LET’S SAY you live in a city where a weird cult is practicing a grotesque ritual whereby it cuts off the right arms of its most devoted followers. The idea is that amputation will appease the gods. Awful, but that’s what this cult does.

Now let’s say you are a medical doctor and you are working in a hospital emergency room one day when a woman arrives in a desperate situation. She is the victim of a “botched” amputation. Normally, the cult members are treated by their own doctors. But in this case, she is mistreated and is dying from loss of blood.

You rush to treat this woman and try to save her life. Unfortunately, it is too late. She dies in the emergency room.

You are outraged and haunted by her unnecessary death. What do you do in response?

A normal doctor would probably say, “We must stop these disgusting amputations. We must make them illegal and imprison all those who perform them. They are killing people and this religion is clearly evil.”

But let’s say, the doctor actually belongs to the satanic cult. Then what would he say?

Perhaps he would say, “We must enact laws to make these amputations safer. I will devote myself to performing safe amputations myself.”

This is very similar to something that Dr. Deborah Nucola, senior medical services director for Planned Parenthood, said in a long videotaped conversation in which she admitted to the trade in infant body parts. She said she became an abortionist because one day when she was working in an emergency room, a woman arrived who was suffering from a “botched” abortion. Nucola tried, but was unable to save her life.

From that day on, she said, she knew she wanted to devote her career to performing safe abortions.

So instead of saying, “This death shows just how wrong abortion is. Pregnancy did not threaten this woman’s life. Abortion was not medical treatment; it was mistreatment. I will fight abortion,” she concluded, “This shows that the problem with abortion is that it is not safe enough.”

Was Nucola honest? Or was this a script she had adopted to justify her career choice? Her reasoning is just so strange. After all, a woman who does not submit to an abortion does not face the risks of abortion. The simplest way to prevent deaths from abortion is to prevent abortion.

Is it possible Nucola chose this career for other reasons? Did it offer career opportunities other medical specialties did not? Or did she choose it because, deep inside, she was a follower of  the cult of feminism, which holds that in order for a woman to become a true woman she must kill essential parts of herself? She must kill her feminine side.

Killing her femininity sometimes means literally killing the life within her, another human being, an essential part of herself. Believing in this cult, did Nucola wish to perpetuate and aid its most essential sacrificial rite?

— Comments —

Josh F. writes:

I shall respectfully ask even more clearly…

“…Or did she choose it because, deep inside, she was a follower of  the cult of [devout dykism], which holds that in order for a [female] to become [truly liberated] she must kill [ACTUAL] parts of herself? She must kill her [child THUS killing her] feminine side.  [She must commit acts of self-annihilation to prove her worth to the devout dyke cult.]

Killing her [self] means literally killing the life within her, [her child], an [actual] part of herself. Believing in this [anti-man, anti-woman, anti-child, anti-procreation] cult, did Nucola wish to perpetuate and aid its most essential sacrificial rite?

Terry Morris writes:

Your question answers itself. Unfortunately there is a lot to be gained for someone like Nucola in the American abortion industry. To believe her story that she transitioned into the field for purely selfless reasons is the height of stupidity. Her motivations were evil altogether, there can be no doubt about it. But your commentary has had me thinking:

Is it not that underneath it all feminism is essentially a death cult that seeks to bring out the super-human inherent to women as women, and to women alone? What I am attempting to say is that (according to the doctrine of feminism as I’m coming to better understand it) in order to reach one’s full super-human potential, one must first be woman, endowed with the super-human power of “choice” of giving life or of extinguishing it/preventing it in the first place. Therefore a man’s maximum potential cannot ever reach to the height of Woman’s; he is, by his very nature, inferior to Woman because it is in Her, not him, that the actual choice for life/non-life is invested and made. Have I about summed it up, or am I way off base here?

Laura writes:

It is more accurate to say that Woman is superior because she is without Original Sin.

Man is tainted by the Original Sin of patriarchy. All men partake in the guilt of the historic oppression of women. They can only be cleansed of this inherited sin by assenting to revolutionary changes.

Paul C. writes:

The answer to why doctors perform abortions can be found using a search engine. For example, here is the main reason:

In 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions in the U.S.

“Why do doctors do abortions?” asks Anthony Levantino, M.D., an OBGYN who provided abortions for his patients in his Albany, N.Y., office for eight years. “Why did I do abortions? If you are pro-choice, or, as a lot of people like to say, ‘morally neutral’ on the subject, and you happen to be a gynecologist, then it’s up to you to take the instruments in hand and actively perform abortions. It’s part of your training. I’ve heard it many times from other obstetricians: Well, I’m not really pro-abortion, I’m pro-woman.’

“The women’s groups in this country have done a very good job of selling that bill of goods to the population that somehow destroying a life is being pro-women. I can tell you a lot of obstetricians believe it. I used to.

“Along the way,” says Levantino, “you find out that you can make a lot of money doing abortions. I worked 9 to 5. I was never bothered at night. I never had to go out on weekends. And I made more money than my obstetrician brethren. And I didn’t have to face the liability. That’s a big factor, a huge perk. I almost never, ever had to worry about her lawyer bothering me.

“In my practice, we were averaging between $250 and $500 per abortion – and it was cash. It’s the one time as a doctor you can say, ‘Either pay me up front or I’m not going to take care of you.’ Abortion is totally elective. Either you have the money or you don’t. And they get it.”

Cash payment is common in the abortion industry, says Everett.

“I’ve seen doctors walk out after three hours’ work and split $4,500 dollars between them on a Saturday morning – more if you go longer into the day,” she said. “Of the four clinics I’ve worked in, none of them ever showed that they collected the doctors’ money; they collect it separately, and do not show it on any of the records in those clinics. That way, the doctors are independent contractors and the clinic doesn’t have to be concerned with their malpractice insurance, and doesn’t have to report their income to the IRS.”

“Every single transaction that we did,” adds Whitten, “was cash money. We wouldn’t take a check, or even a credit card. If you didn’t have the money, forget it. It wasn’t unusual at all for me to take $10,000 to $15,000 a day to the bank – in cash.” [Emphasis added.]

There are other examples. The key is to rely on witnesses and studies by unbiased sources, not on sites that simply make assertions without citations.

Even physicians, who are used to seeing the most gruesome sights imaginable and former abortionists are appalled at how they must sort body parts. (There are no pictures or detailed descriptions.)

And here is the other side told by an abortionist who thinks she is saving women from choosing illegal abortions. She cannot see that a culture where illegal abortion is acceptable causes an increase in deaths from illegal abortions, nor does she consider proportionality.

Assuming the doctor’s cultural fact about 2,000 Mexican women dying from illegal abortions is accurate, Mexico is not comparable to 1972 America, where America was the world’s leader, the rule of law was respected, and abortion was unacceptable to the great majority of people. See Alfie (1966). Mexico was and is rife with crime and corruption and is now surrounded by a leaderless world where abortion is openly accepted and has been performed in the tens of millions. Mexico is a place where female illegals moving from south of Mexico to the U.S. are routinely raped; no wonder illegal abortions are carried out with similar regard for females.

Proportionality is “a logical method intended to assist in discerning the correct balance between the restriction imposed by a corrective measure and the severity . . . of the prohibited act.” Her moral relativism is skewed beyond proportionality. She does want to think about how restricting the relatively low number of illegal abortion deaths chosen by women just might be outweighed by the 730,322 deaths of innocent unborn children in the U.S. in 2011, not to mention the sale of the children’s body parts that she most certainly knows about. (And the above CDC figure is a minimum because not all abortions must be reported to the CDC, as the CDC notes.)

We all must suffer whether we are responsible or something else is. Women who choose abortion refuse to accept seven months of discomfort or responsibility and choose to inflict suffering and death on their unborn child. Adoption is somehow suffering in their warped minds.

Please follow and like us: