“Babies are not babies until they are born” – NPR tells radio hosts to make sure discussions about abortions don’t sound PRO-LIFE

In the aftermath of the Alabama and Georgia laws banning abortions, NPR has taken it upon themselves to make sure that their listening audience knows that they aren’t pro-life in any way.

What they’ve done is re-issued a style guide for hosts and other talkers to use when discussing the topic of abortion that essentially scrubs the language of any pro-life bias whatsoever. While the style-guide isn’t new, they recently reposted it so that their newer hosts and talkers don’t sound pro-life.

Here are some lowlights from the guide, which can be found here:



“Babies are not babies until they are born”

The term “unborn” implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Incorrectly calling a fetus a “baby” or “the unborn” is part of the strategy used by antiabortion groups to shift language/legality/public opinion.

“Opponents call it partial-birth abortion”

Use the term intact dilation and extraction to describe the procedure, or a procedure known medically as intact dilation and extraction; opponents call it partial-birth abortion. On the latter, it is necessary to point out that the term partial-birth is used by those opposed to the procedure; simply using the phrase so-called partial birth abortion is not sufficient without explaining who’s calling it that.

“Late term” is not appropriate when referring to a late term abortion

…LATE TERM ABORTION. Though we initially believed this term carried less ideological baggage when compared with partial-birth, it still conveys the sense that the fetus is viable when the abortion is performed. It gives the impression that the abortion takes place in the 8th or 9th month. In fact, the procedure called intact dilation and extraction is performed most often in the 5th or 6th month — the second trimester — and the second trimester is not considered “late” pregnancy. Thus “late term” is not appropriate. As an alternative, call it a certain procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy and, subsequently, the procedure….

Don’t refer to them as “Abortion clinics”

NPR doesn’t use the term “abortion clinics.” We say instead, “medical or health clinics that perform abortions.” The point is to not to use abortion before the word clinic. The clinics perform other procedures and not just abortions.

Do not use the term “pro-life”

On the air, we should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s)” or derivations thereof (for example: “advocates of abortion rights”). It is acceptable to use the phrase “anti-abortion rights,” but do not use the term “pro-abortion rights”. … Do not use “pro-life” and “pro-choice” in copy except when used in the name of a group. Of course, when the terms are used in an actuality they should remain.

All of this is pretty disgusting to me, especially when they refuse to refer to the child in the womb as an unborn child. It’s an intentional move to hide the truth from their listeners and to not upset their more liberal radio fans.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
newest oldest most voted
Romeg
Member
Active Member
Romeg

Just so long as they are not biased in any way. But I’ll never know whether they are or not. I haven’t listened to NPR in more than 20 years. The closest I get to them is seeing the feeble minded Mara Liasson when she’s a member of Brett Baier’s panel.

Farmerjohn
Member
Member
Farmerjohn

Organized propaganda and pure unadulterated evil.

Buzzkill59
Member
Active Member
Buzzkill59

I gave up on NPR years ago! The evil they support outweighs by far any small amount of good they do or ever did!

jaspersilvis
Member
Active Member
jaspersilvis

When Ireland medical community were trying to stop the process of legalizing abortion, they made a great point that never in the history of medicine was there ever a case where an abortion was performed to save the life of the mother. The doctors always tried to birth the baby (natural or C-section). If the baby dies in the process, it is considered stillborn, NOT aborted. Never has an abortion been used to save the life of the mother. I wish the pro-life community would make this point and stop surrendering that language to the opposition.

jaspersilvis
Member
Active Member
jaspersilvis

Even if you call it a fetus, it is still a human being. A fetus is not some separate “thing”. It merely states the development stage of a human being.

– Zygote (fertilized egg)
– Blastocyst (5-8 days when traveling to uterus)
– Embryo (2-8 weeks)
– Fetus (9 weeks to birth; after 24 weeks, fetus has high chance of survival outside the womb)
– Infant (birth)
– Toddler (walking and minor speech)
– Child/Kid (pre-pubescent or under 13 years old)
– Adolescent (13-19 years old)
– Young Adult (under 30 years old)
– Adult (general term signifying older than 18 years)
– Middle Aged Adult
– Senior Citizen/Elderly

Every term above, from fertilized egg to senior citizen, is a term defining a stage of human development. So yeah, the baby in the mother’s womb is human, and deserves the right to be protected.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Point of order – I interrupted the stages of development to transfer my consciousness and merge with AI. So… I don’t know what that makes me but, just saying.

