Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
The guy is not a muslim. That's not what I said. I said that if he was a Muslim and a democrat, you would probably criticize the story. You would attack the messenger. But since he is Christian and probably a republican, you think it's a newsworthy story.
No, I don't think you create the news and I don't think any of us do. That was my point. I think a news story is a news story. Whereas you and Genuine Risk seem to think that any story that you don't like was created by some right-wing conspiracy.
|
This quote is why I hopped into the debate, RP.
No, you didn't directly in that post say I would have ignored the story were it about a Muslim, but since you were so quick to lump me in with DTS (which I don't mind one bit, DTS.
) I wanted to hop into the discussion.
Regarding Bill O'Reilly-- From Salon.com:
<<Bill O'Reilly: Not a good obstetric-health authority
Thanks to Media Matters and several eagle-eyed and eagle-eared Broadsheet readers for passing this gem along.
Last week on his syndicated radio show, "The Radio Factor With Bill O'Reilly," Fox anchor and loofah-wielder Bill O'Reilly decided to address the issue of abortion in his "Culture War" segment. He briefly touched on Ms. magazine's "We Had Abortions" campaign, before explaining that pretty soon, abortion may not be legal thanks to cases being argued in South Dakota and other states. Legal abortion "may not be the law of the land, unfettered, much longer because the Supreme Court's hearing a whole bunch of stuff," said O'Reilly. "South Dakota, as you know, has voted to outlaw abortions unless the mother's life is in danger, which is never the case, because you can always have a C-section and do those kinds of things."
The host then went on to assert that after 26 weeks "there's life, whether you cede it or not, it's true -- scientifically speaking, of course."
Of course. Science could only be behind his follow-up claim that 45 percent of Americans favor outlawing abortion "unless the mother's going to die, or catastrophic health consequences, which again, is never the case. Never."
Well, actually, Bill O'Reilly, you irresponsible moron, that's news to me. And try telling it to all the women who have experienced, or died from, life-threatening conditions like ectopic pregnancy, which is when a fertilized egg attaches itself outside of the uterus and can rupture fallopian tubes, causing fatal bleeding. That's the No. 1 cause of pregnancy-related death in the first trimester. But don't forget preeclampsia, a high-blood-pressure syndrome that is extremely common and treatable but that in rare, severe circumstances can lead to life-threatening conditions. The Mayo Clinic reports that preeclampsia "and other high blood pressure disorders during pregnancy are a leading cause of maternal and infant illness and death." None of these conditions "can always" be solved by a C-section.
So another moral for the day: Don't trust obstetric information -- or let's be honest here, any information -- when it comes from Bill O'Reilly. >>
That kind of talk is A) inaccurate and B) irresponsible, seeing as how violent the anti-abortion faction in this country can be. By saying things like this- that a woman's life is never in danger during pregnancy, the man is encouraging terrorists (because that's what people who shoot abortion doctors and threaten women going into clinics are-- terrorists). That's all they need to hear-- that there is never a situation where abortion is medically necessary to save a woman's life. Dangerous, irresponsible commentary. And very, very emotionally damaging to women who did have to terminate a pregnancy due to health reasons.