Infant Mortality

Friday, March 26, 2010

Transcript

During debate last weekend on the health care bill, Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) yelled out "It's a baby killer!" on the House floor and, in doing so, joined legions who have invoked this powerful defamation. American University professor Allan Lichtman says the phrase holds a prominent place in the catalog of public accusations.

    Music Playlist
  • Centralia (Washington-California)
    Artist: by Norfolk & Western

Comments [8]

Melissa G

With the discussion of the term "baby killers" it becomes a sincere topic when it's conveyed in a certain way. When looking back at the rights of abortion it is pretty hard to convince others that at the time of abortion the baby would be "alive" This brings new heights to the reasons women get them done in the first place. There are several situations that may come into play between conception and accually finding out you are pregnant. Not everyone is prepare to take on a new responsiblity, some could just want it due to incest and rape, but either way I feel that no one in the media could disagree with abortion until they have experienced it themselves. And to discuss why the media raises eyes when they use the term "baby killer" is becuase the society would be most concered if babies or kids are involed. They are the eyes of the future.

Apr. 26 2011 10:58 PM
Chris Gray from New Haven, CT

The thing about controversy, sometimes time and new information changes them. Once America was incensed over support for an artwork with a crucifix submerged in urine. In light of the now world-wide controversy about a conspiracy of silence about pedophile priesthoods, we might now see this as a private cry about a suffering shared.

With a similar scandal brewing in scouting, it could be said that we don't care too well for the babies we do allow to or demand survive.

Apr. 02 2010 11:02 AM
Janet from Chicago, USA

Regarding Clint's comment, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynocology has several recent research abstracts regarding the positive effect of pregnancy on the human female body. Pregnancy is in no way detrimental to health. It is a normal condition for which the human body is very well suited. Abortion, on the converse, is the single best predictor of breast cancer, among negative associations too numerous to list, including strong association with domestic violence against women. Abortion is simply not pro-woman.

It certainly is 'pro-player,' though. Come stand outside an abortion clinic any Saturday morning and watch 'choice' in action. It's no different from the burqa controversy. Women are being hustled into abortion, and we need a law to protect them, just as women are hustled into burqas. The pressure is very subtle, and as we see here, the woman is poised against her baby rather than against the man who won't marry and support her and the society that won't love them both.

Tiller WAS a baby killer. Our society kills babies. Own it.

Mar. 30 2010 02:16 PM
Clint from Bethlehem, PA

Like Rick Wicks above, I don't think that the issue is "when life begins." By claiming that it is, and by using abstract terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life," you ignore the health and other vital interests of pregnant women. A pregnant woman's "choice" is not just an abstraction; it's about her life.

When these conversations do not explicitly consider the interests of the pregnant woman, they put women's control over their own bodies and lives at risk. Oversimplifying, the issue is "pro-woman" versus "pro-fetus."

Mar. 28 2010 01:52 PM
seagram

great segment. very enlightening about the use of language to dehumanize perceived enemies.

Mar. 28 2010 10:51 AM
Janet from Chicago, USA

I listened to the commentator say how inappropriate it was to call late term abortionist George Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer." No grounds were given for this opinion except, apparently, that it is so rude that there is no ground left for constructive discussion. However, that is not how the appropriateness for terms is judged. They are judged on their accuracy, or they are double-speak. The man killed 'creatures' whose DNA said they were human, who could have survived outside the womb if they had been delivered, who had hands and feet and brains and eyes and hearts. They were babies. He killed them. What else should he be called? Please, this is a life and death issue for some people--namely, those small ones who died. Enough of your false courtesy. NPR never made me sicker.

Mar. 27 2010 04:52 PM
Rob from NY

Accusations and bold faced lies against The Tea Party movement are treated as fact yet when the reporter speaks of leftist protesters in the 1960's accusing Vietnam Vets of atrocities, she uses the term "reports" to protect those leftist protesters.
The Iraq invasion of Kuwait caused even worse atrocities than the false ones mentioned and of course no description in the peice about the US being accused of atrocities BY THE LEFT during the sanctions against Iraq.
Also notice how the reporter glosses over World War Two and never mentions the Jonestown Massace in 1978 when hundreds of small children were murdered in the name of Marxism and socialism by the Marxist
Jim Jones who was a strong political ally of several Democrat politicians in California who by befriending Jones ultimately contributed to the tragedy.

I realize you have a left-wing narrative you must keep to but please grow up and be professional. Your not fooling anyone.

Mar. 27 2010 01:02 PM
Rick Wicks from Göteborg, Sverige (Sweden) - Alaska voter!

Does anyone seriously believe that even sperm and eggs are not "alive"? As Michael Moore said recently, they don't run on battery packs!

The question isn't when life begins -- and saying that it is plays into the hands of those who would use the power of Big Government to ban abortions.

The question is when does the Government have the right to interfere to protect the life of the developing fetus, baby, whatever you wish to call it. When does it become a human being worthy of Government interest? That's a discussion we can have -- but not "when life begins". Life begin 4 billion years ago and is continuous, or we wouldn't be here.

Mar. 27 2010 10:08 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.