Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Inside a diabolically-altered mind

If you read nothing else today, go and read this: an account at Aggie Catholics of a conversation with an abortionist.

An excerpt:
Q: Your website mentions you offer counseling. Does your clinic offer literature, or do you talk about other options, such as adoption, with the women who come in?
Well, adoption is very simple, if they are interested we discuss it. It's sort of a misconception in some circles that ladies who choose pregnancy termination would be interested in adoption, that's one thing people don't understand.
Abortion is birth control. Adoption is giving up your child and not accepting your duties as a mother. Most women are not interested in that. It's only in a religiously-altered mind that that's a true option.
Hear that, all you adoptive parents out there? You are only parents because some poor woman with a "religiously-altered mind" couldn't make the logical choice for abortion.

Meanwhile, this atheist abortionist proves that his mind has been altered, too--but not by God.

Kyrie eleison.

7 comments:

Baron Korf said...

Adoption = irresponsible parent?
Abortion = responsible parent???

Whiskey tango foxtrot, Ghostrider.

It takes a willfully blinded person to see that a pregnant woman is already a mother.

But he is right about a religiously altered mind. The twists and perversions of our fallen human nature, or as it is better said 'the darkened intellect serving the fallen will', needs to be altered if there is to be any hope at all.

Rebecca said...

Wow. I think this guy means that if you talk about adoption, then you're in the dangerous zone of thinking of this blob of tissue as maybe a human being, considering its future and so forth, and we can't have that kind of thought going on. Another amazing illustration of how this is *not* about "choice" at all. Notice that the corollary would be, that if a woman has an abortion and then grieves over that decision, they of course would not offer any counseling about it because obviously if she's grieving she's just messed up by religion. No sane person grieves for a parasitic lump.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, but looking at the transcripts of Aggi's interview, this doctor seems only interested in treating an organ function, and not the whole person, a robot only interested in performing some procedure requiring his surgical skills. Saying that abortions are an acceptable means of birth control (possibly safer than use of tablets) is just plain wrong.

Most Catholics that support a woman's right to make choices about an unborn fetus, do so only under the impression that chemical, surgical, etc. abortive actions are performed only if continued gestation permanently impacts health risks to the mother.
This set of statements from a doctor that performs abortions includes a statement relating to psychosis--I'm inclined to believe the common definition of psychopath might very well fit his motives and inclination, or at the least, a certain degree of anti-social behavior.

How many doctors that perform abortions as a matter of common practice align themselves with these particular atheist beliefs?

Notice in the commonly interpreted Hippocratic Oath, physicians do not use knives (i.e. act as surgeons) but 'withdraw in favor of such men as engaged in this work'.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Wow--- this interview needs wider distribution-- because even a lot of the pro-choicers I know are PROFOUNDLY UNCOMFORTABLE with the idea that some women use abortion as birth control.

So if they knew that abortion providers see it MOSTLY from the perspective of birth control, they'd be a lot less pro-choice....

eulogos said...

This doctor is very logical, and honest. He hasn't gotten the message from the party that these truths are supposed to be soft pedalled at this point!

So, how many people who demonstrate outside abortion clinics actually take the pill or use IUD's? I would think a Catholic prolifer motivated enough to demonstrate, would also know that these are abortifacient methods and not use them. Perhaps there are some Evangelicals who aren't there yet, but many Evangelicals do realize this. They generally argue for the permissability of "barrier methods" though, which aren't abortifacient.

He is so matter of fact. If you do an abortion at 30 weeks, you know if you did a C section you'd have a little baby in your hands.
Then he calls this "euthanasia."
But what is "eu" about it? It isn't relieving the baby of suffering, and it isn't done with anaesthesia and it is done by brutal and barbaric methods.
I expect if pressed he would calmly have admitted the point and said he would be glad to anesthetize the fetus before dismembering it if the mother were willing to pay extra for the procedure.

Shudder...

Susan Peterson

WillyJ said...

I have a religiously-altered mind. And I love it.

Dawn Farias said...

That is so creepy that I actually recoiled from the screen when I read your excerpt.