Posted on 01/03/2005 6:54:54 AM PST by madprof98
Ten years after the bloody Brookline clinic attacks, one doctor explains why she still performs abortions.
Ten years ago this month, John Salvi sprayed bullets into two Brookline abortion clinics, killing two people and wounding five. Since then, the number of doctors willing to perform abortions has dwindled, increasing the workload for those remaining. One local obstetrician and gynecologist, whose clinic asked that she withhold her name for safety reasons, now performs as many as 10 abortions a day, twice a week.
One morning years ago, when I was working as a resident, a nurse brought me in to talk to a pregnant girl. When I walked into the room, there was this child -- an 11-year-old. She had come in for a procedure, and it soon became obvious that she had no understanding of sex -- she didn't really understand that she'd even had it, or that it had any connection to her pregnancy. We literally had to teach this girl about what it means to have sex -- about STDS, abstinence, and pregnancy. I remember thinking: In a world where people don't want kids to learn about these things, how can you not give them the choice to terminate a pregnancy? Even if she had chosen to continue the pregnancy and opt for adoption, what would that have done to her own childhood? How can we not provide a child with any education about sex, then force her to become a parent long before she's ready?
When I started medical school in upstate New York, I didn't want to do terminations of pregnancies at all. My mom is Catholic and my dad is Jewish, and the church we went to had a pretty strong stance on it: The message I got was that abortion was wrong. As a first-year medical student, I took an ethics class and we talked about abortion. I wrote a paper about how I believed in the right, but would never perform an abortion myself, because it was against the way I was brought up.
That all changed later on, when I had a crush on this guy who was a leader of Medical Students for Choice. At the time, I thought abortion was strictly a women's issue. But he convinced me that abortion is a civil rights issue, that if you have injustice for some members of your population, your whole population has injustice. I remember thinking that was really profound. Still, I told him that I didn't feel comfortable doing abortions, but I was pro-choice. So he gave me these two films to watch, and they changed my life. They were about different providers and patients, men and women, who talked about what life was like before abortion was legal. They really changed my views -- I suddenly thought, Yeah, I have to do that.
Today, though, there are so few providers who will perform terminations that the people who do agree to provide them end up taking the bulk of procedures. It can be hard. I'm a generalist -- I like a lot of different things about being an OB-GYN. But because sometimes I'm the only person around, I end up doing a lot of terminations.
Doing them over and over and over again can be really taxing. All of us who provide abortions believe in what we're doing and think it's a good thing and a right that needs to be available. But when you're in the clinic and in that group of people doing it, it can be tough, and you can get really tired. I don't think it'll ever make me stop doing terminations, but it can move people to tears. And it's not just me -- it extends to the nurses and the people who help us in the operating room. It's not unusual that you'll have only a couple of nurses who will help you out with it. There are nurses that will say, "No, I won't help you take care of this patient." I even know people who feel they can't tell their families what they do; their families think they work on labor and delivery.
It really frustrates me that there are so few providers. I've asked my friends who are doctors if they do abortions. Some women I knew were providers in residency, but they don't provide now because their current medical practice doesn't. It's upsetting that some friends don't fight harder to provide it. But I've also had friends who've stepped up and said, "I'm going to do medical abortions; would you teach me how?"
As providers, we give all options, including adoption and carrying the child to term. I always ask a patient "Are you sure about this?" I've had people change their minds, which is totally okay. We want that. Or sometimes we'll advise them that they have more time to decide what to do. I would feel worse terminating a wanted child than not being able to terminate at all. It's very important that a woman knows what she wants to do either way. I have no problem with a woman walking out. I always find those are good days -- when a woman walks out and says, "No, I'm keeping it."
I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I'm ending it for good reasons. Often I'm saving the woman, or I'm improving the lives of the other children in the family. I also believe that women have a life they have to consider. If a woman is working full-time, has one child already, and is barely getting by, having another child that would financially push her to go on public assistance is going to lessen the quality of her life. And it's also an issue for the child, if it would not have had a good life. Life's hard enough when you're wanted and everything's prepared for. So yes, I end life, but even when it's hard, it's for a good reason.
Because of all the threats these days, doctors who have been doing this longer than I have are a lot more hesitant about things that I don't even usually think about. Things like, "Who is sponsoring this conference I've been invited to? Did this interview request come from a referral I trust?" They warn me to be more leery. I wasn't in Boston 10 years ago, during the Salvi shootings, but I recently talked with someone who had been around at that time, and she told me the incident essentially put her whole career on hold. That scares me.
