Redstate

Not all of the blogs that covered Latoyia Figueroa's disappearance were left-leaning, of course. One such blog that took a completely independent approach, and also posted about several other missing persons of varying ages, ethnicities, and backgrounds, is Politics Philly.

Well presented.  It amazes me that the same supporters of UVVA can support (some) womens right to choose distruction of their unborn child.

I'd say that this story wasn't pushed under the rug because of Sheehan.  If that were true then they also would have dropped the missing woman in Aruba, too.  Instead we still have nightly updates from journalists in Aruba.  I think CNN covers it for at least 10 - 15 minutes every hour from 8-11 and Fox is about the same.  The attention span of the media is too narrow, they can only cover one of these missing person stories at a time.  

Also, I'm sure the journalists would rather go to Aruba than Philadelphia in August.  

Comparing the media coverage of the horrific Latoyia Figueroa case (or Evelyn Hernandez, a 24 year-old pregnant woman who's body was found in the San Fran bay). The media, however, paid scant attention to this immigrant from El Salvador. to that of the equally horrific case of Laci Peterson misses the point.  The Peterson case grabbed our attention during a typically slow media period (Christmas) so the media fixated on it (plus you had the rising sentimentality of the public due to the holiday season).  Today, we have the Iraq war, worldwide terrorism, Israel's pullout from Gaza, the ridiculous Cindy Sheehan, etc.  

One columnist recently addressed this issue (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002441343_harrop16.html) and made some excellent points, including:  "Both Figueroa and Hernandez were about to have their second child out of wedlock. Americans may have become more accepting of single motherhood, but they also know the following: Women who go this route live more dangerously than mothers with husbands."  

Again, not to be personally degrading, but that's a naive view. Why is it that Cindy Sheehan, of all people, is getting all this media attention? Because this also is a slow news time - the slowest I can recall in a while. I understand the news that is going on right now, but given the ridiculous coverage that's been given (simultaneously) to Natalee Holloway, this explanation doesn't wash.

Neither, to me, does the "children out of wedlock" theory. Just because people make unwise decisions does not justify what happened to Figueroa, nor make the average person less compasisonate when the individual in question turns up missing.

in the way that Americans regard abortion. Human beings are quite capable of coming up with the flimsiest of rationalizations to dispel cognitive dissonance when it is in their best interest to do so. You can point out the hypocrisy of calling the slaying of the fetus "murder" when the child is wanted and "an elective surgical procedure" when it is not, but the portion of the electorate that is sympathetic to one form of abortion or another will just ignore the you. It's quite simple, really: most people only make unpleasant choices when they have to. This is the same situation as choosing between "lower taxes" and "more government spending that benefits me" - most people will smile, say "both please," and try not to think about the potential long-term consequences. Any politician that tries to force the choice between one or another will find him- or herself booted out of office at the next election.

Doesn't explain the attention given to her though, does it? I think the racism is tacit; it's not that anyone is consciously ignoring stories because of the race of the victims, there's just something about the victimization of middle-class white people that taps into the anxieties of the media classes and their dominant audience.

Nope. Racism has nothing to do with it. And neither does sexism.

We can tell, because the only thing that gets the media as fired up as a pretty white girl in distress is a black dude who done it. The only requirement is that the black dude has to either be bad, or he has to have made a record album called Bad. If either of those things is true, a black guy can be on the TV news as much as a pretty white girl.

I was disheartened to see that yes, in fact, the UVVA was for some just a trojan horse on the road to ban abortion.

I'm pro-choice (though, like so many pro-choice men, I would fight and argue and plead to save any child I had fathered), but I was strongly in favor of the UVVA. Why? Because I believe in the right to choose, and if a woman chooses to bear a child than that choice shouldn't be overruled by an abusive partner or a random psychopath. I understand your argument, but it still, for me, comes down to the right to choose even if I may disagree with one of the options.

So I have -- not at Daily Kos, but elsewhere -- argued strongly in favor of the UVVA, and been forced to defend myself repeatedly against charges that I was merely facilitating a sneaky flank of the right-wing social conservative agenda. So now it turns out that I was wrong, they were correct, and in addition I was idiotic. This law that was righteous and could've been a bipartisan tool to prosecute and perhaps stop an all too common form of horrific violence is going to be used as a partisan tool.

If that's the case then count me out of the defense of such laws during the next round. Legislate to prosecute and protect, not to pontificate and posture.

Perhaps some small, incremental shift that helps pin down the mushy middle, but it's not going to change much.

You can support UVVA and be pro-choice at the same time, all it requires is a single vaguely plausable reason and there are lots:

• The fetus is the woman's property -- the attacker should be punished more for that
• Attacking a pregnant woman is repulsive, just like attacking someone because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation -- extra punishment for that.
• The attacker was a bad man and should be punished more just for spite.
  

Well, I don't know what anyone else may have said when the UVVA was under consideration, but I was right up front about my motivations.

