I just read a chilling article that was published this week in the Yale Daily News. Students there were treated to a “a week-long celebration of the 35th anniversary” of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. The week’s events included mock abortions using papayas and a performance by a comedy troupe.
It is unthinkable that students at one of America’s elite universities would treat abortion so flippantly, but they did. Here’s the relevant excerpt:
Students who walked into WLH 119 on Tuesday night were greeted with models of the female pelvis complete with fallopian tubes, cervixes, vaginas â€” and papayas on which to perform mock abortions. . .
The presenters began by showing the students different surgical tools used during different stages of a pregnancy and ticking off statistics about the safety and number of abortions performed in the United States. Eighty-five percent of counties in America do not have any abortion providers, Evans said.
Evans and Rasha Khoury MED ’08, another member of Medical Students for Choice, who said she plans to become a gynecologist and expects to perform abortions, went on to describe one of the most common abortion procedures, manual vacuum aspiration, which “creates suction to evacuate pregnancy,” Evans said. The technique is a good option because the device involved is reusable and relatively cheap, she said.
“It’s not as scary as it seems. It’s just blood and mucus,” Khoury said, referring to the fetus remains in the device. She added, “You’ll be able to see arms and stuff, but still just miniscule.”
Evans and Khoury also explained the finer points of abortion-clinic etiquette, including some potentially sensitive terminology. Khoury said physicians performing abortions generally refer to the aborted fetus remains as “POC,” an acronym for “product of conception,” and refer to fetus’ hearts as “FH.”
The most complicated part of the procedure can be the emotional fallout some patients experience, she said.
“Often times, women are crying and cursing and saying they’re going to hell,” Khoury said. “It may be a quick and easy medical procedure, but it definitely is a very involved social-medical procedure.”
The moral bankruptcy of this kind of talk speaks for itself. There is absolutely no attempt at all to acknowledge the humanity of unborn babies. They are dismissed casually as “just blood and mucus” or “fetus” or “product of conception.” The would-be abortionists invoke absurd circumlocutions and euphemisms so as to avoid what is obvious to everyone reading. These are human babies who are being killed.
One is far gone into the darkness of pro-abortion thinking when one can say the following in public with no compunction whatsoever: “You’ll be able to see arms and stuff, but still just miniscule.”
Apparently, this kind of talk was too much even for Yale University because the article was removed from the paper’s website without explanation (see here). I had to get the story from a copy on the “Free Republic” website.
Al Mohler commented on the article on his radio show yesterday. You can listen to it here.[audio:http://www.sbts.edu/MP3/totl/2008/AMP_01_24_2008.mp3]
Wow. Thanks for sharing that with us. That’s terrible, absolutely terrible. Abortion, on top of all the other injustices our country commits, I just wonder how long it will be before God gives us over and humbles us. Corporate punishment is certainly not foreign to the Bible
such are the doctors of the future that obama would want men and women to “fervently” consider abortion with. very sad…
I had to return to your blog to publically repent and ask your forgiveness…a while back (on a political post), I made comments about how we shouldn’t be one-issue voters, citing the example that should a president be weak on national security, the Islamists would blow us all to bits and abortion would not matter. While I was pro-life, I did not see the importance of allowing my personal beliefs to affect my political vote.
I am sorry. I was wrong. Since that time, I have come to understand that my life is no more sacred than the life of an unborn child. Therefore, I cannot vote for anyone, regardless of their stance on national defense, if they are pro-choice.
And as a sidenote: Mitt Romney is not the pro-life candidate people think he is…he believes abortion is the right choice for women to make in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Abortion is NEVER the right choice.
Romney also believes the federal government should not judicially dictate laws banning abortion. If you don’t believe me, below is a quote from his web site.
Denny, thank you for all your posts about abortion…may our eyes be opened and our hearts be torn.
Romney: I am pro-life. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Date: 12/4/2007 9:10:17 AM
I’m glad that perfect judgment is coming.
I wonder Denny, if you are going to address the comment by Peggy Noonan that GWB destroyed the Republican Party:
well, even I agree with her. The fact that Ron Paul didn’t get the nod already says that the Republican party no longer wishes to give classic conservatism anything more than lip service.
The funny thing is, though, that McCain gets so much criticism from your side of the fence. For all of his anti-establishment posing, his voting record is pretty standardly conservative. Personally, I am scared to death of the man becoming president, but he’s probably your best shot.
Huckabee is the most interesting candidate on either side of the fence, mostly because he is the embodiment of what Christian politics should be. That he’s being rejected by the party that touts its religious leanings on its sleeve, that seems telling all the way around.
As for Romney, I trust him about as far as I can throw him. He LOOKS the part of the snake oil salesman. And given his willingness to throw out his old principles for a completely new set just to get elected? That’s not the guy that I want running things.
Ron Paul is a joke. If I was a foreign leader and I saw that Ron Paul was in charge I would be greatly encouraged… The Republican Party would be the butt of all jokes if it nominated Paul.
your response is even more proof that the republican party has no want to be classically conservative anymore. Isolationism is hardly a bad policy.
Now, do I agree that trying to put us back on the gold standard is insane? Absolutely. But is it a classically conservative stance to say that our money should be more than simply promisary notes? Yep.
Now, personally, if the republicans no longer want to be conservative, that’s fine by me, but label your pots and kettles properly. The modern day republican party has very little to do with conservatism, and everything to do with lining the pockets of big business while trying to stir up garbage to ensure that lots of people who are easily stirred up get to the polls come election time.
You ministered to my heart today in a deep way. Thank you for your humble heart before God, and the witness that is is here today.
Thank you for reminding us that God is still teaching all of us. 🙂
You blessed me!
MLM (in #5),
Thanks so much for your encouraging words. I think your remarks will be helpful to a lot of other readers.
Thanks for reading and taking time to comment.
Ron Paul is more accurately described as a Libertarian, which is not – as you suggest – classic conservativism (I treat classic conservativism as the Burkean tradition – Edmund, that is, not Denny!).