Merit
How long has it been since the New York Times had truly great writers or thinkers? It certainly hasn't been in my lifetime.
Their canned response to the Virginia Tech tragedy (posted mere hours after it happened and before the facts had come out) and now their response to the latest Supreme Court ruling on abortion demonstrates that their editorials are no better than liberal talking points.
The Times would have me believe that the majority decision could not be trusted because it was written by men. And while the dissent was also largely written by men, at least they had a woman in their midst.
So, too, I should believe that telling a woman that she can no longer "choose" a certain medical procedure means that all of her choices have been taken away from her. (Hmmm, I wonder what that argument would do to the Times favorite positions on gun control and the Second Amendment.)
The Times also tries to argue that since none on the majority side are doctors we should not trust their judgment...ignoring the fact that none on the minority side (or at the Times) are, either. Also ignored is the fact that issues of law are not supposed to be decided by doctors.
That the Times has to falsely portray the majority opinion, and the reasoning behind it, says it all. The Times' position on this subject cannot stand on its own merit.
Their canned response to the Virginia Tech tragedy (posted mere hours after it happened and before the facts had come out) and now their response to the latest Supreme Court ruling on abortion demonstrates that their editorials are no better than liberal talking points.
The Times would have me believe that the majority decision could not be trusted because it was written by men. And while the dissent was also largely written by men, at least they had a woman in their midst.
So, too, I should believe that telling a woman that she can no longer "choose" a certain medical procedure means that all of her choices have been taken away from her. (Hmmm, I wonder what that argument would do to the Times favorite positions on gun control and the Second Amendment.)
The Times also tries to argue that since none on the majority side are doctors we should not trust their judgment...ignoring the fact that none on the minority side (or at the Times) are, either. Also ignored is the fact that issues of law are not supposed to be decided by doctors.
That the Times has to falsely portray the majority opinion, and the reasoning behind it, says it all. The Times' position on this subject cannot stand on its own merit.