Army_Pilot1967
Member
Active Member
Army_Pilot1967

Murder is murder! The Left continues to pretend it isn’t murder whenever a fetus in the womb is deliberately slain. BUT IT CERTAINLY IS MURDER!!!!

Conserve 58
Member
Noble Member
Conserve 58

Far left NPR needs to have all of their tax payer funding canceled. I despise seeing my tax dollars going to support marxist traitors.

PVG
Member
Noble Member
PVG

All fed funding needs to stop immediately, NOW!

Mother124
Member
Active Member
Mother124

It should more accurately say “babies aren’t babies UNLESS THEY’RE WANTED.”

Even the screeching feminazis of The View held a “baby shower” (not a “fetus shower”) for pregnant Abby Huntsman.

Thomas-Aquinas
Member
Noble Member
Thomas-Aquinas

One minute it’s a blob of tissue. The next minute it’s a baby. It’s miraculous!

msliberty
Member
Noble Member
msliberty

Jeremiah 1:5 – “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”

It is so shocking to a right mind & heart that anyone could justify murdering a baby. Just shocking!

PlotEvil
Member
Noble Member
PlotEvil

Then an attacker cannot be prosecuted for murder if a liberal, who wants the baby, loses it in the attack. They cannot have it both ways. Who are the consistent science deniers? Not conservatives.

DemocratsRFubar
Member
Noble Member
DemocratsRFubar

Good thing my radio skips that channel. They’d be in a world of hurt if they had to sell advertising.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Hey, NPR, this is a free country, and you can use whatever words you like.

BUT, be honest. These words reflect a deliberate effort to advance a pro-abortion agenda. And, that you would be free to do IF you were honest about it, AND REFUSE TO ACCEPT ANY TAXPAYER MONEY.

See how simple that is?

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

I just read yesterday that Alabama Public TV is refusing to air an episode of the children’s program “Arthur” because it shows a gay wedding (I always suspected Mr. Ratburn was gay).

For doing this, they’ve been blasted by GLAAD, etc.

I don’t have an exact quote, but APTV said that they are trying to be responsible as they realize some children will be watching without parental supervision. My thought is that this is exactly what Public TV and the show’s producers are hoping for: unsupervised children that they can indoctrinate at taxpayers’ expense.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Avatartyman I feel sad that it had to come to this and I also feel sad that APTV is the only one that pushed back. I had heard about this Arthur episode a few weeks ago so I imagine parents gave their local stations a piece of their minds. Isn’t that what “public television” is all about?

Or does NPR and the national children’s public tv think it’s their responsibility to “guide” (read: indoctrinate) young children into the “correct” way of thinking, no matter what their parents think?

It never should have come this far in the first place.

Thomas-Aquinas
Member
Noble Member
Thomas-Aquinas

Alabama is on a roll!

Kram Nivel
Member
Noble Member
Kram Nivel

Total Death Abortion, Death Clinics, Better Late Than Never Term Deaths, Pro Death/No Life.

Fixed it.

KenInIL
Member
Member
KenInIL

Could they use the term “baby killer” instead of abortion. Abortion makes it sound so sterile.

cookiebob
Member
Trusted Member
cookiebob

I am so sad. We live in a country of murderous barbarians. And it seems we can do little about it.

They walk our streets, they have no respect for human life…

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

What’s sadder is that the government – whose sole purpose of existing is to enshrine and defend the individual’s right to life, liberty, and property – is what’s enabling it.

It’s a social and civil failure of the highest order.

Danaellen
Member
Noble Member
Danaellen

It’s cultural Marxism. All of this crap

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

An 80 year old Democrat is brain dead 80 years before he dies.

Warren Z
Member
Active Member
Warren Z

I think it’s time to remove their funding.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Warren ZWarren Z They should have done that years ago when NPR fired Juan Williams. If HE can manage to say something too conservative for them then it’s more than obvious they are far from balanced.

Warren Z
Member
Active Member
Warren Z

LOL! I remember that. I looked it up. He said on Bill O’Reilly “Look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Warren ZWarren Z I take it that’s what they fired him for? Hard to believe Williams actually made sense for once.

Warren Z
Member
Active Member
Warren Z

Indeed.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

kong1967kong1967 That was the canary in the coal mine moment for sure.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

nc checks and balancesnc checks and balances Yep.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

Ok NPR, H3ll no. Not a chance in hades you’re gonna change how I talk. Calling it anti-abortion instead of pro-life, reproduction rights or pro-choice instead of pro-abortion. Calling it a fetus, which is true, but only to not call it a baby, so that it can be something akin to a “clump of cells”. If that’s the case I’ve got a 6-year old “clump of cells” in Kindergarten, and my other “clump of cells” is turning one. How dare you! This is how we keep finding ourselves ever further from a nation conceived in liberty.. the language is the tool of the Progressive. They are very effective at manipulating language and inventing phraseology to package or create a new political reality: separation of church and state, right to privacy, gender pronouns, same sex marriage, LGBTQ (just a splendid euphemism), abortion rights, right to die, undocumented immigrant, what else? Also:… Read more »

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

Just remembered another of my favorites: Living and breathing.

Thomas-Aquinas
Member
Noble Member
Thomas-Aquinas

We’re finally starting to beat them at their own game, introducing bills like the “anti fetal dismemberment bill.” Tough to support that one.

Abesurd
Member
Active Member
Abesurd

Lefties are medical science deniers.

John14Verse6
Member
Active Member
John14Verse6

The abortion industry is spewing forth more lies, all ultimately originating with the father of lies concerning the murder of innocent babies. Not only are the babies victims, but also the mothers who are lied to & live the rest of their lives with the gnawing guilt of killing their baby, the heartbroken infertile couples unable to find babies to adopt, & our nation that has lost 60 million citizens since the US Supreme Court “legalized” murdering babies.

“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” John 8:44

expres12
Member
Active Member
expres12

Long past time npr funding should cease.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

about as easy as building a wall or repealing Obamacare or defunding Planned Parenthood.

leonrosen
Member
Member
leonrosen

Abolish NPR government support
The left is unhinged

Eric
Member
Noble Member
Eric

Fetus – a term used for babies during pregnancy to designate that they are unborn, not that they are not human… Intact dilation and extraction – in other words, inducing dilation while the baby (oops, fetus) is intact, and then ripping the baby (oops again, fetus) out piece by piece by force. A certain procedure performed after the the first trimester of the pregnancy – in other words, we don’t want to mention how heinous it really is, so we are going to be vague and unhelpful when referring to dilating the woman while the baby (dang it, I mean fetus) is violently ripped to pieces and pulled from her womb. (Can I say womb? That seems way too emotionally charged). Medical or health clinics that perform abortions – in other words, Death Mills – oops, I mean Abortion Clinics… don’t want to trigger anyone. On the air, we should… Read more »

hubman
Member
Noble Member
hubman

If we’re really going to apply strict semantics, a chicken egg is just as much a fetus as a baby in the womb. The only way to defend referring to the unborn baby as a “fetus” is if you prefix it with “human.”

So, either call it a baby, or call it a human fetus. But don’t claim “fetus” by itself is accurate, because it applies to any form of animal that has not yet been born.

And contrary to what NPR or NARAL or most of the media may thing, the pregnant woman is not having a gerbil or hamster. That’s a human being.

philliesthoughts
Member
Noble Member
philliesthoughts

NPR is beyond disgusting. Not to marginalize in any way the heinous aspect that abortion is nothing more than bloody murder they must go further and compound the problem by treating women as nothing more than dumb cows (my apologies to cows who have more sense than pro-aborts) or witless children who are not smart enough to be trusted with having the cognitive ability to handle the truth about abortion. And heaven forbid they actually talk to women like they’re adults and discuss alternatives! Any woman who buys into their narrative needs to have their head examined. There is nothing liberating or freeing about a procedure that not only is the termination of a life but puts a woman’s life in dire peril as well. I watched* the movie “Unplanned” and if a man was bleeding out like some of the women were in that movie they’d have been screaming… Read more »

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Man, sometimes I’d swear that Scoop is trying to kill me by head explosion. idea

