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
ok...thanks Mods
It was about a scientist who had found a gay gene. Which has not and will not happen, but I digress. He was testing babies invetro, to see if they carried that gene he had supposedly found. It progresses to a woman who had a gay brother in law, and was persuaded to have the test. She is the victim of a bomb intended for this scientist. But it was the gay brother who sent the bomb, as part of some activism. And the really hypocritical thing was, the family of the expectant Mom, who was in a coma, were going to terminate the pregnancy because this scientist had told her the baby was gay, and the lawyers were trying to PREVENT the abortion! On the grounds that “this is what caused the bombing, and the activists are terrified of the identification of this gene. The fear a “gay genocide”!!!!
So, if it’s just a baby who’s mother wants to be rid of the inconvenience, that’s her right, but if it is somehow shown the baby is gay (ridiculous claim) then it’s genocide???
Like I said, you had to wonder if this was a show pointing out absurdity by being absurd, because the whole program was so absurd.
I agree. Not only don't I buy or subscribe, I won't even pick them up in a waiting room.
I think they do encourage the "all about me" attitude, and also try to make women dissatisfied with their lives.
I've got better things to do. Even when I'm stuck in a waiting room somewhere! If I don't have my own reading material, I'll pick up Field and Stream a lot faster than most of these "women's magazines." Heck, I'll even read Golf Digest first!!!
Having seen a ‘training tape’ back in the 1980’s used at medical schools of this procedure, ‘cool’ is one of the last words that comes to mind.
As you can tell ‘genocide’ is the first one I think of on this topic. Its the most accurate.
If all PBAs were only for situations where the mother’s life was medically at stake, or the unborn child was KNOWN to be dying a painful death, there’d be very few. But Tiller the Killer performs more than 400 per year, for reasons so silly as the ‘mother’ being depressed.
Exactly! This is what kills any argument PBA supporters have, but of course, they will never acknowledge it.
****************
LOL! Agreed!
She can try to justify it however she chooses but the fact that she murdered her own child will never be anything other than a fact.
Unlikely - UNLIKELY! Did we all catch that? Didn't say IMPOSSIBLE, but UNLIKELY. And I seem to recall reading recently of a beautiful tiny fighter who SURVIVED birth at 22 weeks. Wait, quick google - Here's one, first hit.
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."
You chose - key use of abortion-speak here. What you did was take the decision out of God's hands. And you didn't fail your daughter because you had an incompetent cervix. You failed your daughter because you took away the possibility, no matter how minute it may have been, that your daughter just might have had the will to pull through.
This woman obviously didn’t want to be “inconvenienced”. Killing full term babies is murder. I say this with some right to do so; I had a Down Syndrome baby who died about six weeks later from digestive complications. However, the whole sequence of events wasn’t my call as far as I was concerned, nor was it some godlike doctor’s call. These “career feminist socialist weenies” are so hung up on their own importance it isn’t even funny - and they are headed up by the Queen of Self-Importance, Hillary Clinton. May the Lord deliver us.
She had an “incompetent cervix”. That is usually the result of having had several previous abortions.
What an evil cow!
That works for me!
Yep. You get it. These womyn’s magazines put skeletal women on their covers and basically tell their readers that’s what they’re supposed to look like. Thanks, but no thanks on Angelina Jolie as a role model, either morally (despite all the “humanitarian hoopla” or physically. I shudder to think what she’s going to look like at 90, if she’s still around.
Allow me to state the obvious - there is no medical situation where a partial birth abortion is ever necessary to save the health or life of the mother.
Better yet, it's not ever an emergency procedure either, because labor-inducing drugs are taken hours before. Think about it - the doctor prepares the mother for BIRTH. So obviously, she can survive birth at that time.
And if the mother can survive birth at that time, WHY KILL THE BABY AS HE'S BEING BORN? Killing the baby changes nothing for the mother, besides making her child dead.
Common sense tells us there is no medical reason to willfully kill the baby. It's about convenience and/or deception.
She has Guns and Ammo and Hunting Retriever News in the waiting room!
So instead of waiting for the child to die, Lori decided to have a partial-birth abortion. Her stated reasoning for why she got a PBA was because she didn’t want to have a baby that would suffer and die and that it would be more like a miscarriage instead of the death of a child. Campbell claims the term “partial-birth abortion” didn’t exist in 1998 which is an incredibly ignorant claim considering Charles Canady introduced the original partial-birth abortion ban act in 1995 and Congress passed it that same year. Congress also passed another partial-birth abortion ban in 1997 and there was a segment on 60 Minutes in 1996 on partial-birth abortion.
More...
Like I said, you had to wonder if this was a show pointing out absurdity by being absurd, because the whole program was so absurd.
Wow, that's incredible. Chances are the liberal writers of Law & Order never even saw that coming because in their minds, it makes perfect sense.
Your post made me think of what radio host Jim Quinn out of Pittsburgh often says - "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent."
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.