What happens if something like that occurs again? Would I still be able to show up for work? It's unfair and depressing. I'm older now, but there was a time when I was going to sacrifice everything for the cause. But would I really sacrifice the well-being of my family? There are providers who have been shot at, who have been shot and still show up for work and still do their job, which is amazing.
Maybe I live in an idealistic world, but I believe in people being good and in trying to understand their opinion. I don't think I'm going to be easily swayed. Obviously, the threat of violence is something that's always in the back of my mind, that it could happen, but I feel like I'm doing something so right. How could people think it's wrong?
AGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, at least she is presenting both sides of the issue to the patient...
I even think that this "doctor" would have nothing against a 24 waiting period and parental notification of a minor seeking an abortion...
How noble of her to make these decisions.
What a witch.
That this woman is so educated and yet so stupid, and such a moral imbecile, is sad.
That she has the ability to kill children is... well, it's a horror.
Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board
Biblical Christianity BLOG
When I walked into the room, there was this child -- an 11-year-old. She had come in for a procedure, and it soon became obvious that she had no understanding of sex -- she didn't really understand that she'd even had it, or that it had any connection to her pregnancy. We literally had to teach this girl about what it means to have sex -- about STDS, abstinence, and pregnancy. I remember thinking: In a world where people don't want kids to learn about these things, how can you not give them the choice to terminate a pregnancy?In what kind of a world do we live in that people want to educate 11 year-olds about how to have "safe sex" instead of stopping them from having it in the first place?
Does this person even understand why it is wrong? To know right from wrong is one thing but to understand it is another. How easily swayed was this woman to the dark side...
Why not, you were once before?
How early? How about conception? She's lucky her mother wasn't pro-abortion at the time of her begetting...
I cannot think of a greater horror than being a parent and raising your kid(s) to become abortion doctors...
Oh the poor thing having to do all this "work" herself! Give me a break!
"I have the utmost respect for life; I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I'm ending it for good reasons."
Think that will fly?
I wonder where the 11 year old's parents were? The child must not have gone to public school because we all know what a great job they do of teaching our children about sex. And for this doctor to talk about things not being fair, how fair is it to kill a baby? So basically this "doctor" thinks if a baby would be a financial burden or inconvenient, then killing it is okay. This article really makes me angry.
Lawrence (KS) abortion clinic closes because of funding woes
Eugene abortion clinic closes; surprising many (Hooray !!!)
Prayer credited for closing of abortion clinic [Eugene, OR]
Planned Parenthood will shut down 3 clinics [Indiana]
Persevering Students Help Close Abortion Clinic [Santa Paula, CA--Thomas Aquinas College]
Abortion Clinic Managers Quit After Being Outed by Operation Rescue [Wichita, Kansas]
One Man's God Squad: Troy Newman's plan to stop abortions in Wichita, Kansas
The absolute crassness of this sentence it unbelievable. She equates killing the unborn to the burden of being forced to take out the trash. This is the fruits of the pro-abortion movement.
The road to hell
Exactly. Or more likely, one of the parents or relatives is the father.
I see.
I've seen what abortionists do in The Hard Truth and Eclipse of Reason. I recommend these videos for all adults in consideration of our American holocaust.
Rationalization is too kind a word for this woman's thought.
Ten years after the bloody Brookline clinic attacks, one doctor explains why she still performs BLOODY abortions.
We can't judge her soul. But from all outward appearances, she seems to be in deep, deep trouble.
Anyone familiar with the English language knows that whenever you use the word "but" it invalidates whatever was said previously.
Example: "I know I owe you $100, but ...."
it would be my guess that she is against the death penalty.
If you are so concerned about it being a good thing and a right.
THEN DO YOUR PART AND PERFORM THESE MURDERS FOR NOTHING. THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS NO VOICE IS THE MOST INNOCENT ONE BEING RIPPED APART FOR BLOOD MONEY.
Why does everyone ASSUME that pregnancy is the worst thing that can ever happen and abortion is the cure?
How do you know that a pregnancy will have an adverse effect on this kid and the abortion won't?
And before you begin to say ...."Well at that age..." don't bother. Pregnancy doesn't ruin anyones life no matter what age. Abortion does ruin - or more accurately DESTROY- life.
Its society's attitude toward pregnancy (at any age)that leads to these situations.
A pregnant eleven year old who didn't know she had sex? Why am I not believing this? It sounds more like this so-called doctor is reporting what she wants to believe to justify her own actions.
Not surprised at all. The most vociferous anti-baby crowd are men who want an "exit" for the the consequences of sex.
The most vocal pro-aborts I know are ALL men, many who express a profound disgust for the natural functions of women (pregnancy, childbirth, lactation). Breeders. Ickypoo. Get rid of that thing.
It's a man thing--more than a woman's choice. If there wasn't a boyfriend, husband or father pushing a woman to get rid of his problem, I wonder how many abortions there'd be?
Yup. Most often, young girls going in for abortions are accompanied by their mothers. How depressing is that?
No you don't.
Because, if you really had "the utmost respect" for life, you would see how this statement of yours contradicts your "utmost respect for life":
"I appreciate that life starts early in the womb, but also believe that I'm ending it for good reasons. Often I'm saving the woman, or I'm improving the lives of the other children in the family. I also believe that women have a life they have to consider."
Onw wonders if this doctor, who says she has "the utmost respect for life" would consider ending the life of a six-month old infant if it meant that doing so would "improve th e lives of the other children in trhe family."
My guess is that she would not. She has, I would suppose, the "utmost respect for life" -- but only if the life has been born.
She says that she has the utmost respect for life and she also says that she "appreciates" that life begins in the womb.
She is lying.
Uhhh, I though the procedure was to remove a fetus, not "terminate" a child. This so-called doctor has just admitted that she makes her living by killing children. Or, is she saying that the fetus is only a child if it is wanted? Either way, this is a very sick person.
I used to do prayer vigils in front of the Planned Parenthood slaughterhouse mentioned in the story. The young girls who came in on Saturdays were most often accompanied by their mothers or boyfriends.
The myth of the sexual revolution and the advent of "the pill" is that these things benefitted women. The reverse is true, as Pope Paul predicted in "On the Regulation of Birth":
Consequences of Artificial Methods17. Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
Dr Death here make one rationalization after another for her killing unborn babies. And this bubblehead thinks she's doing good. Amazing.
It's all about the money. Abortions are a quick and lucrative procedure that is often directly paid by the patient...no hassles with insurance, Medicaid etc. How many of these abortion docs are doing any of their work pro bono?
I expect that right now, she would be horrified at the possibility of doing this. HOWEVER, given a little more pro-death propaganda (and perhaps an affair with a dashing Dutch doctor to boot), she might salivate at the opportunity. The Culture of Death is relentless. Just a few years ago, nobody would have believed the doctors in the Netherlands would get society's blessing to kill off their patients. But today the elite in other societies (including our own) are demanding the same "services" from their physicians.
Exactly. She would be against the death Penalty because of the Socio-Economic condition of the killer and for Abortion because of the Socio-Economic condition of the mother.
Obviously, the threat of violence is something that's always in the back of my mind, that it could happen, but I feel like I'm doing something so right. How could people think it's wrong?
This is someone who is completely refusing to accept that abortion is a supremely violent act. Abortionists are perveyors (if that means what I think it means) of violence and death--nothing else.
This 'doctor' would have done well on Josef Mengele's staff.
I had a crush on this guy who was a leader of Medical Students for Choice...So he gave me these two films to watch, and they changed my life.
Of all the folks I know, men and women, its the women I know that are pro-abortion. I only know one man who is pro-abortion and he is a screeching zealot lib in Ann Arbor (the Berkeley of the Mitten).
Saving the woman from what?
And if improving the quality of life for other children in the family requires one less child, why not advocate post-utero child killing. Hey, there are welfare moms with six+ kids out there. Kill all but two and bathe in the glory that the survivors' lives will be better for it.
< /sarchasm >
< /disgust >
Gee, she forgot to mention the word 'coat-hanger'.
Look lady, abortion is plain murder. How hard is that to understand? As a descendant of Christians and Jews, have you every heard of what happens to people like you who "harms these little ones?" Try reading a great Rabbi's teachings in the New Testament. You won't find the teachings in your OB's medical book.
I agree. That is the danger of using unnamed sources. It is easy to lie and attribute it to some unnamed source. This sounds more like it was written by a touchy-feely female staffer of Boston Magazine rather that a trained doctor.