NYGino
Editor
Noble Member
NYGino

Useful semantics, the left’s cure all to disguise the truth.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

It’s not semantics. It’s intentional euphemism. People who want to take ugly positions always hide behind euphemism to do it. The only way to fight them is to drag them out by their hair back to ice cold rational objective reality.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

Upvote that.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

It’s slid well past semantics into propaganda.

philliesthoughts
Member
Noble Member
philliesthoughts

That’s why I can never support them. They can’t win on any kind of merit but must continually lie and smoke screen what the truth of their agenda is. I feel that if they have to lie about what they really want then I want no part of what it is that they’re trying to sell.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Yes. It’s what people rely on when their position can’t stand on its merits.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

and when none of it works, pull out the old race card and brand the other side a bigot or a phobe. Victory by ad hominem works especially well when the media backs you.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

They also like poisoning the well fallacies.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

There’s a special place in hell for entities that support or aid the murder of babies. I expect it’s even hotter for those entities that try to be deceitful and mislead others into the murder of innocents. NPR should be defunded.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Here’s the counterguide: The term “unborn” implies that there is a baby inside a pregnant woman, not a fetus. Babies are not babies until they are born. They’re fetuses. Don’t use either. The most accurate term that they cannot dispute is “in utero human.” This way you don’t fall into rabbit hole traps over terminology, AND your opponent is forced to acknowledge the humanity of the being. Use the term intact dilation and extraction to describe the procedure Describe the act for what it really is, regardless of what kind of abortion it is. Use the definition: “the intentional termination of in utero human life” Force your opponent to acknowledge that this is what they support when they take any pro-abortion position. As an alternative, call it a certain procedure performed after the first trimester of pregnancy Again, force the acknowledgement of reality, regardless of when it occurs: “the elective… Read more »

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

A “fetus” is a life. So is a zygote.

“Intact dilation and extraction” is still murder.

Whether it’s the first trimester, 5th or 6th, or “late-term”, the fetus is usually still viable (alive). So an abortion at ANY of these stages is still murder.

“Medical or health (abortion) clinics that perform abortions” are still murder factories.

“Pro-life” is what we are. We are anti-murder.

They can change the language all they want but the facts remain the facts: THEY ARE MURDERS and now LIARS! NPR is and always has been rotten to the core. DEVILS!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I try not to use the word murder, even though that’s exactly the definition of intentionally and maliciously terminating a human life. It just turns the argument emotional, which doesn’t help. You have to be stone cold objective to properly fight this fight.

Just call it what it is: intentionally terminating ones in-utero human progeny.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

As I see it, here’s the liberal conundrum: if they say that a fetus has a soul, that flies in the face of their acceptance of evolution / denial of God, and that abortion is actually murder.

They’re simply taking the easy way out: women can have all the sex they want with no responsibility, and they don’t have to grow a conscience by admitting that killing a person with a soul is actually murder.

Being a liberal is such a cop out…even a dead fish can float downstream.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

I think you are onto something. To admit it is a baby would have a domino effect, and cause their entire worldview to implode. That’s why they treat abortion like a religious sacrament, it underpins their entire ideology.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

I think it really is that simple. The Bible says that “we are not ignorant” of the devil’s devices, and that’s all I see this as.

The devil wants to send as many souls to hell as possible by blinding people with lies.

There’s no way to see otherwise when you understand that God’s creation of the soul does not begin with our first cry or breath…it starts long before that. Scripture bears that out.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

thumbsup clapping

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

There’s a better way to make that argument. A) Leave God out of it. B) Point out that what they’re doing isn’t “denying the soul” but instead denying humanity. And then point out that dehumanizing a group is always the first step to rationalize a justification for killing them en masse.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

I see what you mean, but as a godly person I can’t leave God out of it as I see it as the heart of the issue.

People will always justify whatever they want…as Christ said, “wisdom is justified of all her children.”

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Be a godly person when dealing with matters of God. Otherwise, be a rational person.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

Goodness…this IS a matter of God.
When people deny the sanctity of life, there’s something seriously wrong, and no amount of trying to rationalize whether humanizing or dehumanizing will matter.

The ones who are calling for abortion on demand are the ones being irrational…just watch the video of the old lady using a two word obscenity to the yound lady holding the sign at a rally…no rational thought must exist in her head.

