Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Abortionist fails to tell truth; feminist okay with that

On the recent decision by the New Jersey Court that said that an abortionist did not have to tell a patient that an embryo is a human being, Amanda Marcotte wrote:

The lawsuit in question was brought by a Rose Acuna, who claimed that the doctor should have told her that her embryo was a separate human being before performing the abortion. Acuna appears to be one of the many women out there waving the "choice for me but not for thee" flag, which is to say that they join anti-choice causes after getting an abortion themselves, and gain pity within the anti-choice community by playing up how badly they were "duped" to get an abortion. The court, helpfully, pointed out that the state has no business forcing professionals to use their authority to spread misinformation.


These sort of mandated scripts are often sold in paternalistic terms that assume both that women are too stupid to know what an abortion is and that legislators working from their low opinion of women have a better grasp on the practice of medicine than doctors with medical degrees.

A fetus is, biologically, a human being.

That is a fact.

The abortionist in question said that the fetus is "just some blood".

He misinformed her.

But hey, if an abortionist hides the truth from women, that's okay.

And there are plenty of people in this world who do not know what a fetus looks like and what an abortion does. I debate the issue of fetal rights on a regular basis, so I know. They do not acknowledge the rudimentary laws of biology: that a fetus is a human being.

I've noticed something about proponents of legalized abortion: they do not like people knowing the full facts about the nature of abortion. They don't like the pictures. They do not like the fact that it kills a human being. They do not like the methods. It's like they want to keep abortion in the dark.

The language used by proponents of legalized abortion is often euphemistic and not point blank. It is the "products of conception" that is removed. A pregnancy is "terminated". There is no discussion of the fact that a live being is killed. That this being is usually dismembered. That, in the later stages of pregnancy, he feels pain.

These aren't made up facts-- these are biologically provable notions.

But they want to keep the focus off these facts.

Oh sure, they will argue that there's a wider context which makes abortion necessary.

Even if that were the case: why hide the fact? Why cover up the facts? People who have nothing to hide, hide nothing. It should be common knowledge that abortion kills a fetus-- that is, a human being. It should not be controversial for an abortion provider to be compelled to do this, either by medical regulation or by law.

Because it's the plain truth.

A script in every doctor's office that equates an embryo with a five-year-old child doesn't make it true anymore than forcing patients to clap furiously will start saving fairy lives.

Now we're talking about the woman's values. To her, an unborn human being just might be equivalent to a born one. But if she does not know that, she is never given the opportunity to make that judgement.

If I were a clinic worker forced to read from an anti-choice script, I'd carry it around in a red folder label it the Pravda.

The irony, considering that she wants to hide the truth.

H/T: JivinJ'

Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator