Skip to comments.What’s the Hippocratic Oath to an Enlightened Pro-Abortion Med Student?
Posted on 06/13/2009 10:03:05 AM PDT by wagglebee
The Hippocratic Oath means nothing to medical student Rozalyn Farmer Love. Not only did her June 7th op-ed in The Washington Post demonstrate the lefts logically and morally flawed argument in favor of abortion, but it also raises concerns about those who are entering the medical field and the morals they feel free to ignore.
Love, who plans to become an obstetrician-gynecologist dreams of delivering healthy babies, working with families and supporting midwifery, but was writing in an attempt to justify her own support for abortion, even while she asserted that When I advocate for reproductive rights, for choice, I don't claim that abortion is morally acceptable.
A large part of the article was devoted to Love describing how she went from a family of pro-lifers to an active participant in the pro-choice movement. She presented her own case as a black sheep in a stifling family: I began to feel as if I were leading a double life. At school, the choices I saw women struggling with were forcing me to question my old convictions. When I went home, I'd go to church with my parents but would find that my views contrasted starkly with those I heard in the sermons. It was a difficult time, because I felt that neither my family nor my church would welcome my questions or understand my struggle.
Love painted her parents as the stereotypical close-minded conservatives, who misunderstood their enlightened daughters beliefs (like living with her fiancée.) Apparently she, and her equally oppressed friends, grew up somewhere resembling Puritan Salem. She related how she was shocked at how little many of my friends women who were studying biology and planning to become doctors knew about their own sexual health.
It seems that Love equated not using birth control to lack of sexual knowledge. She claimed, They didn't know about or couldn't get the reproductive health care they needed because of barriers put up by their culture, their religion and their parents, whose sole contribution to sex ed was generally an unspoken "Thou shalt not!"
Under the oppressive eyes of their Taliban parents, these unfortunate young women suffered the barriers of a traditional morality. How terrible.
When talking about a friend who needed to come up with an excuse to go on birth control, Love stated, She was sexually active and didn't want to get pregnant. The possibility that her friend should perhaps practice abstinence if she wanted to avoid a pregnancy does not seem to have ever crossed Loves mind.
But despite her switch to the pro-choice side of the abortion issue, Love claimed that she does not belief that abortion is morally acceptable. To justify this dichotomy in her belief system, Love used the age-old its personal excuse, saying, I think that it's a very private, intensely personal decision.
Further, stories from the pre-Roe Vs. Wade days of women who suffered from botched abortions helped her reach her decision. She explained, And I believe that it's immoral to let them die rather than provide them with safe, competent care.
So to get it straight: Love does not think abortion is morally acceptable, yet she is willing to help women perform this non-morally acceptable act to protect them. It is worth mentioning that never in her article did Love claim that a fetus is not a human life. So in essence, she is willing to play God, actively choosing the life of the mother above the life of the baby.
There are other flaws in Loves argument. Although she admitted she has never witnessed an actual abortion procedure, she declared that descriptions of partial-birth abortion procedures (when the baby's head emerges, the doctor jabs a pair of scissors into the back of its neck, severing the spinal cord ) were misleading and graphically politicized. Not only was she incapable of backing this up with actual experience, but she did not offer any description in the place of the one she found so deceptive, nor did she give any reasoning or evidence for why it is so.
Love also presented an anecdote about a woman and husband whose baby had been diagnosed with a lethal congenital anomaly. If the woman waited and gave birth to the baby, she might be waiting for almost 20 more weeks to give birth to a baby that would never take more than a few breaths on its own. Love rightly asserts that carrying a baby that in high likelihood would not survive for very long would be a tragedy for the mother.
But a medical student should know that high likelihood is not guaranteed, and that many times babies are misdiagnosed in the womb But to Love, the certainty of a mothers emotional pain outweighs the uncertainty of giving the baby a chance for life.
Since in this particular case the pregnancy was so far along that most doctors would not perform an abortion, the womans options were few. But Love knew what she needed: the newest martyr of the pro-abortion culture. She stated dramatically, They needed a caring and compassionate physician to help them through this dark moment, and if they chose not to continue the pregnancy, they also needed a physician who was both skilled enough and brave enough to provide them with the care they needed. They needed Dr. Tiller.
ALL abortionists know that it is a baby they are killing, they simply don't care.
First its not The Washington Post it’s The Washington Pravda.
Secondly it only prove tha miss Love has no Honour.
More like Dr. Death.
In other words, she’s a cold, heartless wench. Medical education should be reserved for people with a heart. Miss Love doesn’t have a heart and is in danger of losing her soul.
I feel bad for this young lady’s parents. Woe to any of my children if they began to proclaim such degenerate morality in public or private. if that amoral brat was my daughter, she could forget about any help with paying off those medical loans. I am repeatedly amazed at the arrogance of so many medical doctors and the abject failure of medical education in teaching the students any sense of the humanity of the bodies they are working to heal. It is downright shameful.
Even though the Oath had been revised several times, but the word “abortion” was mention in the original version.
At school, the choices I saw women struggling with were forcing me to question my old convictions. When I went home, I’d go to church with my parents but would find that my views contrasted starkly with those I heard in the sermons. It was a difficult time, because I felt that neither my family nor my church would welcome my questions or understand my struggle.
One notes here that she never questioned her schooling but
instead doubted her very own family and church, do you suppose that doubt was instilled by her teachers?
Oh no of course not. /s
Yep, she prefers to ignore 6000 years of Judeo-Christian teaching and blindly embrace leftist narcissism.
The article is entirely too formularic to have been written by a college student. At the same time that doesn’t mean there isn’t some sociopathic nurd-woman somewhere who likes to kill babies.
About as much as marriage vows mean to a serial adulterer. It is the magic phrase that opens the door so they can work their evil. Sadly, they reflect our culture. That will have to change before "Enlightened Pro-Abortion Med Students" will become a thing of the past.
What’s really scary is that she represents the doctors of the future—morally lacking & ethically challenged just like politicians in Congress today.
I think that it’s a very private, intensely personal decision.
Murder, rape, pedophilia and slavery also are morally abhorrent. Does this mean we can look the other way on grounds these are private, intensely personal decisions? Medicine attracts our brightest and best students. It’s sad they don’t have or aren’t given even rudimentary skills in critical thinking about ethical issues, as the practice of medicine is replete with them.
Not just abortionists, but anyone with a hint of scientific training--which includes ALL doctors and medical professionals.
This is why the issue is a moral/religious one--on the value, and ultimately, the sacredness of human life itself.
It is also why, when students are saturated with the assumptions of evolutionary biology--where God is pretended to be completely absent and unnecessary for life--they end up with such illogical and godless conclusions, such as the ironically named "Love" exhibits.
This article was a critique of the one apparently written by Love. Have you read the original?
No idea if there's a real original.
Kind of puts a chill down my spine to think that there could be a psychopathic sociopath out there who could end up in something else, let's say geriatrics simply because the abortionist internships were booked up.
Here’s the original op-ed in WaPo: