Via Media

Via Media


10,000…

posted by awelborn

Friend of the blog David Kubiak sends in a note about last night’s ABC Nightline, which featured an interview of the abortionist who was the focus of that LATimes story a few weeks back. Here’s the story from the ABC site.

Here’s the original LATimes piece

Here’s a Get Religion look at the LATimes reporter account of her reporting

David says:

The doctor admitted very  openly that he had killed some 10,000 children, but argued that the  mother’s personal happiness was much more important than the  children’s lives.  The interviewer looked and sounded really shocked  at what was being said to him.  Prof-life groups should run to order  a tape.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(29)
post a comment
Dan

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:02 pm


The ABC article reports that the abortionist takes the “it’s just a blob of tissue” position; he is not said to admit that he is killing children.



report abuse
 

David Kubiak

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:12 pm


Dan:
He did so quite directly last night.



report abuse
 

JenB

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:15 pm


I don’t know why I read the ABC link, but I do know why I feel nauseous now.



report abuse
 

lourdes

posted January 12, 2006 at 3:51 pm


He does admit in the article that this “blob of tissue” has a beating heart and functioning brain. Quite a blob, this!



report abuse
 

Marion

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:15 pm


Another one!
The most dedicated proponents of abortion, I believe, have no quarrel with and no doubts about the fact that abortion ends a human life. Especially the doctors and nurses involved. They see it up close and personal every day. They know what they are doing.
But I’ve heard them say, “So, abortion is the taking of a human life. Well, it’s to make the woman happier, more free, like men are. Isn’t that a good thing? So, abortion is done in the service of doing good.”
“And how dare you interfere with the doing of good?”
Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that men and women may not directly take life. Not for any reason. Human life is sacred. The Founding Fathers thought so, too, and wrote in the Constitution that people are, ” . . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . .
But to free-thinking Leftists, all this means nothing. Nothing is sacred. Not objectively. Provisionally, yes. Human life is sacred if someone wants it. Sure it’s human, but if the mother doesn’t want it – pfut! Out it goes!
The same with euthanasia. Grandma’s old and suffering; the family doesn’t want her anymore; she doesn’t want to be alive anymore? Pfut! Grandma’s gone. There’s no question Grandma’s a human being. There’s no question she is a person. It’s that we don’t want her.
The same with the baby. “We don’t want her.” So, why not kill her?
The Constitution speaks of the inalienable human right to life, but the determined efforts of a number of very sharp, clever, and misguided individuals have managed to eviscerate this.
There’s no point arguing with these folks about whether or not the baby is human. They know it’s human. What they don’t know – or don’t want to know – is that there is a God in Heaven and that the blood of the innocent cries out to the Most High.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:24 pm


Kate Michaelman openly admitted it was the ending of a “developing human life” yesterday on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. And also said that she “make[s] no bones” about the fact that it is a human life.
I was stunned.
Usually pro-death defenders refuse to answer that question and try and talk around it.



report abuse
 

Laura

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:24 pm


The doctor estimates higher in the LA Times article, “…Now 70, Harrison estimates he’s terminated at least 20,000 pregnancies.”
That’s a big difference – was it lowered for television? Raised for the LA Times? The mind reels.



report abuse
 

Kathleen

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:26 pm


Also I simply can’t understand why nine months is so long to wait to get your life back?



report abuse
 

chris

posted January 12, 2006 at 4:48 pm


Marion, you’re confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence.
Secondly, it is untrue that ‘Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that men and women may not directly take life. Not for any reason.’
First there is Just War, and also the matter of self defence.
I only point these out to help you be more articulate when you espouse your very good ideas to the unconverted masses, who will see such otherwise trivial errors in fact as an easy excuse to reject everything else you’re saying out of hand.



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:02 pm


The Constitution speaks of the inalienable human right to life—-no Marion. It’s the Declaration of Independence.



report abuse
 

LeeAnn

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:08 pm


I saw the episode of Frontline last night. The doctor did say “blob of tissue” at one point, but the reporter asked him when life begins and the doctor firmly stated “at the moment of fertilization” among other things. He simply doesn’t place equal value on the fetus’ life and the mother’s and made a point several times of saying that the majority of women he helps are “single, poor and already have 2 or 3 children.” He really thinks he’s acting mercifully toward these women.
The only thing that really shocked me about the piece is that 1) the reporter actually did a fair job of not appearing biased and asking difficult questions and 2) when questioned whether or not a woman coming to him for her ninth abortion was “appropriate” the doctor didn’t seem to have any squeamishness about answering yes.
What happened to wanting to make abortion “safe, legal and RARE”? Surely this doctor is pro-contraception. Why then isn’t he at least a little frustrated by this woman’s irresponsibility at getting pregnant a NINTH time with no intention of completing the pregnancy? Surely as a doctor he can’t think multiple abortions are better for her health than the alternatives? Boggles the mind….



report abuse
 

Caroline

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:17 pm


Sorry, Marion. Maybe another old school teacher got on that one first. I used to tell my highschool kids that if they could show me where in the Constitution it said that anyone had a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they would get an automatic A in the course and never need attend class. The Constitution is a man made law which declares itself the supreme law of the land. No man made law can give anyone a right to life or liberty nor to pursuing the means to sustain them; either those rights come from a Creator or they are wishful thinking, here today and gone tomorrow. We really don’t emphasize the Declaration and what it means enough. It proclaims the rights authored by a Creator which the Constitution can neither grant nor remove but still may and should protect in their exercise by man made law.



report abuse
 

On the Other Foot

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:21 pm


Eichmann and Mengele were comfortable, too

Work makes free, and murder makes born again!



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted January 12, 2006 at 5:31 pm


Thank you, Chris and Caroline, for pointing out that I was quoting from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Your are right; I need to be more careful!
Chris, Catholic teaching distinguishes between intentional direct killing that is never permissible, including acts of abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia, and “direct attacks on innocent civilians during war and terrorist acts targeting noncombatants”*, all of which are forbidden, and never permissible, versus using lethal force in self-defense, where the taking of another’s life, does, indeed, regrettably take place, but only as a last resort, and only as a means to prevent the destruction of one’s own’s life or the lives of the members of one’s own family or community (Please see also Saint Thomas Aquinas ST II-I, 100, 8, 3.)
*(quoted from USCCB Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities A Campaign in Support of Life)
Thanks again.



report abuse
 

Tom Haessler

posted January 12, 2006 at 10:51 pm


Hello, Chris,
IMHO, you have misunderstood Catholic teaching when you say that the Church does NOT oppose ALL direct attacks on human life. Even though the usual expression is “direct attack on innocent human life”, the analysis of theologians like Aquinas is that killing in a just war is permissable only because the intention is directed toward warding off the unjust attack on the innocent (by means of lethal force). Aquinas would say if the major intention is killing (in a just war) that it would be sinful. That’s why he considers just war under the rubric of “charity” and asks the question whether war is ever not a sin.



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted January 12, 2006 at 11:24 pm


Marion and Tom:
The Church HAS countenanced and still at least in PRINCIPLE DOES countenance under some circumstances the direct taking of guilty human life in capital punishment.
It’s the principle of double effect that is used in individual self defense and collective self defense (war). So, one’s intention in any particular act of killing of an aggressor is to stop him, not to kill him.



report abuse
 

Marion

posted January 13, 2006 at 8:38 am


I want to reiterate that aborting a child in order to secure the adult’s happiness and freedom and feelings of control over her life is in no way like using lethal force in self-defense.
The conduct of war and capital punishment appeal to self-defense principles: the only way to preserve my own life or the lives of those I am bound to protect is to ward off the attacks of the aggressor; to act so as to ward off his attacks will result in his death.
Many abortion supporters would object to shooting looters in the back as they carry TV sets out of a store. Which they are right to object to. But isn’t aborting a child to secure your happiness and feeling of control over your life a lot like shooting someone in the back to secure your property?
The underlying principle there is certainly not a last-resort means of defense of one’s own life.
Abortion proponents can’t afford to have the voters realize this difference. If they did, the game would be up. So they’ve had to resort to the “it’s only a clump of cells” arguments. Which is false and disingenuous, and which, I believe, the more educated among them know is false and disingenuous.



report abuse
 

David Kubiak

posted January 13, 2006 at 11:27 am


To add to the the horrifying things the doctor said, he claimed that the sadness women feel after giving up their child for adoption is in great contrast to their happiness after they abort the baby, therefore he doesn’t even mention adoption as a possibility unless the woman brings it up.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted January 13, 2006 at 12:12 pm


I wonder if his reasoning is tied to the fact he makes money off of performing abortions? ….If he is so committed why doesn’t he perform abortions for free?



report abuse
 

meteorologist

posted January 13, 2006 at 12:52 pm


Of course, many of these women (the rabid supporters of abortion, like Ms. Michaelman) view the (unwanted) baby as an invader who will ruin the life of the mother. From this point of view, killing the baby is self-defense. The “doctor” last night, in speaking of the before/after contrast in the mothers that David Kubiak refers to above, described the women as being “reborn,” that is, their life has been restored to them.
Yes, the “doctor” did acknowledge that the babies being aborted are human life, but he denied that their personhood–whatever those non-person human entities could possibly be.
Wilfred McClay has a good article in the December First Things (curiously not linked yet from their page) on the importance of distinguishing between the self, which is dependant on self-awareness or self-consciousness, and the broader concept of the person which is intrinsic to our existence. The “doctor” is using the word person but using in the self of the term self.



report abuse
 

Marion

posted January 13, 2006 at 1:15 pm


“Of course, many of these women . . . view the (unwanted) baby as an invader who will ruin the life of the mother. From this point of view, killing the baby is self-defense
Of course! And because my livelihood and my happiness depend on the success and security of my electronics-goods business, it is therefore self-defense when I shoot unarmed looters in the back.
NOT!
And, by the way, if I elect to argue that shooting abortionists is a form of defending others, doesn’t that mean it is morally justifiable for me to do it?
NOT!
NOT!
It’s so important for Catholics to have a firm knowledge of what self-defense is and of what it means and doesn’t mean.
One can’t just make this stuff up as you go along, and we can’t let others get away with trying to do so, either. Having done so thus far is how we’ve gotten into the mess (Roe) we’re in now!



report abuse
 

Conrad

posted January 13, 2006 at 1:49 pm


Of course the docter has no problem with aborting the woman’s ninth child. Not when he gets something out of it (750$ or so). What a sicko.



report abuse
 

meteorologist

posted January 13, 2006 at 2:04 pm


Marion,
Please understand that I hold those statements to be a load of crap. I merely was noting how they could admit the child is a human life and still have no problem killing it. And that saying “thou shalt not kill” isn’t going to go very far.
That said, I think it is useful to get pro-aborts on the record as saying these babies are indeed human life. The baby=parasite line is a much harder sell than “it’s just a clump of cells.”



report abuse
 

Henry Dieterich

posted January 13, 2006 at 2:09 pm


Kim, a single mother of three, says she couldn’t bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved. Ending the pregnancy seemed easier, she says — as long as she doesn’t let herself think about “what could have been.”
There are no words to describe the tragedy of the deception here. Not merely Kim’s deception, but the deception of those thousands of readers who read this paragraph and believed that Kim’s choice was justified.



report abuse
 

Marion

posted January 13, 2006 at 2:46 pm


“Please understand that I hold those statements to be a load of crap.”
Thank you. You were clear, Mete.
I hope I didn’t give the impression that you were otherwise. I’ve got a bee in my bonnet at the moment, with the the Alito confirmation hearings going on and the March for Life coming up (Washington, D.C., Monday, Jan. 23); these discussions are going to be especially on people’s radar screens.
To reach hearts and minds . . . Even to reach one more person would be a good thing.
Thank you for your patience.



report abuse
 

meteorologist

posted January 13, 2006 at 2:47 pm


she couldn’t bear to give away a child and have to wonder every day if he were loved.
I guess it is much more comforting to know with certainty that the child was not loved.
A guy called the Laura Ingraham show today during their segment on this topic. He said he was conceived when his mother was raped. She then tried to aborted him (pre-1973). So, his father is a rapist and his mother tried to kill him. He challenged anyone to tell his wife and kids that he shouldn’t have been born.
I’d like to have heard Kate Michaelman respond to that on Meet the Press.



report abuse
 

Old Zhou

posted January 13, 2006 at 3:49 pm


You know, the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki only killed 40,000 people. This guy has done one fourth of that himself.



report abuse
 

Sam Schmitt

posted January 14, 2006 at 11:29 am


I remember realizing that hard-core abortionists really do know that they are taking human life when they perform an abortion (what else is it – an elephant?) I think it was while reading an article in the Human Life Review quoting abortionists like the one above as well as “pro-choice” activists, I think. Up to that point I had blithely thought that they just needed to be shown that yes, there is a heartbeat, unique DNA, etc. (as if they didn’t know). It was something of a turning point for me.



report abuse
 

Poppi

posted January 15, 2006 at 12:12 am


Yikes!
Good point, Zhou!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.