Posted on 01/11/2008 9:16:17 AM PST by NYer
NEW YORK, January 10, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cleverly marketing legal abortion as a boon to women's emancipation has been the most important task of the abortion industry and lobby for thirty years. In this month's edition, the gruesome procedure of partial birth abortion has been given a style makeover by the world's most influential fashion magazine, Vogue.
The magazine offers the article's description: "When Lori Campbell's second pregnancy developed complications, she was faced with a painful decision. But she was thankful it was hers to make." What follows is a paean to legalized late-term abortion and a series of long complaints about the efforts of pro-life Americans to make it illegal.
In the article, "Private Lives," that appears in the January 2008 issue of the US edition of Vogue, Lori Campbell describes her decision in 1998 to have a late term abortion by the method usually referred to as "partial birth." In partial birth abortion the child is extracted from the mother's womb, until only the head remains in the birth canal; he is then killed by suctioning out the brains and collapsing the skull. This type of abortion is called "intact dilation and extraction" by the medical community, and was banned in the US in 2003. In 2007, a US Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionality of the ban.
Campbell describes how her water broke at 22 weeks into her second pregnancy, and doctors told her and her husband that the child would be unlikely to survive. Campbell justifies her decision to kill her child, saying she was sparing her needless suffering. Campbell's life was not threatened by the pregnancy.
"I chose what I believe was the path of least suffering, for myself, my husband, our future children, and mostly for the baby inside me."
Campbell complains that the term partial-birth abortion "is also inherently judgmental". "A partial-birth abortion, if you must call it that. One born out of love."
"How can I agree to a partial-birth abortion and not feel like a bad person? It preys on women in a weakened state - women who already likely believe they are 'bad' because they have failed as mothers."
"In my case, an incompetent cervix threatened the life of a fetus otherwise healthy and so close to meeting the world. All she needed was another lousy couple of weeks, I kept telling myself. But I had failed her. My incompetence, I felt, extended well beyond the cervix into every fiber of my being. I didn't need another person, or the government, to confirm it."
With Vogue's usual mastery of imagery, Campbell has been depicted as an archetype of the beautiful happy young mother, with both her and her daughter dressed immaculately in clothes strongly reminiscent of the idealized 1950's family.
The iconic magazine, a worldwide institution, was founded in 1892 and publishes editions in Australia, Brazil, China, France, Germany, Greece, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, United Kingdom and the United States.
Vogue, owned by Conde Nast Publications, is a major engine of the women's movement, but is often criticized for valuing solely material wealth, appearance and social position and is regularly accused of creating an unhealthy weight-obsessed idealized body-image among young women.
To contact Vogue offices:
Customer Service 800-234-2347 (within the US)
talkingback@vogue.com
we ‘made up’ Clinton’s affairs too
Imho, they have an influence, especially on young women, who don't realize they are being brainwashed.
Hey, we think alike, I didn’t see your post first.
In a strange way, if you occasionally scan these voguish women’s magazines, fashion=death.
How many smiling, happy faces do you see in Vogue advertisements? They all look skinny, rich, bored, angry, scowling, and drugged out. And that’s the fashionable look.
In People magazine you can see that the fashion among Hollywood stars is to adopt African babies, or even to have a baby that you can leave home with a nanny while you go out and party. But in Vogue you can see that the real fashion for the rich establishment types is to abort these little inconveniences.
She claims that she already felt she had “failed” as a mother because her body was not able to carry the baby to term. No one on the right is claiming that so it must be feminists on the left who put that notion in her head.
Has anyone ever come up with an example of this being medically necessary as opposed to the quicker procudure of the doctor giving one last tug and having a live birth?
Doctors know the law of averages..They don’t know the law of faith or the law of life.
"I chose what I believe was the path of least suffering, for myself...
No matter how much flowery prose are packed in this article, the unvarnished truth is contained in this little nugget simply gushed out for all the world to see. The facts in this case are that the doctors told her that the baby would not survive, so rather than letting life take its due course, this woman, and her husband, chose to preemptively kill their baby for the sake of expediency.
Great minds think alike =)
There is also an internal processing charge for each litter card they receive which must be many times the cost of postage, but I do like the brick idea. Cinder?
Sick bastards.
Yes, she took the greatest gift God could give her and murdered it. Her explanation of murdering her child to save it from "needless suffering" is beyond incompetence. When people are outraged over dog killings by a football player and don't even bat an eyelash to something like this, we are as a country morally insane.
Well stated Gerish...
The purpose of this procedure is precisely to end life before it exits the birth canal at which time it would be considered murder, at least for now. As society plummets down the slippery slope, there are already citizens calling for post birth abortion.
Typical Hollywood it's all about me POS.
15 years ago my wife and I went through some tough times the pregnancy of our 3rd child. She was not growing within the womb, and we met with specialists. One specialist recommended an abortion because she felt that the baby, if she/he survived the birth, would be a multiple handicapped child.
We chose to go through with the pregnancy, and deal with whatever came along. Our 15 year old daughter Kathryn is thriving, and enjoying life every moment of the day.
Maybe the real reason the Vogue woman had the abortion was she wanted to avoid the inconvenience of being on her back all that time.
I've seen it happen and not had the impression that the baby was suffering at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.