Thursday, November 11, 2004

Ms. Magazine

Imago Dei posts his critique of an alarmingly article in Ms. Magazine. The article by Martha Mendoza describes her personal story of having a stillborn child removed.

As Imago Dei says, Mendoza's logic is extremely twisted. Her basic position is that partial-birth abortion (the intentional killing of partially-born innocent human beings) should be legal so that when women have a stillborn child, doctors will be trained to remove that already dead child in the way that the woman most prefers. Wouldn't it be just easier to train doctors in a variety of techniques to remove stillborn children? Why should an intentional act of killing be legalized so more doctors will be able to remove a dead child in the exact way that Mendoza prefers? Shouldn't doctors be allowed to decide which method they prefer and think is safest for their clients?

Plus doctors haven't been trained to do D and E's for years - so the federal ban that Bush signed is not the reason for it. She says, "restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations." Wrong. What law restricts doctors from being trained to do D and E abortions if they want? I'm not aware of any. The reality is that doctors don't want to perform abortions - most of them decided to become doctors because they wanted to save lives not end them.

She also seems to be wholly misleading on what type of procedure she received. This could be either ignorance (not understanding what the different abortion procedures are) or deception. She says she had a "D and E" and that her dead son "slipped out" and she could see the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. In D and E (dilatation and evacuation) procedures the child doesn't slip out. The child is dismembered and the skull is sometimes crushed because it has often been hardened to bone. She didn't have a D and E if her son slipped out.

Maybe she had a PBA also known as D and X (dilation and extraction) or intact D and E. Mendoza throughout her piece does a poor job of differentiating between D and E's and D and X's. She wants a D and E because they are supposedly safer but then seems to be actually trying to get a D and X In this procedure, her child would be delivered feet first except for the head and then scissors would be jammed into her dead son's head and his brains would be suctioned out so his skull could collapse and be delivered. Her experience doesn't sound like this type of abortion either because the skull of the child would be collapsed. It sounds like the child was delivered.

Its unfortunate that Ms. Magazine is either too lazy to actually research this issue or that they are too pro-abortion to stop any article supplying erronous information to their readers as long as it is favor of abortion.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous7:22 AM

    Because it's the same procedure, you ignorant grease stain!