Planned Parenthood

 

Still crazy after all these years: “There is no reason a conversation about products of conception requires more or less reverence than one about a kidney or a biopsy specimen”

By Dave Andrusko
  We have four posts today that investigate various components of a scandal that has Planned Parenthood calling in the heavyweight PR-types to spin the story out of the danger zone. But first something I’ve been meaning to write about since the Center for Medical Progress’s first undercover video showed Planned Parenthood for exactly what it is.

Why should PPFA and its gazillions apologists rely on misleading and overheated rhetoric about “highly” this and “highly” that (such as “highly edited,” “highly selectively edited,” and “highly doctored,” Cecile Richards’ tedious redundancies when she appeared on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”)?

Think about the last couple of years. What’s the message from the Abortion Establishment and its minions in the entertainment industry?

It’s quite simple. Seen properly, abortion is not even a nothing. Offing your unborn kid, no matter how developed she or he may be, is the moral equivalent of… Actually, there is no moral component, except that any attempt to curb a woman’s absolute right to abort is immoral.
Abortion, in fact, is nothing more than a punch line (see the moronic “Obvious Child”). Better yet (so to speak), demolishing those products of conception affords an opportunity for female bonding and for establishing a kind of career –see Emily Letts–by uploading a video of you joyfully annihilating your kid to YouTube. As she told the Philadelphia Inquirer

“Yes, I don’t have any guilt. I feel like the reason people are going crazy over my story is because they want it. Women and men have been thirsting for something like this. You don’t have to feel guilty. I feel super great about having an abortion, because it was the right decision for my life.”

  When I first heard about Letts, I thought it was put-on. Wrong. Then I read “The Many Manipulations of the Planned Parenthood Attack Videos: An OB/GYN explains how medically incorrect language is used to distort the facts,” by Jen Gunter. If I hadn’t read it with own eyes in the New Republic, I would have thought for sure that this was a pro-life spoof of Abortion Speak.
You can read her astonishing piece at www.newrepublic.com/article/122355/many-manipulations-planned-parenthood-attack-videos, but if you don’t have time, here’s the operative two paragraphs.
Referring to what you saw with your own eyes in the first two CMP videos, we’re told (and remember, I am not making this up)

These are not “baby parts.” Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called “products of conception.” In utero, i.e. during pregnancy, we use the term “embryo” from fertilization to ten weeks gestation and “fetus” from ten weeks to birth. The term baby is medically incorrect as it doesn’t apply until birth. Calling the tissue “baby parts” is a calculated attempt to anthropomorphize an embryo or fetus. It is a false image—a ten to twelve week fetus looks nothing like a term baby—and is medically incorrect. 

Hearing medical professionals talk casually about products of conception may seem distasteful to some, but not to doctors. Medical procedures are gory by nature. Surgeons routinely cut skin, saw bones, and lift the uterus out of the abdominal cavity and then put it back in. We stick our hands inside people and it is messy. We handle broken limbs, rotting flesh, and cancers that smell. We talk about this calmly because this is what we are trained to do. It doesn’t mean that we are heartless; it means we are professionals and this is our norm for a clinical conversation. There is no reason a conversation about products of conception requires more or less reverence than one about a kidney or a biopsy specimen. 

  I won’t bother to go on at length, because anything I could say, you could say better. I would only note that if we believe Dr. Gunter (an “OB/GYN”), that 32 week old unborn baby who is keeping her mom from getting a good night’s sleep is a “fetus.” And to call this creature a “baby” is to “anthropomorphize” which, by the way, is “to attribute human form or personality to things not human,” to quote from the Merriam Webster dictionary.
In Part Two, where I talk about the latest CMP video released today, I will interpret what technicians are doing to the scattered body organs of aborted babies through the blinkered vision we see displayed in Dr. Gunter’s second paragraph.
Clearly they share her view that fetal lungs and hearts and thymuses and brains are worth a conversation–except to barter over how much they can be sold for.

Source: NRLC News