- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Religion
Dr. Willie J. Parker, Christian, Explains Why He Performs Abortions
For about 20 years, Dr. Willie J. Parker refused to perform abortions at his Washington D.C. office because he was raised Christian and taught that abortion was wrong.
However, he recently told the New Jersey Star Ledger what changed his mind and convinced him to perform abortions as late as 24 weeks:
I wrestled with the morality of it. I grew up in the South and in fundamentalist Protestantism, I was taught that abortion is wrong.
Yet as I pursued my career as an OB/GYN, I saw the dilemmas that women found themselves in. And I could no longer weigh the life of a pre-viable or lethally flawed fetus equally with the life of the woman sitting before me.
In listening to a sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, I came to a deeper understanding of my spirituality, which places a higher value on compassion. King said what made the good Samaritan “good” is that instead of focusing on would happen to him by stopping to help the traveler, he was more concerned about what would happen to the traveler if he didn’t stop to help.
I became more concerned about what would happen to these women if I, as an obstetrician, did not help them.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
UNLEARNED PERSONS SHOULD NOT
UNLEARNED PERSONS SHOULD NOT HANDLE THE WORD OF GOD. BE TAUGHT CORRECTLY, AND LIVE A HOLY LIFE, OBEDIENT TO GOD'S WORD FIRST BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO USE THE TWO-EDGED SWORD SO YOU DON'T INJURE OTHERS, AND YOURSELF. I THANK GOD FOR HAVING LED ME TO HIS ONE, AND ONLY KNOWN PROPHET, AND FINAL MESSENGER IN THESE LAST, AND FINAL DAYS WHO IS LEARNED IN THE SCRUPTURES, THE WILL OF GOD, LIVES IT, AND TEACHES IT WELL TO US. IT IS NOT LEVITICUS, BUT EXODUS WHICH SPEAKS TO A SITUATION CAUSING THE ACCIDENTAL DEATH OF AN UNBORN CHILD. Exo 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. THIS IN NO WAY DEVALUES THE LIFE OF THE FETUS. BUT, GIVES THE FATHER SOME SENSE OF RECOMPENSE FOR AN ACCIDENTAL DEATH WHICH CAN NOT BE LITERALLY REPLACED. GOD CONDEMNS THE TAKING OF INNOCENT LIFE. Pro 6:16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 2Ki 24:4 And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon.
AS TO WHEN LIFE BEGINS, AND WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE LIFE GOD, THE OWNER, AND ORIGINATOR/ CREATOR OF ALL LIFE ANSWERS: Jer 1:4 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Deu 32:39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.
ABORTION IS AN ABOMINATION, A HATED SIN AGAINST GOD. THE SHEDDING OF INNOCENT BLOOD WHICH GOD HATES. NO MATTER THE REASONING. THIS SO CALLED DOCTOR HAS MADE HIMSELF AN ENEMY OF GOD BY MURDERING INNOCENT LIFE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE MURDEROUS WOMEN. WE OUGHT TO OBEY GOD, AND NOT MAN. Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Whose on the Lord's side? Evangelist Rachel Rodgers, Jesus only forevermore, with joy, Amen.
If your God wrote all of
If your God wrote all of those things, then why do the passages have the names of the men that wrote them? None of the passages in the bible put the disclaimer that they were handed to them by your God or even that your god actually told them that.
It is just these men wanting to have a way to control others, making claims that it is the words of your God.
Sorry, but using the bible to support a scientific position is the intellectual equivalent of saying "because I said so".
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
I'm happy to see him thinking
I'm happy to see him thinking in what I feel is a more rational way. However, we'll see what his patients do...
hopefully his patients will think of it less as a 3 month later condom...
I see. So he is being a
I see. So he is being a "Good Samaritan" by helping women get rid of their children. Amazing. The women, unlike the man in the story, are not beaten up by robbers and left for dead and dependent on strangers to rescue them. Many of them are there for no other reason than the baby is the "wrong sex", or they are in school and don't want a baby now, or they had an affair and would be found out. Sure, we can all pull out the "rape and incest" card, but that's the rare exceptional case--not the one to base a policy on.
If the "Good Samaritan" label applies to those who kill in order to "help" someone else in need, then vigilantes and hit men are Good Samaritans. Care to go before God and argue that one?
I recommend we put those not
I recommend we put those not in favor of abortion shall be taxed separately and they can be responsible to feed thy brother and its mother. Good on you doc.
