Magazine published article calling for abortion to appear in TV dramas

The fashion magazine Marie Claire published an article that calls for more depictions of abortion in film and television.

"We Need More Parents Having Abortions in Film and Television"

The article, by feminist writer Danielle Campoamor, argues that there should be more plotlines involving parents having the medical procedure because examples of abortion in the media often involve single, affluent teenagers who aren't ready to be mothers.

The piece adds that abortion is a saving grace for pregnant parents who are financially struggling and can't afford to have another child.

quote from article:

"Because there are also shockingly few depictions of parents, particularly parents of color, having abortions, it reinforces this false dichotomy between people who have abortions and people who have children," adds Steph Herold, a researcher in the Abortion Onscreen program at ANSIRH. "We know the reality is that they're the same person at different points in their lives."

Erika Christensen, a mom and patient advocate for those seeking abortions that occur later in pregnancy, tells Marie Claire that because her own abortion in the third trimester was such an outlier, she finds any representation at all meaningful because it shows how "ordinary" it can all be.​

Of course there has been some backlash from Pro-Life groups over this article, and what it is calling for.
Abortion might still be a little bit too much of a sensitive issue to casually appear on TV shows.

 

.

Evil abominations and abominable evildoers who promote them keep getting worse and worse.

.

 

Sure...if they also show "the lump of tissue" removed in a late term abortion....

 

You know they're not going to do this.

Most of these very pro-abortion states have strict laws that the "tissue" has to be immediately incinerated, or be rendered unrecognizable after it is removed, to make sure nobody sees it.
i.e. they can't put it in a glass jar with formaldehyde and have it on display.

 

That was more of a late 90's era plot line

 

Are you suggesting anything you consider "evil" shouldn't be depicted in television drama?

 

You are too late - it was already covered on “sex and the City”

 

WTF.??
Okay give us a link to that rubbish!

 

Do you know why late term abortions are done

Waits and puts money on the fact the answer will include “So the woman can fit back into a swimsuit”

 

I'm pretty okay with this. I would like something like this appearing on TV shows more often. Same thing with LGBT representation. It's not just cis gay white men who have money to burn.

 

I don't wish to go too far off topic but here is a select list of laws on the books in several states:

California: "Pathology waste: medical wastes which are either recognizable anatomical parts, or which are human tissue specimens containing residual fixative. Pathology waste must be treated by incineration. See Sections 118220 and 118222 of the Medical Waste Management Act."

Florida: "Fetal remains shall be disposed of in a sanitary and appropriate manner and in accordance with standard health practices and Chapters 381 and 390, F.S., and 64E-16, F.A.C. - 59A-9.030 " (The cited 64E-16 F.A.C. states, under .007: "Biomedical waste shall be treated by steam, incineration, or an alternative process approved by the department as described in Section 64E-16.007(4), F.A.C., prior to disposal. Treatment shall occur within 30 days of collection from the generator.")

Wisconsin: "Human tissue shall be treated by any of the following methods: 1. Methods which render the tissue non-infectious and unrecognizable as human tissue. 2. Incineration where the tissue is transformed into an ash, which would not be recognized as being from a human being." N.R. 526.11 (2) (a)

 

Shakes head

This has NOTHING ato do with “hiding” material It is about INFECTION CONTROL. Body parts and indeed bodies have the huge risk of being a source of pathogens this is why there are strict rules around disposal

 

Yep - use easily accessible information on processes and then distort them to fit one's narrative.

 

Why do you ask?

Are evil cultural marxists planning TV dramas about ancient baalism whose evil followers were required to participate in temple orgies with both male and female temple prostitutes and babies born from those unholy unions were ritually sacrificed to their false god, baal ?!

.

 

A convenient excuse. There are other ways to sterilize pathogens and eliminate risk of infection. Soaking the tissue in a jar of formaldehyde pretty much kills any pathogens that might be in there. The risk of any infection from fetal tissue from routine abortions isn't even particularly high anyway.
Notice how the law specifically singles out the phrase "recognizable". They specifically don't want the tissue to be recognizable as a human fetus.

 

If you looked you would find these laws in nearly every country in the world whether there are abortion laws in that country or not. Why would ANYONE bother to sterilise body parts that are for disposal in your first example it talks specifically of pathology specimens and includes things like appendix, bowels, gallbladders, kidneys etc that have been removed due to disease or cancer. These often are sent straight to pathology where they are examined

Now I have done a little digging because I know your search history and knew you had to have gotten this from some batshit crazy blog

https://www.stopstericycle.com/evidence/fetus-disposal-laws/

https://stopstericycle.wordpress.com/evidence/fetus-disposal-laws/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stericycle

 

Men should view women who had abortion as moral equivalent of former Senator John McCain. They had a right to do what they did, but their claims to ethical high ground should be viewed with suspicion.

 

And if that abortion was for foetal abnormality, risk to life or health or partial miscarriage - what then? Do you KNOW a why any particular woman chose abortion? Are you in a position to judge if her decision at that time was the correct one?

 

She exercised her right within the law. Senator John McCain obeyed orders.

Most abortions are not due to sexual assault, or risk, or abnormality.

I would generally not judge anyone until they judge me.

 

And the man that got her pregnant - what judgement would you put on them?

Again you do not know the circumstances and without full access to the medical records have no right to judge and yet you posted

is this not a judgement without facts or knowledge?

And what if it is the couple, man and woman who decide to terminate the pregnancy?

 

If she does not judge me, then I will almost certainly keep my opinions to myself. On the other hand, women who claim that "men are trash" or "morally inferior" or "complicit" in something should be reminded of what they have done themselves.

 

But does it not take two to tango? Is the woman to be reviled for her choice while the man is lauded for his actions?

 

Only she chose to have an abortion.

 

,

So what woman who had an abortion judged you?

 

All sounds very sensible to me


Who is trying to hide what? and why would they?

Why would they need to hide fetal remains? Remains from LEGAL medical procedures????