What About the Babies?
Today, the LA Times runs a relatively flattering portrait of an Arkansas doctor who proudly self-identifies as an "abortionist" and proudly declares, "I am destroying life." That the profile was largely flattering is no surprise, given the Times' politics. What was surprising, however, was how frank the piece was about some of the women to whom this doctor is offerig "rebirth" (a fairly ironic choice of words, considering that, in order to give these women the supposed second chance at life, he takes away their babies' first).
His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. "I don't think my dress would have fit with a baby in there," she says.
The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion "is a bummer," she says, "but no big stress."
Yes, well, not for "Stephanie," perhaps. One wonders if the aborted babies would agree that it's not a "big stress" -- certainly, it's a big "bummer" for them. The article also references the possibility of adoption, which certainly should be an option, especially in a country where many loving couples are desperate to find babies to adopt:
A high school volleyball player says she doesn't want to give up her body for nine months. "I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything," she says.
Well, perhaps that was something to think about before she "[gave] up her body" and had sex. But it seems that religious and moral concerns aren't too much of an issue for anyone in this equation:
For the few women who arrive ambivalent or beset by guilt, Harrison's nurse has posted statistics on the exam-room mirror: One out of every four pregnant women in the U.S. chooses abortion. A third of all women in this country will have at least one abortion by the time they're 45.
"You think there's room in hell for all those women?" the nurse will ask.
Well, that takes care of that, doesn't it? Whatever the emotional, psychological or even physical fallout from the abortion, that nurse -- and the doctor -- won't have to deal with it. The "procedure" will have been done, the check collected . . . and the patient, no longer a mother (at least to this baby), will be on her own. Very inspiring, indeed.
The feminist movement would like for all of us to believe that abortion is tantamount to a sacrament: Something that protects the "rights" of women in a society that they see as inherently misogynistic. They want "choice" -- conveniently ignoring the fact that the woman has, in the overwhelming majority of cases, already made the choice to have sex (perhaps even without protection), fully aware that a child could result.
There is an argument to be made for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, or severe fetal malformation.
But the fact is that, for the most part, abortion isn't offering the "best" of several terrible alternatives in most cases. Rather, it's providing a (temporarily) easy way out for people who are too thoughtless or too selfish to be willing to allow a child that they created voluntarily a chance at life. I wonder what God thinks about that attitude, don't you?
His first patient of the day, Sarah, 23, says it never occurred to her to use birth control, though she has been sexually active for six years. When she became pregnant this fall, Sarah, who works in real estate, was in the midst of planning her wedding. "I don't think my dress would have fit with a baby in there," she says.
The last patient of the day, a 32-year-old college student named Stephanie, has had four abortions in the last 12 years. She keeps forgetting to take her birth control pills. Abortion "is a bummer," she says, "but no big stress."
Yes, well, not for "Stephanie," perhaps. One wonders if the aborted babies would agree that it's not a "big stress" -- certainly, it's a big "bummer" for them. The article also references the possibility of adoption, which certainly should be an option, especially in a country where many loving couples are desperate to find babies to adopt:
A high school volleyball player says she doesn't want to give up her body for nine months. "I realize just from the first three months how it changes everything," she says.
Well, perhaps that was something to think about before she "[gave] up her body" and had sex. But it seems that religious and moral concerns aren't too much of an issue for anyone in this equation:
For the few women who arrive ambivalent or beset by guilt, Harrison's nurse has posted statistics on the exam-room mirror: One out of every four pregnant women in the U.S. chooses abortion. A third of all women in this country will have at least one abortion by the time they're 45.
"You think there's room in hell for all those women?" the nurse will ask.
Well, that takes care of that, doesn't it? Whatever the emotional, psychological or even physical fallout from the abortion, that nurse -- and the doctor -- won't have to deal with it. The "procedure" will have been done, the check collected . . . and the patient, no longer a mother (at least to this baby), will be on her own. Very inspiring, indeed.
The feminist movement would like for all of us to believe that abortion is tantamount to a sacrament: Something that protects the "rights" of women in a society that they see as inherently misogynistic. They want "choice" -- conveniently ignoring the fact that the woman has, in the overwhelming majority of cases, already made the choice to have sex (perhaps even without protection), fully aware that a child could result.
