|
October 9, 2006
MS Magazine
has once again given cover placement to a story about abortion. Its
October 10 issue is a megaphone for women who are announcing, “We Had
Abortions.”
Ironically, this
new effort to defend abortion points out the failure of the
pro-abortion movement during the past thirty years. As Kathleen
Parker points out, past arguments defending American abortion policies
have focused on the technical aspects of abortion.
Eleanor Smeal,
publisher of MS Magazine, loses no opportunity to point out the
obvious to Tucker Carlson. Technically speaking, she reminds him that
abortion is “a medical procedure, that’s obvious.” She can point to a
long list of technical terminology that has been crafted to describe
the indescribable.
The litany of
techno-talk is, “It’s a woman’s right to choose a medical procedure
that removes a small clump of cells from her own body…a simple
surgical procedure, the D & E, dilation and evacuation, where the
physician extracts the products of conception from the uterus.” And,
technically speaking, they have described abortion.
In a natural
progression, much of the dialogue describing the sex that leads to the
product of conception that leads to the surgical procedure…all of this
talk about sex…has also turned technical since Roe v. Wade.
Sex education, as liberal abortion proponents would have it, is all
about technique.
Going into the
classroom with boxes of condoms and things to put condoms on, they
have reduced sex to technique…ways that children can be taught
technically how to have sex and be somewhat, moderately, possibly and
hopefully saferrrrrrrrr.
If humans were
cars, and if we were installing a muffler on a child car, perhaps we
could let these educators get away with it. But we are not. And
children are not. Cars, that is.
Cars are
things. Humans are living things. Living, breathing, hoping,
dreaming and loving. We are not meant to be handled by technoids who
describe invasive “procedures” and erotic “actions” with detached
language devoid of emotion.
My mind is
seared with the memory of a Planned Parenthood educator who demanded
allegiance to the language of technique. Speaking to a friendly
National Organization of Women (NOW) audience, she decried the
national acceptance of the “medically inaccurate” term
partial-birth abortion. “That’s not what it is!” she declared.
“It’s a D&E. That’s the accurate medical terminology. There is no
such procedure as partial-birth abortion.”
In the next
breathe, she launched into a speech against abstinence education.
“Those programs are terrible…talking about differences between men and
women, emotional consequences of sex and promoting marriage.”
Technically speaking, she demanded a return to procedural instructions
on how to install a condom on a teen.
Technically
speaking, the rationale of the past thirty years is that we only have
to perfect the technical aspects of having sex without consequences
and then describe that technique in a perfectly technical way. And it
works…as long as you have a heart that is unmoved by a single human
tear or the love expressed in a kiss on the cheek.
Why else would
MS Magazine, Planned Parenthood, and NOW work so hard to ignore
the real pain of people who bought into the false promises of “safe
sex”? Where are the articles describing the experiences of women who
refused to be “Silent No More,” the women abused by an abortion
industry that hides behind technique?
Already,
commentaries responding to the MS Magazine article are pointing
out the obvious. Technique is never well-used to deal with matters of
the human heart, the matters of sex…and love…as people have known them
since Adam and Eve.
The magazine has
invited women to open their hearts. And as the women describe why
they “chose” abortion, readers are asking the many obvious questions
that the editors left unasked…and unanswered.
Technically
speaking, describing a medical procedure and the events of my life
leading up to the surgery, leaves the most important questions
unanswered. How did I close my eyes to the product of conception that
could have held my hand and given me a hug? Where is the man who
promised me love and protection?
Great women of
courage have told this story. But you won’t read about it in MS
Magazine.
Willing to deal
truthfully with what sex and the consequences of sex are, courageous
women have humbled themselves to reveal the lies of technical lingo.
They lead important national movements on college campuses, in state
legislatures, and in sex education programs.
This, Ms. Smeal,
is a story worth telling. Consider it for your next issue.
Technically speaking, though, I’m not holding my breath.
Copyright © 2006 Jane Jimenez
December 26, 2005 Small Acts of
Courage
June 6, 2005 Planned
Parenthood's War Against Choice
See Archives
for past editorials.
_____________________ |
