QUICK LINKS
Partial Birth Abortion Now In Vogue
"When Lori Campbell's second pregnancy developed complications, she was faced with a painful decision. But she was thankful it was hers to make." Vogue Magazine, January 2008.
What follows in the article is an extreme makeover of partial birth abortion.
The procedure is contrary to life itself and is not normal, yet Vogue puts the story in a light that makes it almost chic and stylish.
The gruesome procedure involves the child being extracted from the mother's womb, until only the head remains in the birth canal, then the child is killed by suctioning out the brains and collapsing the skull.
Vogue seems to be exalting it as a new level of choice and freedom. The medical community calls it "intact dilation and extraction."
Hilary White, at LifeSite, has written an article that is both in-depth and sensitive. She suggests that the Vogue article is a clever attempt by the magazine to posture legal abortion as a boon to women's emancipation.
I recommend that you read her article.
God bless you.
_______________
Gary Randall
President
Faith & Freedom
Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.
14 Comments:
" The medical community calls it "intact dilation and extraction.""
That's becuase that is what it is. "Partial-birth abortion" is a term made up by the marketing mavens of the anti-choice industry to try and sway public opinion.
Jeff in Bellevue
Yeah, right. It's just another procedure like going to the dentist. The right wing mavens have deceived us again.
intact dilation and extraction=
KILLING! Period--God help us!!
God give us 'better insight'!
God give us patience and Love!
Never said it was like going to the dentist. Merely pointed out the correct term for it is not the marketing one cooked up by the anti-choice industry.
BTW: to whom am I speaking? I could have sworn the posting guidelines required a mention of one's name and location. Those rule must only apply to those, who have the temerity to disagree with the FFN party line.
Jeff in Bellevue
anon 12:50pm,
I find your pleas to God curious. Don't you think he should have anticipated the need and been a little more proactive?
After all, he's had ample time to provide better insight, etc.
Either he's choosing not to, or it's beyond his skill set. In either case, I don't think using exclamation marks will help get his attention.
Mark in Tigard
"Merely pointed out the correct term for it is not the marketing one cooked up by the anti-choice industry."
Jeff , you use anti choice , a political marketing tool to ridicule the term partial birth abortion .
Then again , is it a intact dilation and extraction."" ?
I thought Planned Parenthood called it a "choice" .
Your a kick . I can understand on a serious note why this is a difficult topic . A young lady , 17 , with her whole life in front of her , pregnant . Does she have to give up her school life now , school , etc . Or a women with already 3 or 4 kids . Married or living with her boyfriend , the guy is not much of a help , she is pregnant , she already has one still in diapers . Or on rare occassions the baby starts to grow that may cause harm to the Mother , yeah its a difficult thing to talk about , it takes respect , and much love . Why don't you troll along till you can .
Mick,
Of course I used anti-choice, which is a political marketing tool, just like you and FFN consistently use terms like "pro-life" which is also a political marketing tool. Funny thing is pro-choice is much closer to an objective statement of my position (supports legal abortion at the discretion(choice) of the woman involved), than pro-life is to an objective statement of your and FFN's position, which is really just anti-abortion.
As far as speaking with respect and love; those rare occaisions that you so casually dismiss ARE responsible for the vast majority of intact dilation and extraction abortions. Are comments such as "Vogue puts the story in a light that makes it almost chic and stylish"; "Vogue seems to be exalting it as a new level of choice and freedom." which Gary offered up in response to the story of one such woman, who faced such a difficult decision, examples of what you consider respect and much love?
As for your childish personal attack (accusing me of being a troll), I suggest you look up a definition for that word. It doesn't mean offering up substantive commentary from a different or opposing viewpoint, which is what I have done on these boards (where allowed by the censors).
Jeff in Bellevue
"Are comments such as 'Vogue puts the story in a light that makes it almost chic and stylish'; 'Vogue seems to be exalting it as a new level of choice and freedom.' which Gary offered up in response to the story of one such woman, who faced such a difficult decision, examples of what you consider respect and much love?"
I see two flaws in this statement. First of all, the woman in question was not put in one of the difficult situations to which you referred. She had been told the baby would most likely not survive a regular birth, so she chose "the path of least suffering, for myself, my husband, our future children, and mostly for the baby inside me." Ironically, this involved having the child partially delivered (mere inches away from full delivery), then deliberately killed, rather than even attempting to save the child's life. The second flaw in your statement is that, as far as I can see, Gary was not criticizing the woman's decision, merely how Vogue spun this sad and personal story to make *all* such procedures seem normal and acceptable.
On a slightly different note, I would like to point out that terms like "pro-choice" and "pro-life" reflect deeply held differences in how each side views abortion. One side views abortion as a choice which may be utilized at need, while the other sees abortion as murder, and thus describes itself as promoting life. The fact that these terms also stir up public sympathy is not insignificant, but I submit that they are more than simply "political marketing tools" as you suggested. I also believe that in the context of this discussion it may be more helpful to stick to terms either that each side has chosen for itself (eg. "pro-life") or that are relatively objective (eg. "anti-abortion). This will, I think, help keep "personal attacks" from being posted in the heat of the moment. I have no objection to being described as anti-abortion, because I do believe that in most if not all cases, abortion is wrong. However, the term "anti-choice," which you used earlier in the discussion, could be applied to almost any debate, and as such conjures up the image of an inflexibly tradional person so set on keeping things the way they have always been that he or she cannot see how good other options can be. *This* image is misleading, and I do not wish to be associated with it. I imagine others who hold similar beliefs to mine probably feel the same way, and perhaps post things hastily, while still upset about the implications of such terms.
JEF
St. Joseph, Minnesota
JEF,
Did you read the actually story in Vogue? Or just the representation of it on an anti-abortion website?
You mischaracterize even the slanted information in the lifesite story. The woman in question got an intact dilation and extraction abortion becuase, her ater having broke at 22 weeks, odds were vanishingly small that the fetus would survive to viability. It was not because it was unlikely to survive childbirth, were that the situation the mother in question would undoubtably opped for a c-section to protect a child that she plainly WANTED to have. The way you mischaracterise this woman, the extremely painful and personal situation she found herself in, and the decision she made is extremely callous. It is the very antithesis of respect and love.
Much like the Terri Schiavo case you provide us a yet another example of the hubris of the pro-life movement refusing let thier complete and utter lack of knowledge and understanding of a complex, painful and personal medical situation from second guessing the decisions made by those involved.
Jeff in Bellevue
Mark in Tigard''
concerning my (!) marks after my statements. They were meant for people like YOU_-NOT GOD!
God gave us FREE WILL--thus, it's our individual 'choices' as to how we handle these subjects!
anon 11:00pm
OK, I understand that you were really addressing me, even though you were speaking to God. If God can't or won't answer your plea, I really don't think I can either. Sorry.
Mark in Tigard
I am pleading with you to HEAR---which obviously is going to be quite a task--lol! Seriously, I was pleading to fellow Christians for 'encouragement' and for you and others, to 'really hear' what God wants and expects of us! God has answered my pleas--now it's up to 'His people' to act--He has spoken already, by setting up our 'guiding standards'concerning these 'moral issues' within HIs Word, the Holy Bible! Do you 'get it' Mark!?
PBA is terrible procedure when used to terminate a health pregnancy. PBA is a wonderful procedure when used to terminate a pregnancy gone wrong to preserve a woman's life and health.
PBA is a medical procedure no more no less. Just a medical procedure.
Jeff : I wrote this at the time of Teri Schiavo case.
What happened flew agaist traditional family values.
______________________________
A man and a woman get married and become a new family. A child is born to this family and the couple
care for , protect & teach their child . The child grows, matures and becomes an adult and leave its parents,
finds a mate and gets married and becomes a new family. This is the story of Terri & Michael Schiavo , Terri Schiavo's parents, Michael Schiavo's parents
and most of those reading this.
Once a child becomes an adult and marries they become a new family separate from its parents.
The decisions of the new family are the new families decisions alone.
Michael Schiavo's decision to let his spouse Terri go is one of the most heart wrenching emotional decisions that a spouse
has to do.
This decision was Michael's and not Terri's parents , Terri's brothers and sisters, President Bush, Governor Bush
or any other person outside Michael & Terri's family.
It was wrong for Terri's parents to fight Michael Shiavo's decision to let Terri go in the courts.
It was wrong for Terri's parents , spiritual advisor & lawyers to slander Michael Schiavo by questioning his motives
and integraty.
Post a Comment
<< Home