Abortionist says she "suffers" during abortions

0

No matter how much they sanitize their language, abortionists are more intimately acquainted with the violence, tragedy, and gruesomeness of abortion than anyone else.  At their hands, tiny, often fully-formed bodies are dismembered, suctioned, or decapitated.  Some abortionists even commit infanticide on viable children after they are born alive—all in the name of “reproductive health.”  And then they call these bloody and inhumane acts “abortion care.”

Abortionists are fully aware of the fact that they kill children.  And they admit this.  Over the years, many abortionists who are honest about what their job entails have contrived creative explanations for why their profession is morally acceptable.  Responses have gone something like, ‘We know we’re killing, but someone has to do it,’ or, ‘Abortion is legal and therefore good.’

A recent op-ed by abortionist Nicole Fanarjian of Sarasota, Florida, offers a new spin.  Fanarjian adopts the martyr angle by essentially stating that the unpleasantness of committing abortion is a necessary suffering for her,which she heroically undergoes in order to relieve mothers of a “burden.”  In her own words:

At the same time, I recognize and admit that dealing with the stigma and emotional toll attached to being an abortion provider is not always easy.  A mentor once described the emotions of providing abortion care as a means of relieving a woman's burden of suffering.  What I took him to mean is that by providing abortion care I am helping my patient get on the other side of this difficult experience with dignity and support.  I am suffering, if you will, to enable her to suffer less.

In Fanarjian’s world, therefore, we should feel sorry for the abortionists, because not causing the bloody slaughter that is abortion would be “unethical.”  Yes, Fanarjian really said that OB/GYNs who do not commit abortions are unethical.  Choosing to protect Life – as the Hippocratic Oath insists physicians do – is, for her, morally objectionable.  Oh, and don’t forget all the other reasons why we should pity abortionists: their career choice costs them “professional opportunities” and is “highly politicized and stigmatized.”

Fanarjian says that, although giving up the privilege of delivering (live) babies was the biggest sacrifice she had to make in becoming an abortionist, she now “derives immense satisfaction” from killing children.  Hmm, one wonders how deriving immense satisfaction coexists with Fanarjian’s prior claim that her works takes an “emotional toll” and that she is “suffering.”

The most disturbing element of Fanarjian’s worldview is her refusal to acknowledge the victim with whom she is so intimately intertwined during the drama of death.  The abortionist goes after the live child, disturbing his peaceful existence inside of his mother with instruments of death; time and eternity meet for the child at the bidding of an abortionist.  The child’s tiny heart may still be beating when his or her dying body is held in the abortionist’s bloody surgical glove.  Afterward, the abortionist’s own two hands and eyes are used to sort through the baby’s limbs, ensuring that the entire baby was torn from his mother, and that no tiny foot or ribcage was left behind.  But remember, readers: the abortionist is the victim here.

Share.

Comments are closed.