My original post simply called it what it is: a complete unwillingness to accept God based on a depraved mindset.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Goodness…this IS a matter of God.

Not if He doesn’t exist. Which is the first thing you have to convince a pro-bort of if you’re going to work that angle.

And that’s a non-starter.

a complete unwillingness to accept God based on a depraved mindset.

I’d rather they accept not killing tiny humans first. Getting them to accept God is a much bigger, much more difficult goal. We can worry about saving their souls after we save the little ones.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

In my original post I didn’t say anything about how to deal with them, as I don’t know how to deal with someone who doesn’t have a conscience when it comes to taking innocent life. Just because religion or God maybe shouldn’t be brought up doesn’t negate the fact that they are playing with consequences they don’t seem to understand. They have been blinded by the devil and his lies. I was only saying what I believe their conundrum to be, and I stand by that: they believe that their refusal to acknowledge God in any way absolves them of any guilt (out of sight, out of mind). But it is a matter of God when innocent life is taken all in the name of immorality. They don’t seem to have any conception that at some point they will have to give an account for this. When I say “accept… Read more »

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

They have been blinded by the devil and his lies. And telling them that will accomplish nothing but getting them to roll their eyes. I’m a poet and I didn’t even know it. their refusal to acknowledge God in any way absolves them of any guilt No. It’s their moral relativism that does that. But it is a matter of God when innocent life is taken all in the name of immorality. Not if God doesn’t exist. Which is the case you have to make BEFORE you can make a case about whether it’s moral or immoral to take innocent life. Or you can just skip it all together and go straight to the moral question. Until their souls are saved, and God convicts them of the wrong they’re committing, I’m afraid the little ones won’t be saved. Or we could just pass a law and criminalize the activity. It… Read more »

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

You seem to have completely missed the point of my original post: I never said that this would be part of a discussion with them….I was only making an observation about what I see their problem is. I’m sure they’d roll their eyes….I guess God just rolls his eyes at them. Again, you missed two words in my original quote: “they believe”. My thought is they believe that if God doesn’t exist, they can do whatever they want. Moral relativism? Philosophy may or may not work in this life, but being lost in eternity is a far greater consequence of their behavior. It’s not just the in utero humans that I’m concerned about. Just because a wrong is committed doesn’t take God out of it…again, I never said or implied this would be in a discussion with them: I realize they’ll never be convinced of this. They have no morals… Read more »

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

Rationalism is just someone’s opinions.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

You’re right. I don’t know why we even bothered figuring out logic or proving incontrovertible facts. What a stupid waste of time.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

Logic and reason has its place, but it’s not the end all be all. Reason alone can’t even get you to “love thy neighbor”. And trying to use logic and reason on people who clearly have an emotional argument is ineffective.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Reason alone can’t even get you to “love thy neighbor”.

Sure it can, if there’s a sound and valid set of premises in order to derive such a conclusion.

If there’s not, then perhaps said conclusion needs re-evaluation.

And trying to use logic and reason on people who clearly have an emotional argument is ineffective.

Only if they’re 100% committed to irrationality. In which case, they’re a lost cause no matter what the approach.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

Sure it can, if there’s a sound and valid set of premises in order to derive such a conclusion.

Okay, good luck using reason to bring about world peace.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Why on earth would I want world peace?

That’s a recipe for stagnation. No thanks.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Avatartyman I agree with AT in the sense that if you are trying to advance your argument (or as I prefer, “discussion”) with a liberal who hasn’t thought this through, unless you know they are a religious person, bringing God into the discussion won’t help your case.

Of course it’s meaningful to you, and eventually it can be meaningful to others. But the case for life can be made on a “scientific” basis.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

If you go back to my original post, I never said that this is what you should say in an argument. I was merely stating what I feel their problem is.

At the roof of it is spiritual decay: people leaving God out of their lives, and trying to fill up the void with all manner of depravity.

I’ve talked to enough people to know that you will NEVER convince them to do the right thing if they do NOT want to do it.

