Most of us are aware of a hearing that was held at the Capitol by Congress involving a possible ban on late-term abortions. There have been reactions to such a hearing from abortion advocates and opponents alike.
Perhaps the strangest reaction of all, though, comes from late-term abortionist Willie Parker. Parker is against such a ban, because he claims that “[p]eople feel morally justified to say ‘this is wrong’ because they’re led to think it’s close to murder. I think that jeopardizes us, by conflating abortion with an issue that would cause moral outrage.”
Yup, he actually said such a thing.
I agree with Parker, that is in that people are “led to think it’s close to murder” and “conflating abortion with an issue that would cause moral outrage.” Many pro-lifers already feel this way, though. As a pro-lifer, I feel this way about abortion at any stage, but even more so when it comes to late-term abortion. The procedure itself, known as D&E, is so gruesome, as it involves the ripping apart of the limbs of a fetus with forceps, that I don’t understand how it could not be likened with murder.
It is difficult to find an exact answer on when a fetus can survive outside the womb. March of Dimes however, has a number as early as 23 weeks as a possibility. This means that many unborn children who are aborted during a late-term abortion could survive outside the womb. If only they were not aborted. If only we let them be born and have a chance at living. I can certainly see a connection to murder there.
Also, of course, it is a moral issue. I don’t know anyone who regards abortion as not a moral issue. Even abortion advocates I have spoken to believe that abortion is a moral issue, because they believe that it is moral to stand by a woman’s “right” to choose to have an abortion. Abortion opponents, on the other hand, believe that abortion is immoral because it involves the taking of a life of a human person. We believe that murder is wrong, that it is thus immoral. I’m curious as to if Parker is wary to classify abortion as a moral issue on the grounds that when it becomes associated with the direct taking of a human life – murder, even – people will begin to see abortion as murder if they haven’t already, and then Parker may find himself out of business.
I decided to look up the definitions of “murder” and “abortion” at Oxford English Dictionary online. Murder is defined as noun, 1. the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The verb definition uses the word “premeditation.” Now, abortion is not illegal in this country – not yet, at least. The definition of abortion does involve the word “deliberate,” however. There is a connection between these words because “deliberate” can be used as a synonym for “premeditated.” Many pro-lifers believe that abortion is murder because it is the deliberate ending of a life. And “ending” is the definition of “termination,” a term which is used by unbiased sources to describe an abortion.
As a pro-lifer, I don’t need the help of the Oxford English Dictionary or thesaurus.com to define what abortion is. My point is that even unbiased, scholarly sources, which are objective, have terms that are synonyms for each other when describing abortion and murder.
Parker also made such statements as that he feared that late-term abortionists would be in jeopardy and stigmatized as “callous.” As a pro-lifer who recognizes the sanctity and dignity of human life, I am in no way advocating for jeopardizing the life of a late-term abortionist. They are misguided, as Parker (who claims to be a doctor) is. Such people need prayer, though, so that they may be overtaken by the power of conversion. I see no problem with calling late-term abortionists “callous,” though, because to me, that is actually a good word for what their actions are – and their actions can be described in much worse terms, even. Of course there is a stigma. How can there not be when this person is responsible for ripping apart of limbs of unborn children with forceps?
Also, as was explained at a Respect for Life Week event (“Abortion: The Politically Incorrect Trauma,” by Dr. Anne Speckhard of Georgetown University), there are fewer doctors who are willing to become abortionists. This has been the case for many years now, as highlighted by a 1992 article from Priests for Life. Abortionists may be conducting such a procedure for a variety of reasons, among them because they believe that it actually “helps” women. That may be well-intentioned, but it is also sadly wrong, especially if the child they are aborting is female. One also needs only to keep up to date with pro-life articles highlighting abortionists who are wanted for murder, abortionists not being licensed, unsanitary inspections, etc. The case against Kermitt Gosnell comes to mind for many.
Willie Parker, as the LifeSiteNews article mentions, has thought about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and thought about “having concern for other people.” Here is someone who is doing what he does, late-term abortions, because he believes in what may be described as caring for others. This may sound like a good intention, but it is unfortunately baseless. It is especially baseless when it comes to Dr. King. The niece of Dr. King, Alveda King, who herself has had two abortions and has spoken at length about the issue of abortion, often draws inspiration from the Reverend King as well.
Parker also has noted his concern for what happens to women. Again, a good intention. However, Dr. King was pro-life, and his niece is pro-life, because they too have concern for other people. What differentiates them from Willie Parker, however, is that they have concern for other people at every stage of life. If we truly want to have concern for other people, we too must care for them at every stage of life, including and especially at the vulnerable time before they are born.