First, I was for it because it was the right thing to do. The reason that I believed that was because I believed that an unborn child deserves the legal protection that a born child does. Which leads directly to point number two.

Second, I was for it because I hoped that it would illuminate the cognitive dissonance that exists within many people without their even knowing it - namely, the one that you just pointed out. That they are okay with a mother killing her own unborn child, but not okay with someone else doing it. In other words, whether an unborn child is a human or not is - in your eyes - purely the decision of the mother. If this is true for an unborn child, what stops it from being true for one that is a month old? Either a fetus is a human or it is not. Making its humanity contingent upon the desire of the mother to have the child is, prima facie, a monstrous position.

I've been perfectly frank about stating this belief up front. I'm sorry you're willing to abandon what you consider to be a legitimate moral position because of how you perceive that said legitimate moral position might be used by others. I would hope that, for a person of principle, the realization that your defense of abortion is morally unjustifiable, given your clear belief that unborn humans are due legal protection, would instead win out in this discussion.

Both Atrios and MyDD are philly based... and they're huge.

phillyfuture.org has quite a large collection of philly bloggers.  but if  you go through, you'll see they lean left.

There was even a blog post in blinq (the Philly Inquirer's blog) about the preponderance of liberal blogs based in Philly.

Not to say there aren't conservative philly blogs.

Just not many...

blonde sagacity is probably the most popular...

and a number of smaller ones...

my blog (cheap plug) , pstupidonymous, White Lighting Axiom, philly federalists, the wissy, is this life?, etc...

(i probably missed some)

I know this sounds racist, but missing women in the "hood" are as common as welfare checks. Often they work in the dangerous profession of prostitution and this leads to murder. They must pay for their drug habit and hooking is easy money.

As a friendly suggestion to you, if you're interested in really contributing to the debate, I'd recommend reading this site for a day or two before you actually comment. Because right now, you're coming across as a moby.

.... with apologies to Just Me.  

are garbage. Same with YPP.

Leon H,

I agree with you about reaching a turn in the bend, but I fear there is another turn ahead that we are fast approaching.  There is a way for people reconcile the UVVA with a right to abortion.  Namely, by viewing the fetus as a special form of property.  (Note:  I use the term "fetus" not to dehumanize unborn human life but to distinguish between unborn human life and "personhood."  While I believe unborn human life has a right to life, I believe the rights of liberty and property only make sense for "persons" -- i.e. the born.)

The growing support for stem-cell research reinforces the view that the embryo is property rather than human life.  Once the clear, bright line of "human life begins at conception" is violated, what will keep us from being pushed down the slippery slope by the combination of commercial pressure and self-interest?  Where do we find another clear, bright line?

The idea of the fetus being viewed as property may shock you, but this view of "property" is hardly unprecedented.  Furthermore, if the fetus is regarded as property, then it is easy to make the argument that the mother has the controlling interest.

There are, of course, ways in which the government can interfere with what one does with one's property, including the exercise of eminent domain for taking.  Those of us who value liberty wish to limit the power of the government in this regard.  We regard government as an agent we endow with powers for the purpose of securing our rights, not for taking them.  It is important here to recognize the difference between "rights" and "privileges."  There is no right to employment, housing, etc.  I would also argue that there is no right to a state-sanctioned marriage that confers economic benefits from the state or creates economic obligations for other parties.  To secure our rights, the government acts as needed to prevent others from taking them and arbitrates in cases of competing rights.  Those who value liberty argue that the government has no right to deprive the few or the weak of their rights for the convenience and comfort of the many or the powerful.

Thus to protect liberty as well as to protect the human right of life, we should be seeking to protect the fetus based on its independent rights.  I believe any other path will lead to an increasingly utilitarian view of human life.

I'm in a hurry right now, so I don't have time to write a thorough response, but let me just say this. If the fetus deserves protection as property, then the UVVA was the wrong move. Because the provisions of the act made the person who killed a mother with child liable for two counts of murder, and property is not murdered.

I agree with you about the logic of the UVVA.  However, I believe the growing acceptance of stem cell research introduces not only a conflicting logic but also a new psychological dynamic.

I don't put much faith in the use of legal definitions to change attitudes.  Most people have no problem regarding corporations as "persons" for some purposes and property for other purposes.  The California penal code has included a provision since 1970 which defines murder as the unlawful killing of either a "human being" or a "fetus."  Unlike the UVVA, the California law does not make the maximum penalty for killing a "fetus" less than the maximum penalty for killing a "human being."  This law and abortion on demand have co-existed in the state of California without creating unbearable cognitive dissonance.

Liberals lost the trust of America by using political manipulation to force change, acting on the theory that changes in hearts and minds would follow.  I see some of those who call themselves conservatives starting to go down that same path.  I do not include you in that crowd, Leon.  I simply urge you to realize how easy it is to lose the high moral ground.