See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On March 26th, 2010 at 10:57 am, spaceycakes said:

   what about my right to use the right term in the case of writers for rights to abortion rites?

2. #2
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:01 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

   If they want to abort themselves, I am not opposed. It’s only when they want to abort others, that I take issue, nevermind that they want me to subsidize it.

3. #3
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am, Skywise said:

   This is to harmonize their language with the Democrats talking points.

   See, Stupak is “pro-life” but he’s not an “abortion rights opponent”. Therefore he can be both “pro-life” and support a woman’s choice and there is no conflict with the attack talking points from NPR

   See? Isn’t newspeak easy?

4. #4
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:12 am, Misscheryl said:

   The games we play but make no mistake this isn’t a game, this is war!

5. #5
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:14 am, Flyoverman said:

   I have a new term to describe Progressives and Socialists. They are neither liberal nor progressive.

   The are freedomphobic.

   They have a fear of allowing individuals to have personal liberty and make their own choices.

   They want to put label on us. Fine. Our turn.

6. #6
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:16 am, happyscrapper said:

   I prefer to call it “pro-infanticide”. Or “pro-murder in the womb”.

7. #7
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:17 am, MarcoPolo said:

   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:03 am, Skywise said:

   This is to harmonize their language with the Democrats talking points.

   See, Stupak is “pro-life” but he’s not an “abortion rights opponent”. Therefore he can be both “pro-life” and support a woman’s choice and there is no conflict with the attack talking points from NPR

   It will get fuzzier than that. Even Bill Kristol has said that the anti-abortion plank should be removed from the GOP platform. And there’s a small but vocal contingent of people in the party who now adamantly oppose overturning Roe v Wade, claiming that murder isn’t something that should be handled by the states. (Even though it already is….)

8. #8
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am, Flyoverman said:

   If NPR was broadcasting in Nazi Germany they would refer to the SS as “Final Soultion Providers.”

9. #9
   On March 26th, 2010 at 11:22 am, EWTHeckman said:

   This updated policy is aimed at ensuring the words we speak and write are as clear, consistent and neutral as possible.

   Neutral? Neutral?!? :: Snort! ::

   “Abortion rights opponent” is decidedly NOT neutral. It’s actually a logical fallacy known as Begging the Question. That heinous phrase assumes that the question of whether or not abortion is a “right” has already been settled.

10. #10
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:25 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am, Flyoverman said:
    If NPR was broadcasting in Nazi Germany they would refer to the SS as “Final Soultion Providers.”

    Or Permanent Relocation Conductors.
    “All aboard for Treblinka! Tickets please!”

11. #11
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:28 am, rocketman said:

    ***
    HI FLYOVERMAN–#9. Good comment–Hitler’s master propagandist-Goebbels–would be proud of NPR. State supported–unable to survive against real competition like Fox News. Willing to support the murder of unborn children like the Nazi’s were willing to support the murder of innocent Jews and civilians.
    ***
    Yes–NPR is in very good company. Too bad that their smart liberal compassion doesn’t extend to the unborn–as they work to “improve” American Civilization.
    ***
    John Bibb
    ***

12. #12
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:36 am, iamsaved said:

    The Pro-Life name gave the opponents of abortion too good of a name. They have to think of how to give them a negative image while at the same time refusing to call Pro-Choice people what they actually are – Pro-Death (or even baby killers).

    BTW, where’s our choice with this health care bill which is anything but about health care.

13. #13
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:37 am, Hadenough said:

    I expect the GOP to throw down a new bill to defund NPR/PBS.

14. #14
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:37 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    That is terrible indeed. But then as with the nonsense with the Department of Education and such this is what we get from a federal agency that should not exist in the first place. If people want an NPR they should start one with there own money.

    The “reform the NPR” is a waste of energy. Work to take over Congress and defund this monstrosity.

15. #15
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:39 am, granite said:

    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:12 am, Misscheryl said:

    The games we play but make no mistake this isn’t a game, this is war

    Oh, yeah.
    It’s been war for some time.

16. #16
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:47 am, jamesgreenidge said:

    I can’t write my disdain for NPR, yet ironically I can’t hammer them on this. Like birds fly, libs will do what libs do, and they’re simply taking advantage of an empty niche that pro-lifers have left open for decades. For the life of me, I wondered why pro-lifers never called the “right to chose” slogan as “right to kill” instead! That said it all in a mouthful and was to the point, but that’s never been used by pro-lifers, so for being “civil” or “polite” the pro-lifers are on the vine. Don’t blame NPR. Blame your lame tactics.

