The president falsely accused Democrats of supporting infanticide, called the FBI and Justice Department leaders he’s purged from government “scum,” referred to the assembled media as “sick people,” and even admitted his proposal to punish blue states by relocating undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities was “actually my sick idea.”...Are the media going soft on Trump? If so, why? I suspect that if they are lightening up, it's because they've come to believe that constantly battering Trump has produced numbness and even sympathy. That's the effect it has on me. And the post-birth abortion lie is a very special problem. To expose the misrepresentation, you must focus on the death of infants, and that generates powerful feelings that abortion-rights proponents may fear.
The New York Times did attempt to fact-check Trump’s lie about Democrats and abortion — Trump accused Democrats of supporting doctors who “wrap the baby beautifully” before they get together with the mother and “determine whether or not they will execute the baby” — but in so doing, the outlet demonstrated it doesn’t really have a vocabulary to adequately deal with Trump.
Instead of calling Trump’s lie a lie, the Times used the euphemism “revived an inaccurate refrain” in a tweet that was widely mocked. The accompanying article goes out of its way to avoid accusing Trump of lying, instead describing him as “reviv[ing] on Saturday night what is fast becoming a standard, and inaccurate, refrain about doctors ‘executing babies.’”...
The irony is that on Saturday night, as always, the media was one of Trump’s foremost targets of abuse — yet the very outlets Trump demeans continue to bend over backward to cover him in the most favorable possible light.
২৯ এপ্রিল, ২০১৯
"Coverage of Trump’s latest rally shows how major media outlets normalize his worst excesses."
Aaron Rupar writes about the Green Bay rally at Vox:
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
২২০টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 220 এর 201 – থেকে 220"yet the very outlets Trump demeans continue to bend over backward to cover him in the most favorable possible light."
Words no longer having any meaning.
My Name Goes Here & Young Hegelian,
Thank you for explaining it. I've been increasingly confused and depressed, as I'm very grateful to my hospital for my high risk birth.
Young Hegelian, I get what you are saying, but I've read articles about the heroic work they're doing in rural area hospitals with infants born addicted to opiates in horrible situations. Just a few weeks ago I read about a severely addicted & developmentally injured infant who had been abandoned by her mother. No other relatives claimed the baby. Someone else cared for the baby in the NICU and later adopted. I have a difficult time believing that doctors or nurses would deliberately put any newborns, no matter their health or parental status, at risk.
Wrong at every turn.
Never in doubt.
Emotions cloud out reasoning.
At least wwww was hyper-critical of the MAM, likely unwittingly.
'If you give birth prematurely and your baby is around 22 weeks, it's entirely possible some hospitals will refuse to admit the child to the NICU."
I think it's horrific how some hospitals will react to a early birth below 24 weeks. But I've only read about these instances in newspaper articles, such as one instance in the UK. From the people I know personally, the hospitals always attempted to save. They were all at hospitals with level 4 NICUs. Some hospitals are great at intervening to prevent a stillbirths, yet will tell you to go to your OB/GYN the next day for a threatened miscarriage. These situations should be treated as emergencies because some can be saved with progesterone treatment.
All of that said: I've never personally heard of a situation where labor is in process and the hospital isn't all-in with attempts to stop the labor if it's early, and worked to save the baby, if labor could not be stopped.
"Althouse won't defend her statement because it is indefensible." FIDO Said. From what I read -I think Althouse gets it there is a dead baby. She seems OK with calling out the hyperbole on the right out but not the hyperbole from the left. If a being is born alive and medical care could save it and you let die is it not at best euthanasia mercy killing? In the end a decision is made to kill.
We need to remember that the gross lies launched at Bret Kavanaugh came from those who worship at the altar of abortion. The rockets weren't launched by the Open Borders lobby, or the Moar Marxism lobby, or any other interest group on the Left.
Those morally outrageous tactics came from the same crowd that treats the fetus as subhuman. These are the same people throughout history who treated Native Americans as sub-human "savages" to justify exterminating them, the same people that regarded Africans as sub-human "apes" to justify enslaving them, the same people who viewed the Jews as sub-human "parasites".
And yet we were dumbfounded at the ferocity of their attack on Kavanaugh. As if it never occurred to us that monsters who kill their own children would behave like monsters to prevent the seating of a Judge who might prevent monsters from killing more children.
During the 2016 Election, someone on Facebook got an entire thread deleted because he called Hillary a cunt. Pearls were clutched, fainting couches were deployed. But his response was priceless: "If you can't use the word cunt to describe Hillary, what good is it for?" So I'll borrow it: if you can't use a little hyperbole to defend the life of another human, what is the point of having hyperbole?
Sure, we can attempt to reason with the abortion monsters, we can invite the monsters over for dinner, laugh at the monster's jokes and compliment the monster on how good that dress looks on it. But never forget the monster shares the same philosophy that exterminated, enslaved and incinerated hundreds of millions of what it deemed "sub-human".
It's like we offer to check in on Micheal Vick's hounds without remembering their pedigree. Do not allow yourself to be surprised by anything done by someone who believes they have a right to kill their own children. These people monsters under that smile and makeup.
