Skip to comments.
The War Against Women
New York Times ^
| 1/12/03
Posted on 01/12/2003 9:50:29 AM PST by madprof98
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
If the Times had such a fit about a golf club, imagine what it will do with the abortion issue from now til 2004? I expect every one of Bush's judicial appointments will result in front-page articles every bit as hysterical as this editorial. And many other papers will take up the call as well.
1
posted on
01/12/2003 9:50:29 AM PST
by
madprof98
To: madprof98
|
Spread this article on a cornfield and you'd get quite a yield if you catch my drift. |
2
posted on
01/12/2003 9:57:13 AM PST
by
big'ol_freeper
("When do I get to lift my leg on the liberal?")
To: madprof98
"War Against Women"
What a hoot.
If there's a 'war against women' in this regard it's merely a re-play of another war, half a century ago...
And it's easy to see who's who, role-wise...
'Anti-Choice' Men = The Allies
'Pro-Choice' Women = The Nazis
Unborn Children = The Jews
Yeah... A "War Against Women".
When you know who the players are it sounds like a damn good idea!
3
posted on
01/12/2003 10:00:33 AM PST
by
DWSUWF
To: madprof98
Is this a "war against WOMEN"? Or is it a "war against WOMEN WHO MURDER THEIR BABIES"?
5
posted on
01/12/2003 10:17:18 AM PST
by
Mo1
(Join the DC Chapter at the Patriots Rally III on 1/18/03)
To: madprof98
Refuse to choose. Question abortion. Women deserve better.
6
posted on
01/12/2003 10:18:40 AM PST
by
hillsborofox
(president of the bumper sticker school of debate!)
To: madprof98
Why is this guy so surprised? President Bush is the most pro-life president we've had.
7
posted on
01/12/2003 10:20:39 AM PST
by
Six Bells
To: madprof98
Along with playing the race and class warfare cards, playing the "Roe v. Wade will be overturned" card is all the Dems have.
8
posted on
01/12/2003 10:23:38 AM PST
by
Mr. Mojo
To: madprof98
Yet two years into the Bush presidency, it is apparent that reversing or
otherwise eviscerating the Supreme Court's momentous 1973 ruling that
...has been responsible for the deaths of over 30 million human beings.
9
posted on
01/12/2003 10:27:00 AM PST
by
Slyfox
To: madprof98
...women's right to safe, legal abortions is in dire perilI wish.
To: madprof98
To borrow the New York Times's peculiar language, on one side you have a War Against Women and on the other side you have a War Against Babies.
Which is the real war? Which involves real killing? Who has real blood on his hands?
11
posted on
01/12/2003 10:40:31 AM PST
by
Cicero
To: madprof98
Sounds like New York Slimes
12
posted on
01/12/2003 10:50:57 AM PST
by
ASA Vet
("The job of the military is to kill people and break things.")
To: madprof98
These proponents of baby killing as a sport, sure have a talent for defining evil as good,merciful, acceptable, middle of the road and rational, and for defining good as evil, merciless, unacceptable, far right and irrational.
Seems the rationale of these people is identical to that of violent terrorists.
To: clintonh8r
As Steve Malzberg said so elequently on his radio show this a.m.,
"If this is a War on Women, well then SIGN ME UP!
14
posted on
01/12/2003 11:05:09 AM PST
by
motzman
("Looney Insightful Linguist")
To: madprof98
The tone of this editorial cements the NYT official opinion page as irresposible and totally unserious.
One might expect extremist terms like 'war on women', 'international war against women's right to control their bodies', 'presidential assault' from exclusively pro-abortion outfits or the far fringes of the radical feminist movement, but from the national 'paper of record'?
These polemics do nothing to inform or promote debate. They are designed to inflame, and to insult.
The idea that Bush has a visceral desire to control women's bodies across the globe or is directing an assault against half the human race is ludicrous on its face, and I'd bet it's repugnant to 90% or more of the nation.
The rhetoric spouted here would be the equivalent of the NY Post or Washington Times running full-color photos of chopped up fetuses on its editorial page, and calling for the arrest of named abortion leaders on murder charges, the polar extreme of their political position.
I can only see this piece as another flail in the death throes of extreme leftism and the mainstream media support it has so long enjoyed.
To: madprof98
The War Against Women Yeah, but look who's doing the dying!
16
posted on
01/12/2003 12:16:12 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(With friends like these, who needs friends?)
To: madprof98
The time to "choose" is BEFORE having sex. It's called taking personal responsibility for one's actions.
17
posted on
01/12/2003 12:52:01 PM PST
by
JD86
To: madprof98
Yet two years into the Bush presidency, it is apparent that reversing or otherwise eviscerating the Supreme Court's momentous 1973 ruling that recognized a woman's fundamental right to make her own childbearing decisions is indeed Mr. Bush's mission.Let me see if I've got this right. Unless a woman has been raped she has made the following three decisions:
1.) She has chosen or allowed a man to come into her life in a romantic way.
2.) She has chosen or allowed a man to have sex with her.
3.) She has chosen or forgotten to take proper birth control measures.
In my mind that woman has willfully abdicated her fundamental right to make her child bearing decision. Now, having given up that right, the pro-abortion crowd feels that she should have the right to kill what she willfully brought about. Shame, shame, shame.
To: madprof98
An attempt to put modest boundaries on the wantonness of the butchery brigades is called a war on women.
Truly there is no talking to the left any longer, if there ever was.
Only total unremitting opposition is in order.
They want war? Then let it be war. Total war!
19
posted on
01/12/2003 1:30:31 PM PST
by
ricpic
To: madprof98
An attempt to put modest boundaries on the wantonness of the butchery brigades is called a war on women.
Truly there is no talking to the left any longer, if there ever was.
Only total unremitting opposition is in order.
They want war? Then let it be war. Total war!
20
posted on
01/12/2003 1:32:26 PM PST
by
ricpic
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson