Hat tip to The Other McCain for this:
[T]he MSM has barely covered a story that could plausibly be named “The Trial of the Century”. And that demands explanation. So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.
To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.
But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”
Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.
What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion.
This gem of a quote comes from Meghan McArdle at the Daily Beast. Part of a larger column that you can read in its entirety here. Having just finished the column as of this writing, I was ready to pounce. The quote from TOM made it seem as though she was going to start profusely defending the abortion industry that she, by her own admission, supports. And then I read further.
The article from the Beast appears to double as a defense against those who are skeptical of McArdle's motives for not covering the Gosnell story, and insisting that Gosnell isn't the rule, but rather the exception, with a dash of "how could this possibly have gone wrong?" thrown in for neutrality purposes. It's an attempt to be Switzerland while at the same time trying to side with the Viccy French. McArdle admits freely to being pro-choice (itself a biased term that stands in for "pro-abortion") but insists in the same article that Gosnell's practices aren't the end result of making abortion legal.
Obviously if you're reading this, you want my take on the issue. Well, I think Ms. McArdle is simply trying to jump through any hoop she feels is necessary to jump through in order to spin the Gosnell story in a favorable light for the pro-abortion crowd. Her excuses reek of someone grasping at straws and finding nothing to grasp.
Still, this also appears to be further evidence that the tide against Gosnell is turning. McArdle and her ilk may be rushing to defend themselves and their pro-abortion allies against our cresting wave of truth in journalism, but at least now they're noticing the elephant in the room (even as they try to explain its presence away.)
It also raises another point of interest. McArdle makes clear that the reason she herself did not report on this story is because "it made [her] sick". The idea that these atrocities were occurring out in the open appears to have been utterly incomprehensible to her, and now with Gosnell front and center on the internet news stage, she's having to realize that her crusade to help by relieving women of what she perceives as a burden lead to this. But is she really changing her mind?
I don't believe so.
[T]he MSM has barely covered a story that could plausibly be named “The Trial of the Century”. And that demands explanation. So I’ll tell you why I haven’t covered it.
To start, it makes me ill. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read the grand jury inquiry. I am someone who cringes when I hear a description of a sprained ankle.
But I understand why my readers suspect me, and other pro-choice mainstream journalists, of being selective—of not wanting to cover the story because it showcased the ugliest possibilities of abortion rights. The truth is that most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories—if the sick-making was done by “our side.”
Of course, I’m not saying that I identify with criminal abortionists who kill infants and grievously wound their patients. But I am pro-choice.
What Gosnell did was not some inevitable result of legal abortion.
This gem of a quote comes from Meghan McArdle at the Daily Beast. Part of a larger column that you can read in its entirety here. Having just finished the column as of this writing, I was ready to pounce. The quote from TOM made it seem as though she was going to start profusely defending the abortion industry that she, by her own admission, supports. And then I read further.
The article from the Beast appears to double as a defense against those who are skeptical of McArdle's motives for not covering the Gosnell story, and insisting that Gosnell isn't the rule, but rather the exception, with a dash of "how could this possibly have gone wrong?" thrown in for neutrality purposes. It's an attempt to be Switzerland while at the same time trying to side with the Viccy French. McArdle admits freely to being pro-choice (itself a biased term that stands in for "pro-abortion") but insists in the same article that Gosnell's practices aren't the end result of making abortion legal.
Obviously if you're reading this, you want my take on the issue. Well, I think Ms. McArdle is simply trying to jump through any hoop she feels is necessary to jump through in order to spin the Gosnell story in a favorable light for the pro-abortion crowd. Her excuses reek of someone grasping at straws and finding nothing to grasp.
Still, this also appears to be further evidence that the tide against Gosnell is turning. McArdle and her ilk may be rushing to defend themselves and their pro-abortion allies against our cresting wave of truth in journalism, but at least now they're noticing the elephant in the room (even as they try to explain its presence away.)
It also raises another point of interest. McArdle makes clear that the reason she herself did not report on this story is because "it made [her] sick". The idea that these atrocities were occurring out in the open appears to have been utterly incomprehensible to her, and now with Gosnell front and center on the internet news stage, she's having to realize that her crusade to help by relieving women of what she perceives as a burden lead to this. But is she really changing her mind?
I don't believe so.
Another mention of the article that the author makes is that "While legal abortion was not sufficient to create the horrors in Philadelphia, it was necessary. Gosnell was able to harm so many women and babies because he operated in the open."
This quote made me turn my head and blink for several reasons. The most obvious of which would be the honesty of it all. her tone suggests an apologetic admission, but it may have inadvertently been the most honest statement made in this entire article. She just admitted in one sentence that in order for the sort of thing going on in Gosnell's clinic to be possible, legal abortion is a NECESSARY COMPONENT!
Are more of these admissions on the way? Only time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment