By Dave Andrusko
The headline on Sarah Erdreich’s post is “Take It From Me: Abortion Isn’t More Gruesome Than Any Other Surgery.” The objective is not hard to figure out: pro-abortionists have to relativize/trivialize the systematic dismantlement, piece by piece, of unborn babies in a dismemberment abortion.
Erdreich’s tactic is a sub-set of pro-abortion propaganda, the intent of which is to obscure and/or ridicule the normal human response to butchering unborn babies.
One common anti-life approach is to bypass altogether what takes place and airily blame pro-lifers for appealing to the emotions. For instance, Caitlin Borgmann, former state strategies coordinator for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told the Associated Press that the language of the Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act is “meant to try to create an inflammatory description that people are going to read and then support the bill because their instinct is that this sounds terrible.”
Yes, to any morally sentient human being, ripping heads off of little torsos does sound terrible.
Others indulge in the familiar language of pro-abortion doublespeak. To quote Tara Culp-Ressler, a dismemberment abortion “involves dilating the cervix and using surgical instruments to remove the fetal and placental tissue.”
That’s right. Arms. Legs. Heads. Fingers. Toes–all “fetal and placental tissue.”
Erdreich takes a slightly different approach. She’s about to have wrist surgery–and doesn’t “slic[ing] so deep into my right arm that the muscle, bone and tendon will be exposed” sound “incredibly gruesome”?
Yes, it does, she tells us, “but it’s also essential for my health.” And besides, there were more “radical and grisly” options. Erdreich went with this one. Why? “My doctor chose this option because in her opinion it is the best one available.”
From there she mocks pro-lifers because (a) they probably will want this wrist surgery banned because it sounds so “gruesome” ; and (b) they made up “dismemberment” as a description of what happens.
Let’s go through Erdreich’s argument.
· The unborn child is a distinct human organism. Muscle, bone, and tendon are not.
· The patient-Erdreich–will be under anesthesia. Her surgery is considerable but nothing compared to being torn apart, limb from limb and then bleeding to death.
· She insists “dismemberment” is “not a medical term and doesn’t describe an abortion procedure.” Guess who uses that term? Abortionists! Guess also where the language has appeared? In an opinion written by a Supreme Court justice!
· “Informed consent” is part and parcel of medical treatment. Erderich knows precisely what will happen to her. Abortionists admit they do not tell women what happens to their baby in a dismemberment abortion. Why? Both to spare women from any ‘emotional’ burden, and to pretend they are saintly figures who are taking on the pain the woman would otherwise experience if she knew the truth. Hard to tell whether that is more paternalistic or misogynistic. How about the pain of the unborn? Doesn’t exist.
One other thing. Erdreich no doubt thought she was really being clever when she invoked childbirth as an experience that is “really easy to describe in gory terms.”
I could also invoke something that is “really easy to describe in gory terms”–a newborn abandoned in a waste disposal– which is happening more and more and more often. In the post-Roe era, merely a coincidence? To the pro-abortion set, of course. But not to the rest of us.
Erdreich told us that she chose the less “radical” option, based on her doctor’s advice and experience. Likewise, she would surely say, the less “radical” option for a woman facing an unplanned pregnancy is to eliminate the “problem” using the technique the abortionist recommends, based on his experience.
As always, to the pro-abortionist, life and death, birth and dismemberment are simply alternative ways of talking about the same thing: pregnancy termination. One “terminates” in a beautiful baby. The other “terminates” in bloody human body parts reassembled by the nurse to make sure no “fetal parts” remain in the post-abortive woman.
The pro-abortion mind’s ability to distance itself from what is happening is almost as scary as it is troubling. As veteran pro-abortion apologists David Grimes and Carole Joffe tell us at rhrealitycheck.org
The specifics of abortion methods can be unpleasant to the lay public. However, this is true of most operations that remove tissue from the body.
Get it? We dummies who lack the technical expertise of the abortionist look at a completely neutral graphic of what a dismemberment abortion does to a baby and want to retch.
They, like Erdreich, have long since made a separate peace with their heart, mind, and stomach.
What a bunch.