And the woman being interviewed agreed with her...thus, allowing herself to be labeled.
This is to be expected from Andrea Mitchell, she’s a liberal leftist ditz.
Of course we all know that:)
Is an aborted fetus alive?
Is a fetus that arrives full-term alive?
If you favor the latter and oppose the former, what exactly is the problem with the term “pro-life”? (other than the obvious contrast with the desires of those who disagree with you, which is in fact why they need to fall back on euphmisms to live with their cavalier attitude to the destruction of human life).
Whoever controls the semantics controls the debate, and you need to slap them down hard as soon as you catch them trying to do it, or you’re going to lose.
The “term” anti-abortion is NOT value-neutral. It takes a position: it is “anti” abortion. So, her logic is wrong. But, that was not her point. Her point (as in any debate) is to control the definition of the terms. This is standard procedure for any debate. Once the definitions of the terms has been agreed to, the debate can begin. (As a side note: whenever liberals get into a debate about any issue, they always try to move the shading of the terms. So, for example, a cut in spending is when they reduce the amount of the proposed increase to a smaller increase. The important thing to remember is once you allow a term to be defined, the debate proceeds from that point. You cannot go back and redefine a term in mid-debate. This is why we lose so often.)
I have never referred to myself as anti anything. The other side might refer to me that way, but I do not. When the pro-abortionist (see, aren’t I being kind) refer to me as anti-abortion, I always correct them. I am pro-life. I will not automatically cede the definition of the terms to them, as this is, in part what rules the debate.
I am pro-life. They are pro-abortion. In the debate on this issue these terms can suffice. We are both in favor of a position. Now, let the debate begin.
Hey Andrea....ya festering lesbian dwarf!
You’re a wild-eyed baby-killin’ muncher. How’s that for “value neutral”?
ROCKLOBSTER
(PS Sarah Palin says Hi)
Got me a new tagline...
New tag line:
A school is supposed to be a safe place? Yeah well, so is the womb.
Remove God.
Dumb followers of her party too stupid to see they are killing more minorities while claiming to care about them. Kinda hard to get passed that.
Wow. I think we should email the network, because Andrea Mitchell made herself the story. That is not journalism; that’s opinion and commentary.
On a side note, I think I may be coming down with the flu. Can’t keep my eyes open. Does anyone else have this? I’ve been wiping down surfaces with Lysol all day. I should have a glass of Pepsi to open my eyes and be able to post coherently. :)
I’ll see if I can find contact info for Ms. Mitchell and more importantly, her boss.
When it comes to life, there sohould not be value-neutrality.....
When it comes to life, there sohould not be value-neutrality.....
Pro-life is clear. Pro-death is also clear. Value neutral is commie-speak.
it’s pro-life and opposing that is pro-baby killing.
Oh, ok, Andrea, but it’s not a value-neutral issue. If I’m anti-abortion, then surely you’ll be ok with being called pro-abortion? What? No. You’re pro-choice? I figured so.
Leftists love to use the language to their advantage. For example, they like to use terms like zygote, embryo, and fetus to refer to the baby in the womb. They use the scientific terms to say the baby is not a person, rather than a person in a specific stage of development.
They don’t like the term pro-life because it sounds good to those in the middle on this issue, so they now want to change the term to anti-abortion. That makes it easier for them to call people who oppose abortion anti-woman misogynists rather than people concerned about the life which in the womb.
The term for them used to be pro-abortion, but they changed that to pro-choice. They don’t like the term pro-abortion. They say that being pro-abortion means that you support abortion for everyone and not the choice for it. That’s so ludicrous it’s laughable. When people are pro-gay marriage, it means people support the right to gay marriage, not that they all want to get married to someone of the same sex. When people are pro-gun, it doesn’t mean they believe everyone has to own a gun; it means they believe everyone has a right to own a gun. These movements don’t call themselves “pro-choice” because “choice” is a general term. You have to specify which choice you want. A part of them has to be afraid the term “abortion” will turn people away. If abortion is such a wonderful thing, why be ashamed of being pro-abortion?