It seems that Tom Friedman is still smarting from the hole that New Gingrich blasted through his abortion position on Meet the Press. If you have a minute and you have power, watch this brief exchange between Gingrich and Friedman and then read Friedman’s column from Sunday’s N.Y. Times. What do you think?
Recent Comments
mikewittmer on mysterious mystery instant loans online on the bottom line craighurst on mysterious mystery Christians Do NOT… on the new legalism? stevenkopp on the new legalism? Blogroll
- Al Mohler
- Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals
- Andy Naselli
- Bob Robinson
- Chris Brauns
- Darrell Bock
- Darryl Dash
- Doug Phillips
- Doug Wilson
- Grand Ledge Guys
- Jeremy Bouma
- Jim Hamilton
- Justin Taylor
- Kevin DeYoung
- Nate Archer
- Our Daily Journey
- Out of Ur
- Owen Strachan
- Russell Moore
- The Gospel Coalition
- Tim Challies
- Trevin Wax
- Tullian Tchividian
- Wendy Widder
- Westminster Seminary
- White Horse Inn
- Zach Bartels
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
Meta
On Meet the Press, Friedman looked like Obama in his first debate . . . lost, confused, befuddled. At first he attempted to defend his radical position on abortion rights, but then demurely shifted to the position that he’s merely a journalist. What really happened is he, as an ideologue, lost the debate with Gingrich. Then, in a vain attempt to save face, he pointed out that he’s really just an journalist. And he probably feels he’s a completely objective journalist.
In his piece in the NYT, he attempts to bolster his radical abortion view by means of a series of red herrings, viz., “I’m the one who’s really pro-life because I’m against assault weapons!” (So that makes late-term abortions OK?) And his caricatures of anti-abortionists (NOTE: I’ve changed the term here because of Friedman’s attempt to hijack the term “pro-life” for his radical views.) are equally inaccurate.
Obviously, Friedman has spent no time among the “hoi polloi” who serve in crisis pregnancy centers. Because if he had, he wouldn’t be so cavalier in how he describes those of us who are truly pro-life and who offer help and counsel to those who come to places like the Pregnancy Resource Center for physical and spiritual resources.
Pro-choice is pro-abortion. Friedman cannot crawl out from under that rock with his silly rhetoric and nonsensical analogies.
Friedman also seems to forget that all anti-abortionist agree that it should be illegal to open fire in a theatre.
Thank you Gary (Dr. Meadors?) for your kind words about the PRC.
I think Friedman’s comments are a reminder that all anti-abortionists should also be anti any war that fails the criteria of Just War theory (both in its justification and its execution). Furthermore, I have yet to hear an anti-abortion/anti-Obamacare politicians explain how society (if not the government) is going to protect the lives of those who cannot afford care or insurance. We do have an obligation to be pro-life in those situations too.