Anti-life/pro-abortion wrongs book written in English needs to be translated into reality.
This graphic “novel” is supposed to be fiction, but it’s more an extended advertisement for an abortion clinic. Besides that, the language needs to be translated into realspeak from its Orwellian doublespeak.
Since the “volume” is unpaginated, the following comments will be addressed in the order in which the hapless reader of this “literary work” will find them.
A mother’s pregnancy is called an “accident” (quotes in original).
An abortifacient drug is erroneously named an “emergency contraception pill.”
The author mistakenly thinks that pregnancy only involves the mother’s body, omitting the presence of the unborn child’s body: “(duh…it’s your body)” (italics presumed in the original).
A chemical abortion is called a “medical” abortion, as though using the term “medical” will improve the connotation of the always negative term “abortion.”
The author admits that abortion “can pose risks to the woman”, but the language needs to be retranslated, since only a mother can abort because a mother is pregnant, not merely a “woman.”
The author engages in tautology when she states that “a surgical abortion uses surgery to abort the pregnancy.” Note also that it’s not the unborn child who is aborted or killed, but some non-human noun called the “pregnancy.”
The author recognizes what most mothers who abort experience: their lovers/husbands/casual sex partners/whatever usually abandon them after the abortion: “Although Lisa was not with her partner anymore.”
It’s very interesting that the illustration for the mother being aborted with abortifacients instead of a surgical abortion is in a room where the ultrasound is blank. The reason given is that “some girls [mothers] find that they would rather not see a visual of what’s going on in there [the unborn child depicted as a human body moving in the restricted space of his or her mother’s uterus].”
Typical of every pro-abortion author, the abortion procedure itself is deflected: “she could near the humming of the instruments”—not the suction machine which rips the unborn baby’s body to pieces in a surgical abortion, but “instruments” which “hum” (as though this verb would make the act of killing comfortable or pleasant).
The author recognizes the reality of Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) when she affirms that “the emotional recovery [from abortion] might take longer” than the physical recovery.
The ultrasound screen of the chemical abortion is blank a second time.
The unborn child who is killed in a chemical abortion is dehumanized in medical language: “misoprostol […] causes contractions that expel the fetus.” Even though the Latin word “fetus” means “little one”, a very humanizing term, anti-life people use “fetus” to suggest that the unborn child at whatever stage of his or her development is not human.
The author notes that heavy bleeding from abortifacients indicated “that the abortion had really happened.” Similarly, writing that “the abortion is taking place” and determining “if the procedure was successful” focus on the procedure itself, not the fact that abortion involves three people: mothers (who are harmed by abortion), unborn babies (who are killed in abortion), and fathers (who are alienated by abortion).
The author acknowledges her anti-life position by including the abortion business Planned Parenthood in her list of people to “thank.”
Finally, the author has the audacity and hypocrisy to write, “I’m not trying to offer my own political agenda one way or the other about the subject of abortion”, yet the National Right to Life Committee, Birthright, or other pregnancy support centers are not listed on the “Resources” page.
Reading this travesty of a “novel” only takes half an hour, but pro-life students could write term papers about the divisive and dehumanizing rhetoric on each page. These 623 words may help those students write longer essays.