For many reasons, I don't give as many talks on abortion as I did when I first started in the Movement. But to this day what sticks out in my memory is one of the very first questions I was asked, a long, long time ago: what makes a doctor become an abortionist?
Although I don't claim to have the answer, a lengthy tribute to the wonderfulness of abortion (especially second-trimester) that appeared in the Toronto Star Saturday summarizes many of the reasons today's crop of abortionists ply their ugly trade.
A little background that appears in all these stories--the ones whose real agenda is to promote wider and deeper abortion "training" and the notion that the abortionist is courageous--is that you need something special nowadays to perform abortions. The older abortionists, we are told, were motivated by witnessing the complications that accompanied illegal abortions (as if there are not as many, if not more today, with legal abortions that are so plentiful).
So stories such as the one written by the Star's Megan Ogilvie paint a rosy picture of physicians who are deeply committed to their patients' "well-being."
Not a word about how lucrative performing abortions can be, or even a whiff of a worry that complications from abortion are common. All these men and women are noble and self-less.
The "young doctor" who carries the narrative is chosen because he was, for a while at least, caught in a dilemma. Gung-ho to perform abortions (after a stint at the clinic of the most infamous abortion in Canada "It turns out," he says, "that it's something I'm good at doing"), he had second thoughts when he and his partner decided it was time to adopt.
After a long round-about digression, Ogilvie gets back to "Dr. James" (not his real name), who has made his choice. Let me offer an extended quote:
Abortionist Leroy Carhart
One year after questions started to swirl through his mind, he has made his choice.
James will be an abortion doctor.
Not only that, but James plans to do second-trimester abortions as part of his practice. He will step to the very front line, the place where there is greatest need -- and greatest risk.
The decision came after a long period of reflection.
What he learned about himself is that he is not pro-abortion, but pro-choice. This means both abortion and adoption are part of the spectrum of care he believes in. With this distinction James was able to reconcile having one foot in an abortion clinic and the other in an adoption agency.
"In some ways, this wait has made me more pro-choice, because I see that women have all of these options," says James. "I don't think I'll ever have trouble being honest with my children about telling them what I do. To me, it will allow me to say to my child: your mother had a choice, and she decided that you should be here and wanted somebody to care for you."
That he is part of a profession that, at its roots, cares for people in need also helped James regain his firm stance on abortion.
To return to my original question, I still can't pretend to be able to offer a definitive answer why women and men pollute their medical skills. But as this quote illustrates, it begins with a deep confusion coupled with a kind of third-rate moral equivalency that permeates the pro-abortion mind.
You got happy babies at one end, who find adoptive homes at one end. At the other end, unborn children torn limb from limb, whose "home" is the garbage disposal. This is the infamous "spectrum of care."
If it's six of one, half dozen of the other, no wonder "James was able to reconcile having one foot in an abortion clinic and the other in an adoption agency."
Final thought. Obviously from the pro-life perspective, we find it reprehensible that doctors would choose death for their patients--and, by the way, were the child not chosen for death, no doctor would deny he/she has a second patient. But making it even worse is the congratulatory tone they adopt--aren't we just so brave.
No, no you aren't.
Contact: Dave Andrusko
Source: National Right to Life
Publish Date: November 23, 2010
