Steal a Fetus; Find a Baby: MSM Struggles with Reality

Steal a Fetus; Find a Baby: MSM Struggles with Reality

It’s a terrible story. A Massachusetts woman named Darlene Haynes was 8-months pregnant. She was murdered and her baby was cut from her and kidnapped. Police have now Julie Corey who apparently lived in the same apartment building at one point. The baby was “found” alive at a local hospital and is doing well.

As I looked at differing media accounts, I noticed that some members of the media seem to be struggling with the proper language to use in this case. Technically, Darlene Hayes had a fetus inside her. But when she was murdered and cut open, was a baby kidnapped or a fetus? Here are a few headlines, starting with this one published yesterday by Fox News:

Pregnant Massachusetts Woman Killed, Fetus Taken

But today Fox has a new story:

Woman Suspected of Cutting Baby From Massachusetts Mom’s Womb Held on $2M Bail

Okay, ABC News covered this yesterday with this headline:

Mom-to-Be Darlene Haynes Killed, Cops Search for Her Fetus

ABC posted a new story later the same day:

Baby Cut From Slain Mom’s Womb Found Alive

Today, ABC has a third follow-up story:

Slain Pregnant Woman Lived in Same Building With Accused Fetus-Stealer

The Boston Globe had this yesterday:

Authorities in Worcester seek killer in case of fetus cut from womb

CNN had this yesterday:

Woman killed, fetus cut from body

And here’s CNN’s follow-up today:

Baby cut from slain mom’s womb found alive

The Boston Herald had this yesterday:

Officials search hospitals for victim’s fetus

And today the Boston Herald has this:

Suspect in brutal murder, baby snatch held $2M bail

Are you seeing the pattern here? A fetus was kidnapped but a baby was discovered.

Now I realize that the editors at these MSM institutions are probably following some style-guide which tells them that a baby inside a mother is fetus and a fetus in the hospital is a baby. What this case points out so clearly is that it’s a distinction without a difference. If we wanted to lay aside the style-guide we’d have to admit it was a baby when it was kidnapped and it was a baby when it was discovered alive in the hospital. Calling it a fetus didn’t change anything about it except its implied location. So why do it? I think the answer is obvious. You don’t have to look any further than yesterday’s NY Times hagiography of George Tiller for an answer. From the Times story:

[T]he other 2,800 abortions involved viable fetuses. Some had serious but survivable abnormalities, like Down syndrome. Many were perfectly healthy.

Those were healthy babies Tiller dismembered. Babies.

Finally, the prize has to go to the Bostonist which published this headline yesterday:

Fetus Cut From Womb Found Alive In N.H.

They found a fetus! But notice the first line of their story:

The baby cut from a slain mother’s womb was found alive in New Hampshire Wednesday night.

The Bostonist might be confused about the style-guide rules of journalism, but they got it right.

Keli wrote:Steal a Fetus; Find a Baby: MSM Struggles with Reality

It’s a terrible story. A Massachusetts woman named Darlene Haynes was 8-months pregnant. She was murdered and her baby was cut from her and kidnapped. Police have now Julie Corey who apparently lived in the same apartment building at one point. The baby was “found” alive at a local hospital and is doing well.

As I looked at differing media accounts, I noticed that some members of the media seem to be struggling with the proper language to use in this case. Technically, Darlene Hayes had a fetus inside her. But when she was murdered and cut open, was a baby kidnapped or a fetus? Here are a few headlines, starting with this one published yesterday by Fox News:

Pregnant Massachusetts Woman Killed, Fetus Taken

But today Fox has a new story:

Woman Suspected of Cutting Baby From Massachusetts Mom’s Womb Held on $2M Bail

Okay, ABC News covered this yesterday with this headline:

Mom-to-Be Darlene Haynes Killed, Cops Search for Her Fetus

ABC posted a new story later the same day:

Baby Cut From Slain Mom’s Womb Found Alive

Today, ABC has a third follow-up story:

Slain Pregnant Woman Lived in Same Building With Accused Fetus-Stealer

The Boston Globe had this yesterday:

Authorities in Worcester seek killer in case of fetus cut from womb

CNN had this yesterday:

Woman killed, fetus cut from body

And here’s CNN’s follow-up today:

Baby cut from slain mom’s womb found alive

The Boston Herald had this yesterday:

Officials search hospitals for victim’s fetus

And today the Boston Herald has this:

Suspect in brutal murder, baby snatch held $2M bail

Are you seeing the pattern here? A fetus was kidnapped but a baby was discovered.

Now I realize that the editors at these MSM institutions are probably following some style-guide which tells them that a baby inside a mother is fetus and a fetus in the hospital is a baby. What this case points out so clearly is that it’s a distinction without a difference. If we wanted to lay aside the style-guide we’d have to admit it was a baby when it was kidnapped and it was a baby when it was discovered alive in the hospital. Calling it a fetus didn’t change anything about it except its implied location. So why do it? I think the answer is obvious. You don’t have to look any further than yesterday’s NY Times hagiography of George Tiller for an answer. From the Times story:

[T]he other 2,800 abortions involved viable fetuses. Some had serious but survivable abnormalities, like Down syndrome. Many were perfectly healthy.

