- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« So much for the champions of free inquiry | Main | Thought for the Day »

April 24, 2007

Re: Calling a Spade . . . Something Else

Anna comments on Travis's post about terms used to refer to PBA, "Partial birth abortion is the neutral term. Intact dilation and extraction is the liberal term. What it really is though is murder and it's rarely called that."

Both Travis and Anna make very good points, but the phenomenon goes beyond the pro-choicers not wanting to use the term "partial-birth abortion." Many of them get downright angry about its use, claiming that we're the ones trying to use language to deceive and manipulate. Here's a case in point.

(Explore this site at your own risk, if you go beyond the bounds of this particular post. The Daily Kosites -- Kossers? Kossacks? -- are not known for pulling their punches, and the language can get pretty filthy.)

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Re: Calling a Spade . . . Something Else:



I saw the current Newsweek "My Turn" column last night, from a woman claiming a valid situation for using partial-birth abortion:

A Woman's Choice

What amazes me is how close this child was to being completely born, with all the rights and protections that would have conferred. I have to wonder what she would say if someone suggested that the baby (yes, she calls it "the baby") was fully born, then euthanized. "That's illegal." Well, yes, but why? Because it's murder, perhaps? Why is it then so different just because the baby's knees haven't yet seen the light of day?

Maybe I'm being a little harsh, but it continues to boggle the mind the hoops people jump through to defend this procedure.

The comments to this entry are closed.