Yes, the life case is scientific, but my point is that the soul is created at conception.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Avatartyman I’m sorry, that wasn’t clear to me. So I guess we agree.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

One’s view about God is often intertwined with their view of humanity. Which group values life more, the one that believes we are created in the image of God, or the one who believe we’re all a bunch of cosmic accidents? There is a correlation between the two. I’d wager if you convince someone there is a God, their views on abortion would change as well. I’m not saying that is the only approach to use, but that it’s not without merit. Whatever works.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I’d wager if you convince someone there is a God, their views on abortion would change as well.

That is the mentality of the born agains. So busy trying to make new converts that they’ll watch a few million babies die rather than make an effective argument to convince people not to do it.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

Uh no. “Born Agains” are the biggest pro-life proponents there are, which is exactly my point. Change their hearts and you change their minds. And I didn’t say it was the only approach, I said whatever works.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

“Born Agains” are the biggest pro-life proponents there are, which is exactly my point.

Pssh, biggest doesn’t mean best. Those guys shoot the movement in the foot worse than anyone around. Sometimes I wonder if they’re even on our side, or if they’re secretly on the pro-abortion side masking as anti-abortion in order to undermine us by making us look as stupid and irrational as possible.

Change their hearts and you change their minds.

It’s a lot easier to convince someone of an objective scientific fact than it is a subjective spiritual belief.

If someone were about to do harm to another, you’d just stop them. You wouldn’t try to sell them a Bible first.

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

It’s a lot easier to convince someone of an objective scientific fact than it is a subjective spiritual belief.

Scientific facts alone isn’t going to get someone to value life. Life can really only be valued it is transcendent, otherwise why does it matter. And the answer to those questions about life can’t be answered by science.

If someone were about to do harm to another, you’d just stop them. You wouldn’t try to sell them a Bible first.

In the short term you do what you must, but in the long term it does have a positive effect on the culture. It was the bible after all that tamed the vikings and barbarian tribes.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Scientific facts alone isn’t going to get someone to value life. You don’t need to get them to value life. Hell, I don’t value life. If half the world’s population dropped dead I’d be like, “Oh, huh. That was weird.” and then I’d go back to playing Angry Birds. But I do respect the fact that human beings have rights, including a right to not have their lives deprived by others. And that’s something you CAN convince people of. You can convince them that a thing is human, biologically and genetically. You can convince them that human beings have rights, and emphasize this by pointing out that this is something they themselves accept. THAT’S how you make an effective argument. You take what’s real and you put it on display. In the short term you do what you must, but in the long term it does have a positive effect… Read more »

JJB
Member
Member
JJB

The Left is completely against the death penalty for people who commit murder but have no problem at all of killing the unborn and in New York and Va., even killing the baby when it is out of the womb.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

It also serves the anti-abortion argument to be against the death penalty (it’s also the more moral position). That way you can side-step any accusations of hypocrisy, and level haymakers at them like, “Do you believe that humans should be in the business of killing other humans?”

xsnake
Member
Member
xsnake

….and when a pregnant woman is murdered, if the fetus also dies….perp charged with TWO murders.

tyman
Member
Active Member
tyman

Exactly! The only difference is the child is wanted in that case; in the case of abortion, the mother wants to discard the child like a piece of trash.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

That depends on what state you’re in. New York no longer has charges for the baby’s death since they passed their infanticide bill. I’m unsure if any other state ignores the baby’s life.

xsnake
Member
Member
xsnake

I expect that when it happens again, the husband’s lawyer’s will challenge all the way to the SCOTUS.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

I am so freakin’ sick and tired of our tax dollars going to leftwing garbage like this. News orgs should be unbiased especially one that is funded by our tax dollars. It’s bad enough that PP gets so many federal dollars for their immoral murderous business that turns a profit, but we also have to fund these exclamation propagandists!

Proud Veteran
Member
Active Member
Proud Veteran

And why exactly are tax payers subsidizing this democrat propaganda TV channel? I agree completely with sjmom below, someone needs to take there butts to court. I don’t appreciate & approve of my taxes paying for this trash channel. exclamation mad

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

That gives quite a lot of insight how they use language to control the narrative. So according to them a fetus isn’t a human baby until it passes through the birth canal, then something magical happens to transform it into a baby. And they accuse us of being anti-science.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

1000 thumbsup

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

NPR is subsidized by the taxpayers so this should be taken to court. Hope someone does.

Back to Top of Comments