Those were healthy babies Tiller dismembered. Babies.

Finally, the prize has to go to the Bostonist which published this headline yesterday:

Fetus Cut From Womb Found Alive In N.H.

They found a fetus! But notice the first line of their story:

The baby cut from a slain mother’s womb was found alive in New Hampshire Wednesday night.

The Bostonist might be confused about the style-guide rules of journalism, but they got it right.

OH FOR KEE-RICST SAKE, …………. Hagdorn.

I noticed that some members of the media seem to be struggling with the proper language to use in this case…

TH, that obsession of yours is rottening your mind and causing you to see things which aren’t there.

Or has your obsession now forced you to start penning “yellow journalism” intended for others to see like Dan Radamacher was notorious for in his Editorials and Opinions.

TH, said media was using the proper language, it is you who attempted to bastardize it.

The words Fetus and Baby as hi-lighted in all your cited examples were used in the right context of per say “3rd person” that has been a standard accepted and grammatically correct practice for hundreds of years.

TH, it is the ole “before n’ after” trickeroooo ……. and you damn well should have known that, which I’m sure you do but for nefarious reasons you chose to ignore, …. not see. A pre-programmed “mental block” I’m sure.

When speaking/writing in “3rd person”, it is referred to as a Fetus when associated with being unborn and/or in the womb. And it is referred to as Baby when associated with being born and/or out of the womb

When speaking/writing in “1st person” or “2nd person” you can refer to said as whatever in ell that “turns your crank” and/or what both parties understand the meaning of.

And “YES”, …….. you can put me down (pun intended) for a “NO” on that Post of yours.

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:Steal a Fetus; Find a Baby: MSM Struggles with Reality

It’s a terrible story. A Massachusetts woman named Darlene Haynes was 8-months pregnant. She was murdered and her baby was cut from her and kidnapped. Police have now Julie Corey who apparently lived in the same apartment building at one point. The baby was “found” alive at a local hospital and is doing well.

As I looked at differing media accounts, I noticed that some members of the media seem to be struggling with the proper language to use in this case. Technically, Darlene Hayes had a fetus inside her. But when she was murdered and cut open, was a baby kidnapped or a fetus? Here are a few headlines, starting with this one published yesterday by Fox News:

Pregnant Massachusetts Woman Killed, Fetus Taken

But today Fox has a new story:

Woman Suspected of Cutting Baby From Massachusetts Mom’s Womb Held on $2M Bail

Okay, ABC News covered this yesterday with this headline:

Mom-to-Be Darlene Haynes Killed, Cops Search for Her Fetus

ABC posted a new story later the same day:

Baby Cut From Slain Mom’s Womb Found Alive

Today, ABC has a third follow-up story:

Slain Pregnant Woman Lived in Same Building With Accused Fetus-Stealer

The Boston Globe had this yesterday:

Authorities in Worcester seek killer in case of fetus cut from womb

CNN had this yesterday:

Woman killed, fetus cut from body

And here’s CNN’s follow-up today:

Baby cut from slain mom’s womb found alive

The Boston Herald had this yesterday:

Officials search hospitals for victim’s fetus

And today the Boston Herald has this:

Suspect in brutal murder, baby snatch held $2M bail

Are you seeing the pattern here? A fetus was kidnapped but a baby was discovered.

Now I realize that the editors at these MSM institutions are probably following some style-guide which tells them that a baby inside a mother is fetus and a fetus in the hospital is a baby. What this case points out so clearly is that it’s a distinction without a difference. If we wanted to lay aside the style-guide we’d have to admit it was a baby when it was kidnapped and it was a baby when it was discovered alive in the hospital. Calling it a fetus didn’t change anything about it except its implied location. So why do it? I think the answer is obvious. You don’t have to look any further than yesterday’s NY Times hagiography of George Tiller for an answer. From the Times story:

[T]he other 2,800 abortions involved viable fetuses. Some had serious but survivable abnormalities, like Down syndrome. Many were perfectly healthy.

Those were healthy babies Tiller dismembered. Babies.

Finally, the prize has to go to the Bostonist which published this headline yesterday:

Fetus Cut From Womb Found Alive In N.H.

They found a fetus! But notice the first line of their story:

The baby cut from a slain mother’s womb was found alive in New Hampshire Wednesday night.

The Bostonist might be confused about the style-guide rules of journalism, but they got it right.

OH FOR KEE-RICST SAKE, …………. Hagdorn.

I noticed that some members of the media seem to be struggling with the proper language to use in this case…

TH, that obsession of yours is rottening your mind and causing you to see things which aren’t there.

Or has your obsession now forced you to start penning “yellow journalism” intended for others to see like Dan Radamacher was notorious for in his Editorials and Opinions.

TH, said media was using the proper language, it is you who attempted to bastardize it.

The words Fetus and Baby as hi-lighted in all your cited examples were used in the right context of per say “3rd person” that has been a standard accepted and grammatically correct practice for hundreds of years.

TH, it is the ole “before n’ after” trickeroooo ……. and you damn well should have known that, which I’m sure you do but for nefarious reasons you chose to ignore, …. not see. A pre-programmed “mental block” I’m sure.

