Why is a living child that has been delivered still called a “fetus” in these stories?
Here Terry Mattingly, an excellent journalistic theorist and teacher, analyzes the reporting on the Gosnell trial, in which abortionist reporters use the term “fetus” to refer to a human being that has been born, but, unlike a “baby”, has been targeted for death by his mother.[EXPLICIT CONTENT]
This is a *murder* trial. The man is charged with *murder*. So shouldn’t there be *murder victims* in the story covering the trial? These three nationally-recognized media-outlets already passed the sentence of “not guilty”, and are requiring you, the reader, to do the same.
Only in a society full of the poorly educated can ideologues of such a stamp succeed in convincing the public, that they are more educated than their putatively science-denying counterparts. One hundred and fifty years ago in the South, a plantation owner justified his inexcusable violation of human rights by claiming that his victims were ontologically inferior to real humans. Today that same Southern drawl is the voice of reason, while the old bastions of human rights are the laboratories of cruelty and ignorance.
And we are all complicit.
Shame on you America.
Shame on you for paying for your petty comforts with the blood of the innocent.