There is an argument to be made for abortion in cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, or severe fetal malformation.
But the fact is that, for the most part, abortion isn't offering the "best" of several terrible alternatives in most cases. Rather, it's providing a (temporarily) easy way out for people who are too thoughtless or too selfish to be willing to allow a child that they created voluntarily a chance at life. I wonder what God thinks about that attitude, don't you?
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:02 AM
10 Comments:
"Rebirth..."???
Reminds me of Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
And Humpty Dumpty: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Gobbledegook.
The greatest danger to our nation is not terrorism or Korean nukes or anything else external; it is the losing of our moral compass. More and more, we lose our love of life, honesty, God and patriotism. We turn from being a nation of people who do the right thing to a people who no longer feel shame about anything. Casual abortion is one symptom.
Carol, I think God’s heart is breaking.I pray we turn ourselves around before it's too late.
To the statistic posting nurse - no, there probably isn't enough room in hell for most, and there doesn't need to be. Many victims will repent of their sin later in life and thereby insure that at least there will be two places in hell left for the "good" doctor and you, his nurse.
And, yes, I consider many of the women who have abortions victims - victims of the society of death we are living in, and the lies they are force-fed by these 'loving' nurses, doctors, so-called educators, the media, and other liberal half-wits. The doctor in the mentioned piece had the honesty to admit he destroyed life, but he is not stopping, so he will face the wrath of God for his admittedly murderous ways.
Losing our moral compass? study history much? Our lost moral compass could also be referred to as "The Human Condition". Last I checked abortion has been around at least as long as prostitution, which has been around at least as long as murder. I'm not condoning any of these things but be realistic. "The good old days" were, in many ways, equally if not more, heinous and cruel.
By the way, if you really believe banning abortions will stop killing, then can't you use the same logic to argue that banning handguns will also stop killing? I mean aren't they both denying people access to instruments of death?
Pete: Since all of us are sinners and fall far short of the glory of God, I'd never presume to surmise who's going to "hell" and who's not. But it is shocking that so little thought is given to the moral dimension of the abortions being so freely dispensed by the doctor.
Beyond-left-right, I think you know your argument is ridiculous. A gun can also be a means of self-defense; if one uses it to kill an innocent person, one goes to jail. As for abortion (setting aside the exceptions I outlined earlier), its only objective is to kill the innocent. As for the "it's been around a long time" argument, well, so have pedophilia and incest (as well as prostitution). That doesn't make them right, either.
You are completely twisting my argument. If you read my comment properly it is quite apparent that I am not arguing that things that have been around a long time are "right". Far from it. What I am saying is that making them illegal will not stop them from happening or make people increasingly moral as the prior commenter naively argues. I have 3,000 years of history to back me up on this point. My argument is hardly ridiculous. It is the same argument used by the gun lobby. "If we outlaw handguns (insert "abortions") only outlaws will have them"...
Nice try, though.
so, beyond-recognition, if we make nothing illegal, then nothing will be illegal. We're already headed down that road. Oh, except of course that evil handgun. If we have handguns, we might be able to form a militia and take back our government from the kooks on the left that want to rule the world and force their insanity down our throats.
kir-killer,
We're headed down what road? You dont' even know what your talking about. We have more laws on the books then at any other time in human history. We make more laws every year. Each new law is, by definition, a futher restriction on our liberty. Do all these laws make us moral? Do they even make a dent in crime, corruption, drugs? Your answer to everything is "make another law" "lock up more people" Guess what kir-killer, it 'ain't working. At some point you have to expect people to make the right choices or you simply become a completely opressed society.
THAT's the road were headed down.
In my previous comment, I did not say we need more laws. What we need is more morality.
You're right, Carol, we do not know the heart of others - only the Good Lord does. Even the nurse and 'good' doctor may one day repent. We could pray for that. There have been, for sure, worse killers in our history, or should I say more prolific?
It is tragic, however, that over 30,000 innocent children had to die first at this location.
Post a Comment
<< Home