New York Times at It Again

“Fetus/Baby”–Another Schizophrenic New York Times news story

 

By Dave Andrusko

Aleksander Dikov and Yingyi Li-Dikov

NRL News Today ran dozens and dozens of stories about events leading up and the trial itself of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was eventually convicted of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter.

It shouldn’t have—but did—shock us (along with many other pro-lifers) when the New York Times labeled the babies that Gosnell had aborted alive and THEN murdered as “fetuses.” This was absurdly wrong on its face and a transparent attempt to minimize the humanity of Gosnell’s many, many victims. This need not be belabored, except to the likes of the Times’ Trip Gabriel who wrote about the beginning of Gosnell’s trial as being about the fate of “seven fetuses.”
But the Times’ discomfort with talking about the unborn as something other than “fetuses” makes for news stories that are nothing short of schizophrenic.

Yesterday the Times wrote a touching, achingly painful story about a mother and her six-month-old unborn child who both died over the weekend when a massive tree fell on Yingyi Li-Dikov as she sat on a green bench in Kissena Park in Queens.

The caption on one of the photos read “Yingyi Li-Dikov, 30, and the fetus she was carrying died.” In the story by Sarah Maslin Nir we read, “The 6-month-old fetus did not survive.” In another caption, the child is not even acknowledged: “Aleksander Dikov, center, along with his parents, took flowers on Monday to the site where his wife was killed by a toppled tree.”

 

As the story makes clear Dikov (and his parents) were mourning the loss of his wife AND their unborn daughter.

“The Dikov family keeps an album of photos that document the love story of their son, Aleksander, and his wife, Yingyi Li-Dikov. On each page, they beam, always hugging. In one, Ms. Li-Dikov kneels over a heart drawn in the sand, the initials A and Y at its center.

“And on another page is a black-and-white photo: the hazy sonogram of the daughter they were expecting in the fall.

“There will be no pictures of mother and child.”

Two sentences later, as if the writer (or the copy editor) realized what she had written made them uncomfortable, the child reverts to being a “fetus” who had not survived. It would be interesting to know whose decision this was.

But even the PC New York Times realizes you can turn “stockpiling baby clothes and dreaming up baby names” into “stockpiling fetus clothes and dreaming up fetus names.”
And the baby is no “fetus” to her father. The story ends

“On Monday afternoon, Mr. Dikov ducked under yellow caution tape to the site of his wife’s death. The tree still lay across the splintered bench. His parents beside him, he laid flowers down while wearing his National Guard uniform.

“His sobs filled the air of the quiet park.

“’I was looking forward to having a baby,’ he said later. ‘Having a baby girl.’”

Source: NRLC News