    James Greenidge
    Queens New York

17. #17
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:52 am, historian said:

    In other news death panels from now on will be referred to as gently led to greener pasture advisors.

18. #18
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:58 am, greenfairie said:

    I heard CBS News use “abortion rights opponents” the other night too. We all know it’s to delegitimize the pro-life position as one out to take your “rights.”

    I think we should start calling the abortion lobby “life rights opponents.”

19. #19
    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:58 am, Dexter Alarius said:

    Have I missed any?

    Refer to gay marriage supporters as “species propagation opponents” or “sodomy supporters”?

20. #20
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm, ThunderHawkk said:

    How can anyone, upon seeing that little baby in the womb, callously murder it?

    Short of the rare and incredibly unfortunate situation of preserving the life of the mother in some medical emergency, how can anyone just kill it?

    Leftists are the most brutal, ugly, horrific people in the world.

    I have no doubt, personally, that obama IS in fact, if not the anti-Christ, the representative of the anti-Christ at this present time.

21. #21
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm, ThunderHawkk said:

    Can’t we just call them “life-opponents?”

22. #22
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:38 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On March 26th, 2010 at 11:37 am, Hadenough said:
    I expect the GOP to throw down a new bill to defund NPR/PBS.

    They can’t even defund Acorn without some lame brain court judge denying it.

23. #23
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:41 pm, Rogue Cheddar said:

    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:14 pm, ThunderHawkk said:
    How can anyone, upon seeing that little baby in the womb, callously murder it?

    They don’t get to see it. Any bill proposing that clinics provide a sonogram as part of providing additional information to a prospective mother, has been shot down amidst apoplectic rage!

24. #24
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:48 pm, TacitEagle said:

    Abort Marxism.

25. #25
    On March 26th, 2010 at 12:54 pm, battleaxe said:

    “Refer to racial preferences advocates as “constitutional rights opponents””

    How about racists?

    On the abortion thing – do we really have a right to abortion or a privacy excuse that allows abortion created out of thin air by the courts? Except for a minuscule number of non-consensual cases, a woman and her partner have asserted their reproductive bodily rights when they choose to have sex.

    Killing the child product of such a choice because it might be inconvenient is murder.

26. #26
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:00 pm, fighterDC said:

    How about “Opponents of Personal Responsibility”

27. #27
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:01 pm, Ron said:

    Thanks for reminding me why I never respond to an NPR pledge drive. I do listen sometimes (Saturdays, when talk radio pretty much goes on hiatus), but I never feel like I need to do “my share,” since they already took my tax dollars to fund the Marxist talking machine anyway.

28. #28
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:16 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    “Penumbra emanation detectors”

    “New Rights divinators”

    The Constitution is living and breathing – fetal tissue, not so much.

29. #29
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:25 pm, spaceycakes said:

    ‘abortion rights opponents’ means nothing.
    There are no such ‘rights’ for abortion, therefore the ‘opponents’ are opposing…um…nothing.

30. #30
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:27 pm, Hangfire said:

    NPR – your tax dollars at work.

31. #31
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:35 pm, iamsaved said:

    Too bad those in favor of killing babies in the womb didn’t have parents who felt the same way.

    And for those who espouse population control, they should be first in line to ease the burden on the planet.

    Those who want to redistribute the wealth (steal from one to give to another), should have to open their wallets first.

    Those who passed this ObamaRedistributionOfHeathCosts bill should have to be first in line to enroll.

    Then maybe their belief in their liberal causes would be tempered a bit.

32. #32
    On March 26th, 2010 at 1:48 pm, Hangfire said:

    Main Stream Media – Marxist Mouthpieces

    White House Press Secretary – Mess Management Specialist

    Huffington Post – Rumor Control Central

    Nancy Pelosi – Die Grosse Meerkat

33. #33
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm, spaceycakes said:

    meerkats are industrious & they work as a community to look out for one another…Bela Pelosi is a giant twat. No animal deserves the comparison.

    Her name should be ‘Legion’

34. #34
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:00 pm, Dimsdale said:

    I like “abortion enthusiasts” or “abortion fanatics”. The shoe fits….

    Then there are the “D&X divas” (you can use D&E or D&C as needed).

35. #35
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:01 pm, Dimsdale said:

    NPR? Neosocialist Public Radio?

36. #36
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:12 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    First, with all the choices available AND the fact that NPR is now on satellite radio, END the funding for NPR NOW!

