Sunday, March 27, 2011

In Defense of the Defenseless

In Defense of the Defenseless
We refuse to applaud the continuing slaughter of unborns while abortionists
engage in bravado over the "medical service" they are providing

by Steven  Clark Goad

I have never been more disappointed or appalled at an article than the "My Turn" piece by Dr. Morris Wortman in the December 14th  issue of Newsweek. Dr. Wortman is an abortion provider who is proud of his profession of terminating the life of defenseless infants. In the wake of the recent Dr. Slepian killing not 60 miles from Wortman's own home, Wortman attempts to solicit our sympathies because, as he informs us, his life is irrevocably changed by the killing so close to home. Does he give any thought about how he "irrevocably" changes the lives of every unborn infant he kills? At first reading I thought his article might have been a parody of sorts, with the angst and self sympathy expressed more like something from Saturday Night Live than genuine ethos emanating from the psyche of a baby killer.
Dr. Wortman lets us know immediately that Slepian's demise came on the heels of Wortman's seven-day mourning shiva for his dearly departed mother. Is his shiva involvement supposed to let us know that he is a pious and devout human being? We wonder how many shivas he has held for the countless lives he has take by abortion. It occurred to me that had his mother been aborted, such a shiva could not have been celebrated. Dr. Wortman tells of the heart wrenching emotion of his daughter not wanting to lose her father to an early demise at the hands of some lunatic who might "take him out" because of his penchant for terminating the life of babies en utero. Wortman expresses pride in his training of others who will keep the baby-killing profession alive and well into the future. He tells of his wife spontaneously shielding him when they get out of the car to go into the house and how friends confided that they were afraid to come to his house for dinner, for fear of their own safety. Who, pray tell, shelters these unborn ones who are of all creatures most helpless?
Wortman attempts to garner more sympathy by speaking of all the recent deaths in his family, which has absolutely nothing to do with his profession of terminating lives. He is now the only survivor in his family who can carry the torch to assist mostly women inconvenienced by an embarrassing pregnancy. His parents used to joke with him about keeping his weight down. They would laugh when he would remind them that instead of dying from natural causes, his family died from gas chambers or bullets. Strange indeed to resurrect the spectre of Nazi Germany in an article promoting abortion, when his profession is engaged in the taking of life, not with gas or bullets, but with saline solutions, surgical knives, suction devices and incineration. Why is the killing of his Jewish relatives more a holocaust than the killing of millions of unborn babies every year? Couples wanting to adopt are on waiting lists for years and cannot because doctors like Wortman and his trainees are taking lives before they can even begin them.
Wortman informs his audience that he has been paralyzed by the recent death of his baby-killing colleague, Dr. Slepian. I doubt that the paralysis will keep him from paralyzing more unborn permanently. Will someone who is not afraid of risking being politically "incorrect" please inform me what the difference is between what Dr. Wortman does than what the prom attendee did who placed her baby in a trash can in the rest room and then proceeded to dance the night away with her date? The difference, if I may answer my own question, is that Wortman is supposed to be applauded and paid for his dastardly deed, while the girl in question is considered a murderer. Well, this lone dissenter isn't buying it! And I suspect the majority of thoughtful and spiritually devout people aren't buying it either.
Dr. Wortman uses a euphemism for abortion that apparently is intended to soothe the obvious. "Pregnancy termination" by any other terminology is still the sapping of life from the most innocent of human beings. The good doctor, now bemoaning a life having to be led in fear of termination, attempts to garner sympathy for poor women who want to kill their babies but have to do it in hospital areas not brightly colored as those in the delivery areas. What would Wortman have us do, have balloons and a party for every baby killed by him or one of his colleagues? He cries for those women who don't get much sympathy and support when they come wanting to "terminate" the babies they are carrying. He thinks we ought to give them encouragement with nicer accommodations and sympathetic understanding. Would a yellow wall with a Winnie the Poo mural on it make the taking of new life any less reprehensible?
This physician, whom I presume took the Hippocratic Oath, asks for us to understand his struggle in providing what he refers to as "modern medical procedures" to help women control their inconvenient pregnancies. If this is where modern medicine has advanced, I  want no part of it. He presents his determination to keep killing babies as if it is a matter of honor with him. "Is there any chance I will stop doing abortions?" he whines. "No, not as long as I have something important to offer women in this community." Something important? He pleads for our pity for having to fortress himself within his home and office just in case some baby lover might decide to terminate the terminator. I would be concerned as well if I were Dr. Wortman.
Of all the things to bring up in such a horrifying and self-serving piece of propaganda, Dr. Wortman pines for the time when he can be a better father and perhaps travel to the Holy Lands. The irony of mentioning the Holy Lands reminds many of the infanticide carried out by King Herod during Jesus' infancy. How dare this "medical provider" attempt to sanctify the killing of unborn babies by referring to a future trip to the Bible lands.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Killing healthy fetuses is hardly a vital medical service, unless some of us believe the kind of spin doctoring that has been taking place in Washington recently where words cease to mean what they have always meant. If nuances of meaning are dependent upon what "is" is, then perhaps the killing of unborn babies is indeed a vital medical service.
Ironically, in his last paragraph, Dr. Wortman confides to us the death of relatives at Treblinka at the hands of the Nazis. It occurs to this scribe that we may owe an apology to Hitler and Nazi Germany if we continue to shudder in horror at what that kind of atrocity wrought upon a people such as the Jews but cannot weep for the most defenseless of all creatures, precious unborn infants whose holocaust is perpetuated every day in abortion clinics across the land.
Almost defiantly, Wortman declares, "My would-be assassin may yet determine how and when I die (sic) but not how I live." If I may speak for the multitude of aborted babies since Roe verses Wade, "We not only were assassinated before breathing air outside our mothers' wombs, we never had the opportunity to determine how we lived or died." So, Dr. Wortman, as you stand tall in defense of your marvelous profession, do you mind if one lone citizen doesn't get too choked up at your fear of someone terminating your life? One would suppose that you think your life is worth more than those you kill. God have mercy on all murderers, whether they perform their service by way of infanticide in a sterile clinic, or by genocide in a horrible prison camp in Treblinka.

No comments:

Post a Comment