now, and it will once again be murder.
You don’t know that. Might be – I strongly doubt it – but it could be, yes.
……..
If I kill a woman that is pregnant today, in some states it will be considered murder.
Hey – we agree on something.
……..
If I kill a woman that is pregnant in other states today, it might not be considered murder.
Nope, there I disagree. Unless you can claim self-defense against the woman, etc., you’re likely gonna go down.
……..
In one state it is murder through the whole pregnancy.
I can only conclude here that you are really not talking about killing the woman, but about killing the unborn/making the woman lose a wanted pregnancy. Well hey – Pro-Choice is not about saying that Joe Blow should be able to harm somebody’s wanted pregnancy.
……..
In other states it is murder only past viability.
As a special cricumstances rider to some laws, I do think so, there.
……..
Do you see where your insane theory of moral relativism gets you?
What is the world is that? Do you seriously think that people are “for” third-parties being able to harm somebody’s wanted pregnancy? Where do you see the disagreement on that?
……..
The fact that murder can so easily be defined and redefined, to me, is permission for anyone to call it murder at their whim.
Well, your whims are not shared by everyone.
……..
Well my whim is to call abortion murder always.
There ya go, as above. Tthe obvious point is that while you may not like the idea of abortion, your likes and dislikes are not what make for “murder.”
……..
You can argue all you want, but your “definition” stinks. It can’t even make up it’s own mind.
Oh please. When did you ask what my definition was? You didn’t. How about “the illegal killing of a legal human being”? The status must be there, by law, and the law must consider it illegal. Otherwise, it ain’t murder.
Doug
Doug,
“the illegal killing of a legal human being”? The status must be there, by law, and the law must consider it illegal. Otherwise, it ain’t murder.
I just went step by step showing how sometimes you can be charged with the “murder” of a fetus and sometimes you can’t, depending the the place, year and viability issues…On June 14, 2007 in Alabama it might be considered murder to kill a 9 week old fetus, but on June 14, 2007 in Washington state it might NOT be considered murder…
This would be call an INCONSISTENCY. Apparently others do agree with my “valuation”…but the definition of murder when it comes to a fetus is so changeable as to be ridiculous…
Since, the definition of murder (when it pertains to a fetus) can be so easily toyed with and changed on a whim, my whim is to always call it murder. Your whim, because you pretend to believe that it is never murder or that changing the definition of murder for a fetus, is perfectly okay. How do you live in a world where “reality” is so fluid?
And I asked you earlier, but you didn’t answer, what your response to abortion will be if and WHEN it is made illegal?
Doug,
and please site your sources claiming that abortion was not considered murder before roe vs wade…
Doug,
Looks like murder, walks like murder…
http://www.abortionfacts.com/court_cases/roe/court_opinion_blackmun_part_2.asp
5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough’s Act that related to a woman “quick with child.” n29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. n30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation n31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it “shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose.” By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, n32 only eight American States [*139] had [**720] statutes dealing with abortion. n33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severelywith abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother’s life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.
Doug, abortion IS murder. I’m not into writing a lengthy post. This is what I believe.
“the illegal killing of a legal human being”? The status must be there, by law, and the law must consider it illegal. Otherwise, it ain’t murder.”
MK: I just went step by step showing how sometimes you can be charged with the “murder” of a fetus and sometimes you can’t, depending the the place, year and viability issues…On June 14, 2007 in Alabama it might be considered murder to kill a 9 week old fetus, but on June 14, 2007 in Washington state it might NOT be considered murder…
Right, because the laws are different, and the law is what makes for murder or not.
…….
This would be call an INCONSISTENCY. Apparently others do agree with my “valuation”…but the definition of murder when it comes to a fetus is so changeable as to be ridiculous…
It’s not ridiculous, it’s just laws being different.
……..
Since, the definition of murder (when it pertains to a fetus) can be so easily toyed with and changed on a whim, my whim is to always call it murder. Your whim, because you pretend to believe that it is never murder or that changing the definition of murder for a fetus, is perfectly okay. How do you live in a world where “reality” is so fluid?
Reality is that your likes and dislikes don’t make for “murder” or not. Yes, a given action in given circumstances might be murder in one place and not in another. That’s not my whim or your whim, that’s just fact.
……..
And I asked you earlier, but you didn’t answer, what your response to abortion will be if and WHEN it is made illegal?
Sorry if I missed it, MK. I did make one reply saying that I wouldn’t agree with society’s dictates, there, just as I don’t agree with all of them now.
Doug
Doug, abortion IS murder. I’m not into writing a lengthy post. This is what I believe.
It’s not a big deal, Heather. I know you don’t like the idea of abortion, and you can say anything, and call it anything you like, but the fact is that murder isn’t dependent on your preferences, but upon the law.
Doug
MK: please site your sources claiming that abortion was not considered murder before roe vs wade…
This has come up repeatedly on abortion debate boards, and I’ve never seen proof that it was treated as murder. Many people think that illegal abortion = abortion being murder, but though a given action may be prohibited under law, in no way is that by itself sufficient for murder to be deemed.
……..
The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough’s Act that related to a woman “quick with child.” n29 The death penalty was not imposed.
Common Law held that abortion was okay to “quickening” around 4-6 months. After that it wasn’t considered okay but also was not considered murder. Nothing so far about murder….
…….
Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. n30 In 1828, New York enacted legislation n31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it “shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose.”
Okay – good point about 2nd degree manslaughter, but I do not think it was actually treated as murder. I guess I was wrong about abortion not being considered murder – I should have qualified it to reflect that some states did at least have laws on the books. The question remains if doctors were actually prosecuted for it – this is where I’ve never seen proof that they generally were, or even substantially so.
By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, n32 only eight American States [*139] had [**720] statutes dealing with abortion. n33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. Most of these initial statutes dealt severely with abortion after quickening but were lenient with it before quickening. Most punished attempts equally with completed abortions. While many statutes included the exception for an abortion thought by one or more physicians to be necessary to save the mother’s life, that provision soon disappeared and the typical law required that the procedure actually be necessary for that purpose.
Nothing there about murder, either, so we’re left with New York and apparently some other states having late-term abortion be 2nd degree manslaughter. I don’t think that charges of such, even though possible under the laws, were in fact applied to any great degree. Perhaps I should have said, “not treated as murder before Roe.”
Doug
Abortion was not legal 35 years ago, and so for then, it was murder.
***********************
No, it wasnt. Abortion has never been considered ‘murder’ in the US. Its a simple matter of the meaning of the word.