    Second, and much more important, I heard on Sirius (can’t remember the program, sorry) where part of the healthcare coverage will mandate that illegal immigrant pregnant women are eligible because the baby has a right to care. That creates a HUGE problem for murders of babies (what NPR calls abortion-rights supporters)- So which is it? A baby who deserves healthcare-Oh and protection from murder, or a lump of cells which does not qualify for healthcare and can be discarded at the whim of the woman?

    This should be interesting……

37. #37
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:22 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    For the record, I hope the illegal immigrant’s child survives to dance on the graves of women who kill babies. That is my personal dilemma: I do not believe abortion is right but I really don’t want any more liberal babies either. I wonder how many liberal moms have the guts to tell their child face-to-face that had circumstances been a little different they would have casually discarded them before birth (or a worse, more accurate description I will refrain from using to spare readers here who oppose such acts).

    “Mommy, can I have a little brother?”

    “Well, you would have one but I killed him before you were born.”

38. #38
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:23 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Soory, Michelle et al, but those people sicken me like no other.

39. #39
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:24 pm, SpeakEasy said:

    Oops, I mean LaShawn, et al. And the word was sorry, not soory. (calm down, breathe,…)

40. #40
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:28 pm, Hangfire said:

    Here’s a virtual Mai Tai, Speak.

41. #41
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:35 pm, rambler said:

    How convenient that the left now decides about rights. What about the right to keep the gov out of health care, car companies, banks and every other thing that the gov wants to infiltrate. The lefties keep changing the rules to suit their agenda. They need to stop playing with words. We need to stop being politically correct. Free speech give us the right to offend others when telling the truth. They may manipulate the lexicon, but the are still lying.

42. #42
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:51 pm, aero said:

    NPR is just another government SPEWS outlet, one of several, all of them increasingly irrelevant. Ignore them and continue to frame the debate with truth. They can’t stand it!

43. #43
    On March 26th, 2010 at 2:54 pm, jrgdds said:

    Turn the tables on the left.

    “The government has no right to tell a woman what they should or should not do with with body. The choice is to have or not have an abortion belongs to the Woman.”

    So it must follow that…

    “The government has no right to tell an individual what they should or should not do concerning their body. The choice to insure or not insure one’s body belongs to the individual.”

44. #44
    On March 26th, 2010 at 3:02 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    Don’t buy into the liberal lexicon. Like RAMBLER #42 says, stick with the truth…let’s call abortion what it truly is, murder. And, if someone tells you that you’re being “harsh” (ha!) tell them it’s still murder.

45. #45
    On March 26th, 2010 at 4:02 pm, emjem24 said:

    You know what is so sad. The part of the pro-abortion argument saying that if you can’t afford a child you should not have one. What about the choice to engage in sex without any condoms or birth control? Women make this choice without ever considering the consequences but suddently it’s okay to abort their baby because it’s a “burden.”

    God, there are so many tramps in this country (including men) who think they’re so special that they can be reckless and then wipe the slate clean. Heaven forbid they actually take responsibility for their actions.

    I wonder if these idiotic pro-abortion women understand the implications to reckless sexual activity and the actual act of abortion. Having an abortion can make you infertile if you ever want to keep a baby that’s no longer a “burden.” Having multiple sex partners can increase your risks of HPV which leads to cerivical cancer among other cancer risks… along with increased risks of HIV and other STD’s.

    People like to spout convenient, political sound bites without doing the research. If they had to think for a moment about what abortion actually entails, I wonder if they would be so casual about it?

    I saw my sister throw away her self-respect, her morals, and her virginity with one night stands in high school and college. My sister went to a frat party at Cornell University and got so drunk that she was date raped. She was 17 years old. My parents wanted to press charges against the assailant but my sister refused.

    She did untold damage to my parents and our family through her reckless behavior. Her selfish attitude toward sex (that I’ve seen in a lot of women… it’s my body I can do what I want) put our family through the ringer and ruined what ever relationship I could have had with her or my parents.

    So, pro-abortion supporters, don’t ever tell me that loose sexual morals in this country don’t have consequences, not only on the woman but on the woman’s family. What these baby killers really are are sluts who think sexual liberation means sex without consequences. Abortion is birth control to these people. Abortion is seen as a way to ethnically cleanse the black community. Abortion is seen as population control.

    Here’s a word of advice to women who want to be sexually liberated without consequences: go get a hysterectomy. Please. If you don’t want a kid, and can’t stand to be on birth control, get your tubes tied or better yet, surgically remove your uterus, ovaries, etc. That way… the women who can bear children will do so and the women who can’t see past their selfishness don’t have to.

    Good riddance.

46. #46
    On March 26th, 2010 at 4:03 pm, Age said:

    My 2 cents worth email to NPR:

    I have just read your NPR staff memo regarding terms used to describe people and groups involved in the abortion debate.

    Once again, your left wing agenda has me disappointed and yet amused at your “emperor’s new clothes” mentality. The memo states that NPR “should use “abortion rights supporter(s)/advocate(s)” and “abortion rights opponent(s).”” Say what?
    Hey, how about this. Since pro-lifers have been around far longer than anti pro-lifers, and can thus claim “seniority,” let’s simply use the terms “pro-life” and “anti-life.” Perhaps when you want to sound a little more extreme (as some of your hosts prefer) you could use the terms “pro-baby” and “baby killers.”

    Please, don’t dash headlong like lemmings to keep up with the rest of the mainstream media. You have plenty of intelligent people among your ranks that can figure this out on their own.

    I do enjoy listening to NPR on my way to/from work but the rhetoric gets so bad at times I have to change stations-I would rather listen to annoying commercials elsewhere than the latest PC drivel.

    And although I feel compelled at times to make a donation during my local station’s fund drives, it doesn’t take long for that compulsion to turn to revulsion when the next story takes an extreme left wing angle.

    And no, I’m not a Republican. I’m an independent-something NPR should consider!

47. #47
    On March 26th, 2010 at 4:31 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    “Right to Murder your unborn Child”

    I’d use that as a start if they insist on using the word “right”.

48. #48
    On March 26th, 2010 at 5:19 pm, Ignatius Reilly said:

    Communist Martin Luther King made a speech to black leaders shortly before his death in which he outlined his long-term program for “economic/social justice” including equality in things like housing for those unfortunates who don’t have money to pay a mortgage. It was a thorough-going communist program (and we’re getting there).

    But the famous Dr. said we will continue to use the language of “civil rights,” even though it does not accurately describe these goals, because it is so effective.

    The Left has long understood the importance of insisting on their terminology even before the debate begins. George Orwell, of course, understood all this very well.

    (Source: Copies of the speech were handed out in a seminar presentation that I attended in the early 80s by Pulitzer Price winning King biographer David Garrow. I still have it somewhere.)

49. #49
    On March 26th, 2010 at 5:36 pm, JusDreamin said:

    Mainstream media, take a memo, and frame all news stories this way:

    Refer to abortion supporters as “right to life opponents”

    Refer to gun control supporters as “gun rights opponents”

    Refer to “hate speech” backers as “speech rights opponents”

    Refer to racial preferences advocates as “constitutional rights opponents”

    Have I missed any?

    Great catch La Shawn, I think you nailed it perfectly right there. What’s in a word? PLENTY!

50. #50
    On March 26th, 2010 at 9:13 pm, RogerCfromSD said:

    Once we take our country back from the commies, we cut government funding to PBS.

51. #51
    On March 26th, 2010 at 9:59 pm, Connect the Dots said:

    This is really nothing new. Four years ago I heard an editorial on a local news broadcast that spoke about the AP taking sides:

    AP Stylebook
    Words are powerful. Specific words can lend meaning — accurately or inaccurately — to a subject.
    The Associated Press Stylebook is a popular guidebook for journalists recommending everything from word usage to punctuation.
    News reporting is supposed to be unbiased. The AP Stylebook supposedly recommends words and styles that maintain neutrality in reporting subject matter. It is that last point that draws attention to the AP Stylebook regarding how to address the abortion issue. There are so many terms in use: pro-life, pro-choice, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, and the list goes on.
    The AP Stylebook states journalists should “Use ‘anti-abortion’ instead of ‘pro-life’ and ‘abortion rights’ instead of ‘pro-abortion’ or ‘pro-choice’.” Generally, if something is “anti-” it is viewed as a negative. Using the term “abortion rights” implies the “rights” are valid. Pro-life supporters would disagree with that premise.
    The AP is wrong in its recommendations. The terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life” pretty much give equal standing to both sides of the debate. Can you imagine the howls of protest if the AP suggested “pro-life” and “anti-life”? And if the AP suggests “anti-abortion” is correct it would then have to pick “pro-abortion” for the other side of the debate. But it doesn’t. That’s because the AP has chosen sides in the abortion debate.

    So what else is new?

52. #52
    On March 27th, 2010 at 8:27 pm, wildcat84 said:

    I always have referred to abortion proponents as Anti-Life.

53. #53
    On March 28th, 2010 at 7:15 am, englishqueen01 said:

    Whatever. Doesn’t change the fact we oppose killing people.

    Next stupid Orwellian idea, please!