When speaking/writing in “3rd person”, it is referred to as a Fetus when associated with being unborn and/or in the womb. And it is referred to as Baby when associated with being born and/or out of the womb

When speaking/writing in “1st person” or “2nd person” you can refer to said as whatever in ell that “turns your crank” and/or what both parties understand the meaning of.

And “YES”, …….. you can put me down (pun intended) for a “NO” on that Post of yours.

Okay, Sam. When does life begin? IF the baby had died in utero, would the assailant have been charged with a double-murder--like Scott Peterson, who killed his wife Laci and their unborn baby? Or, was that a fetus? IF it was a fetus, how could Scott be charged with murder of a blob of cells?

This is an issue that the law is going to have to deal with sooner or later. Recently, a young Charleston teenager shot his pregnant girlfriend and was sentenced to life in prison under the unborn victims of violence act.

At some point the two sides have to be reconciled. It's either a fetus or a baby, not whatever suits the current case best.

Keli wrote:Okay, Sam. When does life begin? IF the baby had died in utero, would the assailant have been charged with a double-murder--like Scott Peterson, who killed his wife Laci and their unborn baby? Or, was that a fetus? IF it was a fetus, how could Scott be charged with murder of a blob of cells?

Okay, Hagdornny, just what the hell does "When does life begin" have to do with your piffling piece of criticizing "yellow Journalism" for the correct usage of English Language words?

Now if you have a f'ing biased issue with what said media "should be believing" ..... then do as all Preachers do, ..... warn them that they are "Going to Hell" or whatever .... but don't be criticizing correct vocabulary usage solely to further your DA agenda.

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:Okay, Sam. When does life begin? IF the baby had died in utero, would the assailant have been charged with a double-murder--like Scott Peterson, who killed his wife Laci and their unborn baby? Or, was that a fetus? IF it was a fetus, how could Scott be charged with murder of a blob of cells?

Okay, Hagdornny, just what the hell does "When does life begin" have to do with your piffling piece of criticizing "yellow Journalism" for the correct usage of English Language words?

Now if you have a f'ing biased issue with what said media "should be believing" ..... then do as all Preachers do, ..... warn them that they are "Going to Hell" or whatever .... but don't be criticizing correct vocabulary usage solely to further your DA agenda.

And, spite of pride, in erring reason's spite,

One truth is clear, whatever is, is right.

Alexander Pope

Sam,
I will put you down as undecided--willfully ignorant of the facts of the issue.

Keli wrote:Sam,
I will put you down as undecided--willfully ignorant of the facts of the issue.

There, you f'up again TH. Correct verbiage would have been, to wit:

willfully ignorant of my facts of the issue

And ya wonder why I have no respect for two-bit Preachers and Ministers a claiming the glory of their God and the virtures of their Christian Religious beliefs.

They all do their damnest at playing the "lead role" in a real life Christian Church version of the George C. Scott movie, ........ "The Flim-Flam Man".



.

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:Sam,
I will put you down as undecided--willfully ignorant of the facts of the issue.

There, you f'up again TH. Correct verbiage would have been, to wit:

willfully ignorant of my facts of the issue

And ya wonder why I have no respect for two-bit Preachers and Ministers a claiming the glory of their God and the virtures of their Christian Religious beliefs.

They all do their damnest at playing the "lead role" in a real life Christian Church version of the George C. Scott movie, ........ "The Flim-Flam Man".

.

Sam, you would have made a good two-bit preacher!

Keli wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

Keli wrote:Sam,
I will put you down as undecided--willfully ignorant of the facts of the issue.

There, you f'up again TH. Correct verbiage would have been, to wit:

willfully ignorant of my facts of the issue

And ya wonder why I have no respect for two-bit Preachers and Ministers a claiming the glory of their God and the virtures of their Christian Religious beliefs.

They all do their damnest at playing the "lead role" in a real life Christian Church version of the George C. Scott movie, ........ "The Flim-Flam Man".

.

Sam, you would have made a good two-bit preacher!

Indeed, he would have, had he chosen to. He has the gift of flim-flamability out the wazoo.

You're wrong, again, dear Sam.

All Terry is doing is pointing out the obvious. These journalists are publishing convoluted, twisted stories in an attempt to be politically correct and not piss off the pro-abortionists. You can't call the baby a baby before live delivery from the mother's womb, dontchya know?

Keli wrote:Sam, you would have made a good two-bit preacher!

BULLCRAP and HORSEHOCKY, ......... just who do you think you are talking to?

That was an utterly gawd awful insult to my learned abilities and expertise.

GEEEZE, "two-bit" ain't even close, ...... I'd be at least a $25 "Fire n' Brimstone" Preacher ....... and the only thing I would need to get me "wound up n' on a roll" is 3 or 4 big shots of Vodka.

When ya get around to huggin n' squeezin on those little ole ladies after der Preachin, ....... ya don't want them smelling anything on your breath.

Cause iffen they do, ....... they know right away that it t'wern't the Spirit of the Lord you were "full of" when you were Sermonizing.




.