At least wwww was hyper-critical of the MAM, likely unwittingly.
I know what I wrote; I meant what I wrote.
The president falsely accused Democrats of supporting infanticide, called the FBI and Justice Department leaders he’s purged from government “scum,” referred to the assembled media as “sick people,” and even admitted his proposal to punish blue states by relocating undocumented immigrants to sanctuary cities was “actually my sick idea.
All true. The latter is just good politics - people in blue states have been virtue signalling about immigrants from their gated communities for some time now. They deserve to see some of the downside they've been forcing other people to endure.
w4, your comments are contradictory. Perhaps I've misundertood. Please explain.
You say:
"I've read articles about the heroic work they're doing in rural area hospitals with infants born addicted to opiates in horrible situations... I have a difficult time believing that doctors or nurses would deliberately put any newborns"
Implying that you believe the articles you've read.
But then you say:
"I've only read about these instances in newspaper articles, such as one instance in the UK. From the people I know personally, the hospitals always attempted to save. ... I've never personally heard of a situation where labor is in process and the hospital isn't all-in with attempts to stop the labor"
Implying that you do not believe the articles you've read, that you have a different direct experience.
Which is it?
wwwww: " I have a difficult time believing that doctors or nurses would deliberately put any newborns, no matter their health or parental status, at risk. "
It happened to me. My son born at 23 weeks, 22 years ago. He had a brain hemorrhage shortly thereafter which would leave him with crippling cerebral palsy. His mother and I sat threw three hours of doctors and administrators, one after another, trying to convince us to let him die.
You should have seen his smile Saturday as this wheelchair bound boy tried out his new water shoes, walking in the pool.
The Mountains of Mourning by Lois Bujold is murder mystery involves infanticide.
It's an emotional read.
The Mountains of Mourning by Lois Bujold is murder mystery involves infanticide.
It's an emotional read.
It's about changing a culture so that infanticide is no longer acceptable.
An earlier story in that universe revolved around saving unborn children, one still in the womb and one transferred to an artificial womb. The main protagonist of the series was poisoned within the womb. A struggle ensued between the child's grandfather who wanted to abort/kill the child before birth and the mother who refused. This universe also has cloning and genetic manipulation. One of the first books featured humans who had been modified to produce four arms instead of two arms and two legs because they lived and worked in low/zero gravity.
I have a difficult time believing that doctors or nurses would deliberately put any newborns, no matter their health or parental status, at risk.
That's because the practice of medicine is, traditionally, one of the great professions. It's a life-saving profession. People have a lot of admiration for doctors.
At least in my case, Roe v. Wade undermines this respect. The Hippocratic Oath is out the window. The Hippocratic Oath forbids, among other things, abortion and assisted suicide. It requires doctors to only do surgeries if there is an illness or disease. You're not supposed to do elective surgeries, just because you are paid well.
Money and the pursuit of money has corrupted the medical profession. There are pro-life doctors and nurses, but most of them are quiet, very quiet, too quiet.
Hospitals kill a lot of people accidentally. We try not to think about that. But now we have doctors intentionally killing patients, too.
So this is why the Democrats don't want any law against infanticide, because the dirty little secret is that it happens all the time. In my incident with the hospital pressuring me to let my son die, that would have been against the law.
Why I left the Democrat party is because it has become so profoundly undemocratic. Some group somewhere decides on policy and the policy must be protected even if they have to push big lies and have their allies in the press help with those lies. The people are too stupid to be allowed the truth and make their own decision.
This is why Donald Trump must be characterized as a liar, That SOB is telling the people the truth, we can't have that.
It's not your body!
It's not your body either. It only has half your DNA.
Not your property.
Stop being a ninny, please.
Your first link doesn't work and the second one does not contradict me (either technically does the Times article, although someone with poor reading comprehension might think that they have proven me a liar). Try again.
Say there was a law such that mentally ill people who have to spend more than 6 months in a sanatorium can be euthanized after those 6 months, if their doctors and their parents all agree to it.
The patients are deranged, maybe they also forgot how to speak, so they cannot contribute to the decision-making process.
Wouldn't you still want the decision to be reviewed by a court of law and an advocate be appointed to make the case against euthanasia? Is this really just between the doctors and the families?
Fernandistein,
"I almost invented the diesel engine."
That's nothing. A business client of mine and I almost invented YouTube. (We had no clue as to the advertising-supported model, though.)
All,
Think how much time would have been saved, for all of us, if Trumpit had stopped after four words:
"I haven't a clue..."
Michael K.,
"reversing Roe v Wade will seem reasonable."
Reversing this preposterous decision (the Constitution assigns absolutely zero authority to Congress over ordinary criminal law!) is essential to the Court regaining a modicum of respect. I don't expect it to happen, though. (Gahrie: I place RvW at #2. It was in first place for a long time, but then along came Gonzales v. Raich...)
"Somebody, maybe Camille Paglia, a few years ago, said that abortion should stay legal but that women who have one must acknowledge they are killing an individual."
But that will kill abortion, and in the short run--how can society survive while acknowledging the right of some humans to kill (innocent!) other?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন