What the Abortion Lobby Wants to Keep from the Contents of Your Skull
Written by Katie on April 19, 2007 – 8:04 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Whenever there’s big news on abortion, and partial-birth abortion in particular, it’s always telling to see just how far the Mainstream Media will go to tiptoe around the reality of the issue. The Marquette Warrior noted an exception yesterday, an unusually descriptive piece produced by the AP that explained both “dilation & extraction” and “dilation & evacuation”.
This morning’s Journal Sentinel, on the other hand, did not deviate in holding to the selective language. The following excerpt come from the
article printed on the JS’s front page today:
Later in a pregnancy, however, some form of surgery is required. At this stage, most doctors give the woman anesthesia and use instruments to remove the fetus in pieces. This procedure is known as a “dilation and evacuation,” or D&E, and it remains legal.
Some doctors who perform second-term abortions say it’s safer and less risky to remove the fetus intact because that method is less likely to expose the woman to injury, bleeding or infection. Usually, doctors would crush the skull, or drain its content, to permit its removal. This method has been referred to as a “dilation and extraction,” or D&X, and was made illegal by the 2003 law.
You know… “drain its content”… sort of like a bathtub or something. Hopefully the average reader will know what’s inside the skull — human brains of course, and they aren’t drained like a bathtub; they’re sucked out like the dirt in your car.
Equally vague is the D&E description, which almost implies that the fetus is just kind of floating around in pieces in the womb, ready to be removed one-by-one. The writer seems to have missed the part where the abortionist rips the fetus to pieces before removing the pieces.
This is a common problem in the Mainstream Media but seems to flow from the abortion lobby. Planned Parenthood’s website describes D&E as the uterus being “emptied with medical instruments and suction.” Who could differentiate this procedure from any other based on this information?
More importantly, why can’t women know what’s really going on with their bodies when they undergo an abortion? Why are the true procedures of common, supposedly acceptable surgeries so hush-hush? Why are people that are so concerned with a woman’s ability to choose not ensuring that she makes an informed choice?
Perhaps its because if people were faced with the reality of what abortion is, they’d be more likely to choose something else.
Last 5 posts by Katie- Marquette Must Prosecute - Fully and Publicly - March 5th, 2008
- ¿Por qué no te callas?: Hugo Chavez Still Won´t Shut It - November 18th, 2007
- Tribune Preoccupation Wows Me - September 19th, 2007
- "Clout" Proves Easy to Come by at Black Journalists' Convention - August 12th, 2007
- License Plate Splicer on Campus - July 18th, 2007
Posted in Brave New World |
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
The language debate goes all the way to the Supreme Court. The dissenters refuse to use the term “partial birth abortion” despite the fact that it is the term used in the language of the statute and by 99% of the population. (Go ask your friends if they can tell you the “other” term for the procedure… no one ever says “intact dilation and extraction.)
Justice Ginsburgh also takes Justice Kennedy to task for using the term “abortion doctor” to describe people who perform abortions. There’s an interesting post over at Bench Memos about the origin of the term “Abortion Doctor”… apparently it was a PC alternative to “abortionist.” How long do you think it’ll be before abortion itself becomes a dirty word scorned by “pro-choice” advocates?
April 19th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
“Perhaps its because if people were faced with the reality of what abortion is, they’d be more likely to choose something else.”
The point is, they should have a choice. Enough said.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Don’t worry… they can still choose dismemberment, but they have to do it inside their body. None of this partial delivery nonsense.
April 20th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Hillary for President!
April 20th, 2007 at 7:04 am
A dirty little secret in many of the areas where I come from (Arkansas) is that often reason the “choice” of abortion is made by race. In other words, a daughter of a “respectable” family would face disownment on many, many levels from her family and community if she was found to have been “with” someone that isn’t a W.A.S.P. This “choice” was based on whether or not the child was “white enough” for people to accept, and is the ultimate prejudice of who lives and who does not.
As horribly racist this is, it happens to this day, as my girlfriend from Stuttgart, AR is certain of this happening at least once in her HS class.
The question that could be asked is, if this is the case, is it just as much a right to choose who is born the way a storekeeper could choose who is served in his store fifty years ago?
April 20th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
As much as I agree with your goal, Hunter, I don’t buy that. I’d need some statistics before I’d trust anecdotal evidence of that nature. Common sense seems to say that anyone who’s hung up on race to the point that they’d get an abortion that they would otherwise avoid is probably not someone who’d be pregnant with an interracial child in the first place. This just seems too much like a movie plot for me to believe it happens with any significant frequency.
But on a related note, wait until they finally discover the elusive “gay gene” and watch the sparks fly…
April 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
Perhaps its because if people were faced with the reality of what abortion is, they’d be more likely to choose something else.
…………
anyone who’s been to high school, elementary school, church, or or turned on a TV in the last 20 years has had all the very hypocritical pro-life rhetoric jammed down their throats. abortion is birth control and a factually more gruesome version of it. in a country (not to mention culture in general) where getting knocked up is seen as burdensome and nothing to celebrate (especially if not occurring before age 30 and in a stable family income), it’s just unreal to expect the number of people who get abortions to lower.
kids are damned expensive. not to mention annoying and it takes them more than 9 years to be useful Americans. an abortion is a 1 time purchase monetarily, whereas keeping the kid isn’t, and there is a lot of intangible monetary loss from medical crap due to carrying to term only to give the kid up to Mr. and Mrs. Floppy Johnson in the next state. it’s no good decrying a procedure as inhumane, blah blah blah when that does nothing to alleviate whatever reasons or conditions lead someone to choose abortion