Abortion is not murder. A
Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not a living entity under Federal Law unless it can breathe on its own outside of the mother's womb. It's high time to stop accusing people of killing fully developed babies that are not viable living entities. While I can see this is an emotional matter for people, it isn't either good science or good lawmaking to impose religious beliefs of conception as the point a human is a human, when we know that medically that is NOT the case. This is a matter of personal choice for women to make. We cannot go around arresting women who have miscarriages. Miscarriages are the body's natural way of getting rid of defective or non-viable life forms. Choosing whether to bring into this world a child with Down's Syndrome is still a matter for individual couples or women to make, not the Church or our Government. Pregnancy is a matter of public health policy. Certain religious people are free to abstain from abortions if they so desire; however, they do not have a RIGHT to impose their personal and religious beliefs on others who think different. Imposing ones mores on others is no different than disrespecting the other person. That violates equal treatment under law. Unborn babies are not subject to the same civil liberties as those who are born. They should never be given the same equal status. A murder of a mother who is pregnant at the time of the mother's death could be mitigating circumstances for increasing the severity of punishment for a convicted felon, but to count an unborn child the same as a living child is blurring the distinction between the law and religion as well as science and religion. This is not simply consistent with a secular Republic.
Aren't you a lucky individual
Aren't you a lucky individual who's life wasn't snuffed out while you were still in the womb. Why is it that a man who murders a woman who is pregnant is charged for a double homicide, Oh right because the unborn child was murdered also! There is life where there is a heartbeat. You are not considered dead until your heart stops beating so why wouldn't you be considered a life if you have a heart beat. Miscarriages are in no way comparable to lying down on a table while they scrape parts of your baby out from your uterus. A woman who miscarries didn't plan to get rid of her child. But a woman who chooses that a child is just an inconvenience or would be in her way, that is taking life and death into her own hands and that is unacceptable.
law does not determine what
law does not determine what is absolutely right or wrong. not long ago, the law of this country was that slaves did not even count as a whole person. interestingly, the southern states often tried to skirt the issue by saying that the civil war, for their part, was a matter of state's rights; they didn't want an abolitionist's point of view to be forced on them. this sounds very like your argument. instead of accusing people of forcing anyone to believe anything, our energies would be better spent discerning once and for all whether a fertilized egg is a living human being.
from the perspective of biology, a fertilized egg is fully alive. a zygote has a genome distinct from either parent and so cannot be confused with the cells of either parent. a zygote is also indisputably human and alive. in fact, from a metabolic perspective, we're more alive in those first few weeks than we ever are for the rest of our lives. i know that this is a religious issue for many people, but from a medical perspective, elective abortion does kill a living being.
obviously, miscarriages are not going to be punishable by law. while it is scientifically obvious that abortion is killing, whether an action is murder is something else entirely. murder requires intent and there is none in an accidental miscarriage.
Actually, LAW DOES determine
Actually, LAW DOES determine what is right and wrong. Religion is the one with the issue of what is right and wrong.
SLAVERY - it was RELIGION (specifically Christianity) that was the excuse for it when all of the humanists were saying that slavery was wrong.
LIFE - something is alive, by scientific definition, when it is a viable thing; that means that it can survive without an umbilical outside of it's parent. Fetuses are not plant seeds and cannot grow into children independent of their parent. When that fetus has developed to the point of viability, THEN it is murder to abort it.
GENOMES/GENES - A child has a genome pattern that is a COMBINATION of both parents and not so distinct as you are claiming. Ask a geneticist if you don't believe that.
MISCARRIAGES - actually, there are some legislators trying to criminalize miscarriages, both intentional AND accidental. see legislation proposed in most of the bible belt states over the past 12 years.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
my point is that laws can be
my point is that laws can be wrong. i think that laws protecting elective abortions qualify.
many christians defended slavery with religious arguments. many did the opposite. it was only an example to show that a law can be immoral. i actually wasn't bringing religion into this. it doesn't have to apply.
life is determined by other things, such as metabolism. viability is whether or not life can *continue* without assistance. what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone on life support is not really alive because they need the machines to carry out vital functions. that doesn't mean that said vital functions are not there.
yes, a child's genome is a combination of her/his parents' genomes. that means that it matches neither. my point here is that it no longer matches the mother's genome, so it isn't a cell that belongs to her. if her body came into contact with it, nearly all of her own cells would recognize it as foreign and attack it. it also no longer matches the father's genome. his body would similarly attack it if any of his cells came across it. ask a geneticist if you don't believe that.
legislation outlawing accidental miscarriages are another example of unjust laws as well as an example of politicians dabbling in science without understanding scientific concepts at all.
Yes, some laws can be wrong.
Yes, some laws can be wrong. I have never seen a law written as a "knee-jerk reaction" to a problem that was a good law.
As far as the genomes, again, you are wrong. The genome matches BOTH PARENTS. That is how they can determine, using genetics, both the mother and father of a child. This has nothing to do with the body's defense mechanism, which you brought up and seem to be confusing with the genetic code. Clearly, you have less of an understanding of genetics than you think you do. There's nothing wrong with that, as genetics is a complicated science for most people.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
sexually created genomes do
sexually created genomes do not match the parents' genomes. for a biological example, reference the rhesus problem that sometimes arises in pregnancy.
"Actually, LAW DOES determine
"Actually, LAW DOES determine what is right and wrong. Religion is the one with the issue of what is right and wrong."
You speak, of course, of CIVIL laws. Religions also have their laws which DO INDEED determine what is right and wrong.
"SLAVERY - it was RELIGION (specifically Christianity) that was the excuse for it when all of the humanists were saying that slavery was wrong."
Bullshit. It was capitalism. No slaves, lower profits.
"LIFE - something is alive, by scientific definition, when it is a viable thing; that means that it can survive without an umbilical outside of it's parent...."
Show me this in your scientific textbook. Not someone's self serving published diatribe, but an academically accepted textbook used to teach professional level scientists.
i don't recall this argument
i don't recall this argument including religious laws. i was referring to federal and state laws.
i think you mean that slavery allowed *higher* profits, but i get the point and i see that you've also gone off on a tangent. we're not talking about economics here either.
as for a basic scientific text defining life, here is an excerpt of biology seventh edition by campbell and reece:
the phenomenon we call life defies a simple, one-sentence definition. we recognize life by what living things do.
this textbook then goes on to detail seven properties of life, order, evolutionary adaptation, response to environment, regulation, energy processing, growth and development, and reproduction. you'll find that a zygote, or a newly fertilized egg, fulfills all of these requirements.
"Religions also have their
"Religions also have their laws which DO INDEED determine what is right and wrong."
That is called DOCTRINE, not law. You need to learn the difference.
When religious doctrine becomes "law", those laws are called HERESY LAWS. Rarely, if ever, are they based on what is actually right and wrong, or even based in reality. Anti-science laws of the middle ages were heresy laws - RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE legislated into "law" by the powers of the church. Also doctrinal/heresy laws were used to promote and enforce everything from slavery to religious persecution to religious wars. A for effort but an F for accuracy.
As far as what is considered life (for the purposes of THIS discussion), try checking with the AMA, The NCSE and any biology department in any secular college.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
once again, i was not
once again, i was not referring to the laws of any religion. i was referring to the laws of america. i was trying to say that these laws do not necessarily determine moral choices; laws can be wrong and immoral.
how many times do i have to restate this for you?
the definition that i gave you is accurate, comes from a university approved textbook (yes, a secular university), and is also consistent with the ama and the ncse.
How many times must it be
How many times must it be restated to you that this nation's laws and More importantly, the Constitution, is based on secular humanist philosophies, NOT RELIGION.
You must be one of those that still, foolishly believes that this is a Christian nation.
RELIGIOUS LAWS ARE DOCTRINE, NOT LAW OF OUR NATION. The previous definition is technically and factually correct.
Our laws, here in the US, are secular, not religious. Do better homework.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
one more time: i am not
one more time: i am not talking about religion. i was never talking about religion. point out even one time that i brought up religion.
the reason that a zygote is alive is because she/he meets the biological criteria for it. i didn't quote the bible. i referenced scientific facts.
i also did not say, nor do i believe, that america's laws are religious. america's laws can be wrong on their own without including any religions.
Well, then we have a
Well, then we have a misunderstanding. Saying the same thing to each other from different angles.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
then let me restate, yet
then let me restate, yet again:
elective abortions are generally morally wrong because they involve the killing of a human being. i term a zygote (which is what an egg is called after fertilization, since the cell no longer belongs to the mother) a living human being because she/he is distinct from his/her parents and so is a separate being, human because her/his genome is definitely human, and living because all of the biological qualifications are met for life.
none of that has anything to do with any religion. it is just science. the law of this nation is wrong because it condones the killing of innocents for the sake of convenience. basic morality - not necessarily the morality preached by any religion - dictates that killing a person for your own ends is wrong, no matter how understandable a mother's reasoning might be.
i do posit that there are times that elective abortions are moral (which is why i said that it is generally wrong, not always wrong), most commonly because of ectopic pregnancies where the child is doomed regardless but an elective abortion is necessary to save the mother's life. even in cases of rape, elective abortions murder an innocent child because the mother (understandably) doesn't want to continue the pregnancy. we can't forget that, although the mother had no choice in the matter, the child is hers as well as the rapist's. i don't think that killing a mother's child ever helps a mother to heal from the emotional damage of a rape. but the majority of the time, a mother seeks to end her pregnancy because she made a choice that she regrets. her poor decision making and subsequent regret do not justify murder.
This is proof that theists
This is proof that theists can have compassion and intelligence, It's very sad they so few do. Dogma before duty. Beliefs before reality.
What's even worse, this person is going to be condemned for not being a "real christian". The good Samaritan was probably ostracized for not being a "Real Samaritan" too.
The woman is the patient to
The woman is the patient to an obstetrician, not the embryo or fetus, although care is taken so as not to harm the pregnancy from developing as long as that's what the woman wants. That is why newborns are handed over to obstetricians immediately following birth.
This is a real doctor. He
This is a real doctor. He understands the difference between what his religious leaders claim and what science says.
Religious extremism has never belonged in science. It has, in fact, done everything possible to destroy science and scientific advancement.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.