The “nuanced perspective on abortion” is to embrace abortion-on-demandBy Dave Andrusko
I consciously avoided addressing I Am an ObGyn Resident Who Entered My Field Specifically to Perform Safe Abortion Services — These Are My Reasons Why until after the holiday season. And in that spirit, I hope to extend to Carolyn Payne, MD, the kind of reasoned analysis that so lacking in her understanding of those who disagree with her.
The subhead gives you a feel for, a sense of, Payne’s enthusiasm: I love providing abortion care to women, and I am proud to do so. I am also far from alone.
You may remember we wrote about “Four Residents’ Narratives on Abortion Training,” that appeared in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
You knew pro-abortionists would be rabidly unhappy if for no other reason (as I argued in my post) that we came away from these essays knowing “First and foremost, the still small voice that we all have roared as they sliced and diced huge babies.”
There aren’t supposed to be such voices and their existence annoys Payne to no end. There are lots of abortionists just like her who have “confidence and pride in their decision to provide abortion services.” Let’s take a look at how she backs that up.
To be honest it’s difficult to address the pro-abortionist’s case
when they reduce any opposition to a handful of caricatures. Why do you and I oppose pulverizing unborn children? Why are we appalled by the use of sharp metal clamps and scissors to tear apart, piece by piece, a well-formed, living unborn child? Why do we prefer rechanneling federal money away from PPFA to organizations that provide women with genuine health care and not abortion?
Simple. According to Payne (who tells her readers that she was a “political science/women’s studies major”), “it seemed obvious
their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood were efforts to remove women from the public sphere. It seemed obvious that the debate over access to reproductive health care was really a debate about reproduction, and sexuality, and traditional gender roles. It is obvious that women need their health, and need control over their reproduction and their bodies in order to compete along the career trajectory with men.So the most worn out, threadbare clichés (including that we are– what else?–misogynists), piled on the old cant about abortion access=equal career trajectory. Not exactly plowing new ground.
But what about, if you will, the positive case for abortion (as oppose to lambasting pro-lifers)? She asks a series of rhetoric questions. “Who wants to be an abortion provider?”
I do. And I don’t have a nose-ring or a tattoo. I’m a 5’ blonde from Ohio and my last boyfriend was a pastor. In fact my Midwest, Christian upbringing is largely responsible for my belief that providing abortion services is one of the most meaningful ways I feel I can contribute to making the world a more fair and equal place for women.So, your typical abortion “provider” is Ms. Middle America, raised a Christian, dates pastors, and is now “making the world a more fair and equal place for women” as the abortion industry obliterates 500,000 or so unborn females each and every year.
Then she tells us
I provide abortions, and actively take every opportunity to advance my abortion skills, because without abortion and family planning, women will never live in an equal world, let alone rule the world.Sigh.
But her gee-whiz essay wouldn’t be complete if Payne didn’t assure us that annihilating unborn children is really for their own good.
And most importantly, I think it is fair to children, that they are born into a world where they are wanted, and loved, and cared for, and have the resources they need to thrive. I think abortion is a social good and a tremendous way in which physicians can contribute to a more socially just world.
Is it unfair or just the truth to observe that one of the major pillars of Payne’s “more socially just world” just happens to be that women of color have a wildly disproportion percentage of abortions?
A final thought brings us back to “Four Residents’ Narratives on Abortion Training.” One resident overcame his training– that his view of the unborn was “feto-centric”–to conclude, “Nonetheless, in the absence of a clear moral understanding of abortion, I can only do no harm.”
Not only was there not one “nuanced perspective on abortion,” according to Payne, in the context of abortion, you are not “doing no harm” if you fail to wholeheartedly embrace abortion.
You are not allowed to consider yourself a physician serving women unless you destroy their unborn children.
How’s that for a “nuanced perspective on abortion”?
Source: NRLC News