Yes, except that you know that abortionists must do some gymnastics like this, to live with themselves, to sleep with that much innocent blood on their hands. They know as much as you and I, more. They know they're killing a person, an incredible creation, a child. But they do some compartmentalizing, some rationalizations, some denial. Very much like Hitler's "researchers," I would imagine.
Dan
A tenet of moral theology that seems to be lost these days is that bad acts create bad character. One takes on the attributes of the act ie one who commits theft becomes a thief
Speculations on "fundamental option", proportionalism and consequentialism theories have led people to believe they can do bad acts and still somehow retain a good character. These theories are specifically refuted in Veritatis splendor
65. The heightened concern for freedom in our own day has led many students of the behavioural and the theological sciences to develop a more penetrating analysis of its nature and of its dynamics. It has been rightly pointed out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God. Emphasis has rightly been placed on the importance of certain choices which "shape" a person's entire moral life, and which serve as bounds within which other particular everyday choices can be situated and allowed to develop.
Some authors, however, have proposed an even more radical revision of the relationship between person and acts. They speak of a "fundamental freedom", deeper than and different from freedom of choice, which needs to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood and evaluated. According to these authors, the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a "fundamental option", brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but in a "transcendental" and "athematic" way. Particular acts which flow from this option would constitute only partial and never definitive attempts to give it expression; they would only be its "signs" or symptoms. The immediate object of such acts would not be absolute Good (before which the freedom of the person would be expressed on a transcendental level), but particular (also termed "categorical" ) goods. In the opinion of some theologians, none of these goods, which by their nature are partial, could determine the freedom of man as a person in his totality, even though it is only by bringing them about or refusing to do so that man is able to express his own fundamental option.
A distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behaviour. In some authors this division tends to become a separation, when they expressly limit moral "good" and "evil" to the transcendental dimension proper to the fundamental option, and describe as "right" or "wrong" the choices of particular "innerworldly" kinds of behaviour: those, in other words, concerning man's relationship with himself, with others and with the material world. There thus appears to be established within human acting a clear disjunction between two levels of morality: on the one hand the order of good and evil, which is dependent on the will, and on the other hand specific kinds of behaviour, which are judged to be morally right or wrong only on the basis of a technical calculation of the proportion between the "premoral" or "physical" goods and evils which actually result from the action. This is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behaviour, even one freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act. The conclusion to which this eventually leads is that the properly moral assessment of the person is reserved to his fundamental option, prescinding in whole or in part from his choice of particular actions, of concrete kinds of behaviour.
67. These tendencies are therefore contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts. By his fundamental choice, man is capable of giving his life direction and of progressing, with the help of grace, towards his end, following God's call. But this capacity is actually exercised in the particular choices of specific actions, through which man deliberately conforms himself to God's will, wisdom and law. It thus needs to be stated that the so-called fundamental option, to the extent that it is distinct from a generic intention and hence one not yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always brought into play through conscious and free decisions. Precisely for this reason, it is revoked when man engages his freedom in conscious decisions to the contrary, with regard to morally grave matter.
To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behaviour means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect and the determinations which express it does not do justice to the rational finality immanent in man's acting and in each of his deliberate decisions. In point of fact, the morality of human acts is not deduced only from one's intention, orientation or fundamental option, understood as an intention devoid of a clearly determined binding content or as an intention with no corresponding positive effort to fulfil the different obligations of the moral life. Judgments about morality cannot be made without taking into consideration whether or not the deliberate choice of a specific kind of behaviour is in conformity with the dignity and integral vocation of the human person. Every choice always implies a reference by the deliberate will to the goods and evils indicated by the natural law as goods to be pursued and evils to be avoided. In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.
John Paul II, 1993
Once again, I agree. I think there is only one reason a doctor would perform an abortion - lots of money in it. Then they do the mental gymnastic you describe to justify it. Many, like Hitler, can justify doing away with a whole class of people for the lamest of reasons, yet make those reasons sound high-minded to those not in that class.
Liberals, at least those in the know, support abortion for one reason - to minimize the sanctity of life in order to make government (them) control more acceptable and their actions seem reasonable, regardless of the lack of morality and logic. Then they sell the ideas to the young and the useful idiots to gain wider support.
Power and control is the bottom line for them.
So many red herrings, so little time to answer.
I'm going to share the sex ed I got from my mom the first day of school.
Don't let anyone touch you down there.Btw, that's the sex ed I gave my daughter when she entered school this year. It still works.If anyone tries to touch you down there, you should kick, bite and scream as hard as you can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.