Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon

Opinion

A debate with a late-term abortionist: the banality of evil

Jonathon van Maren Jonathon van Maren Follow Jonathon
Image

February 6, 2013 (Unmaskingchoice.ca) - I suppose that it is a bit strange that I have been in the pro-life movement for close to five years and until the other week I never actually laid eyes on an abortionist. I’ve seen hundreds of pictures documenting their work, read plenty of chilling tell-all memoirs, and watched enough sleep-destroying abortion footage to last me two lifetimes. I’ve also spoken with hundreds of post-abortive women, and have come to recognize that often, the abortion procedure produces victims: the duped and the discarded.

But while many women (and men) have stared agape at pictures of the abortion procedure and come to the sickening realization that the “clump of cells” had a head and limbs that this “medical procedure” violently removed—what of the technicians that perform the invasion with suction aspirators and forceps? They, of course, are perfectly aware of what they’re doing—after all, they or their assistants have to piece the little corpse back together afterwards to ensure that a stray arm or leg is not left behind in the now-vacant uterus to malevolently cause an infection. As I drove to Brock University to watch my colleague Stephanie Gray debate Dr. Fraser Fellows, a long-term practicing late-term abortionist, I couldn’t help but wonder how a man who came face to face with the victims of Canada’s abortion regime every day justified—and coped—with the daily carnage that makes up his profession.

When Dr. Fellows arrived in the lecture hall (packed to standing-room-only with nearly 200 people), I couldn’t help but stare at him a bit searchingly. Was he nervous to debate? Eager to defend? Neither, I decided.  A tall, elderly, somewhat aristocratic looking fellow with his last remaining silver hair swept back over his head, he looked, if anything, a bit nonchalant. I tried to peer at his hands as he walked to the front. He uses those to literally clamp metal tools onto the arms and legs of babies a day away from entering the third trimester and twist them off, I thought. Dr. Fellows has gained a bit of infamy for his willingness to do abortions even later than famed feticide pioneer Dr. Henry Morgentaler—Fellows will perform abortions up to 23 weeks and six days. While most abortionists can simply use a suction aspirator to reduce the developing fetus to bloody slurry, and thus avoid the actual step-by-step conscious process of dismembering and skull-crushing—these activities are Dr. Fellows’ specific specialty.

The debate began with Stephanie giving a twenty minute opening statement, defending the idea that abortion is a human rights violation based on a very simple formula—human beings have human rights, the first and most intrinsic of which is the predicate right to life. Pre-born children are human beings, and thus abortion violates, in a brutal fashion, their most existential right. Stephanie pushed play on an embryoscopy video from the Endowment for Human Development, and I tried to watch the abortionist for any sort of reaction as a stereotypically British narrator explained the development of the tiny, almost translucent human beings on the screen. I briefly wondered how the stubborn looking pro-choicers in the audience would react if a curette was suddenly thrust into one of the babies on the screen and suctioned him into scraps. Probably not well. They’d be shocked-- at least, until they attempted to recover their semi-literate ideological ramblings and drape them over the victim like a discount body bag.

Fellows didn’t even blink. Perhaps it was naïve to think he would, I thought--it’s probably not new information to him. Still, Dr. Fellows is a father. A glimmer of a human response to seeing more vulnerable humans wouldn’t be abnormal, surely.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Then, Stephanie played the video I had been waiting for—a series of video clips from in-progress, late-term abortions—a video put together to specifically highlight his work. How would Dr. Fellows respond to seeing the work he did behind closed doors, hidden from the public eye, on display to a lecture hall full of university students? The footage was viscerally disturbing—one shot showed a baby almost completely exited from the birth canal, dangling limply, with blood pulsing from his neck. Again—Fellows was impassive. Not a twitch. Only the detachment I imagine butchers have as they go about their work.

Some of you reading this may be thinking, Ah, here goes one of those over-dramatic pro-lifers again. A medical professional shows up to explain his profession and you call him a butcher. If you are one of those, I urge you to watch a video of the procedure he specializes in, and then attempt an alternate description. The “procedure” seems sanitized until you see it.

Cross-examination was the most shocking part of the debate. Stephanie asked him question after question, assuming she’d have to pry the information out of him. A few examples:

SG: Would you say that the imagery that I had is an accurate reflection of what you see and what you do?

FF: Absolutely.

SG: What about Down’s Syndrome?

FF: If the woman decides she does not want to have a child with Down’s Syndrome, so be it.

SG: Have you seen women hemorrhage from legal abortions?

FF: I have seen women hemorrhage from legal abortion, yes.

I guess the reason the debate shocked me may have been a bit naïve. Did Dr. Fellows admit to anything that I wasn’t aware of? No, not really. I knew that the legal abortion procedure frequently results in the death or severe injury of the woman. I knew that abortionists often target disabled pre-born children at the request of the parent(s). I knew that late-term abortion was even more gruesome than early term abortion, especially from the perspective of the abortionist, who has to more physically rip the fetus’ limbs off. And the entire pro-life movement has known for some time, even while our nation’s media and governing bodies completely ignore it, that there is a complication to the abortion procedure known as “live birth,” in which the child is accidentally born alive before the attending technician can snuff it out.

Perhaps what I was hoping for was a little glimmer of humanity, a little empathy towards the victims that would signal that the chasm between Dr. Fellows and us was not unbridgeable. I was hoping that he would have a human reaction to the sight of the severed limbs of younger human beings, to signal that in some way, he had not totally desensitized himself to something that even stunned the predominantly pro-choice university audience. Not a gasp, of course—but maybe a flinch or at least an expression of discomfort. Dr. Fellows didn’t even make an attempt to defend what he did for a living, something that almost everyone, on both sides of the debate, thinks that at minimum needs to be ethically defined and defended one way or another. I wanted, at least, a passionate defence on his part. All we got was a bored look, an attitude that reminded me of the phrase “the banality of evil”. Unrepentant I expected. Apathetic I did not.

Dr. Fellows has a job because the majority of Canadians are apathetic to the work he does. The attitude out of sight, out of mind is not one that only applies to international injustices. It also applies to Canadian children being brutalized and eliminated in clinics across our country. Author Bodie Thoene once noted that “apathy is the glove into which evil slips its hand.” Dr. Fellow’s debate testimony delivers us a question which demands an answer: Is Dr. Fellows working harder to kill pre-born children then we are to save them?



Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News

Pro-life group asks: Pray for abortionists who sell baby body parts

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - This Lent, a pro-life group would like you to pray for an abortionist - specifically, an abortionist who facilitates the sale of unborn babies' body parts.

The Pro-Life Action League is asking for people to pray for three people in particular throughout the 40 days of Lent. All three were caught on video by the Center for Medical Progress.

Dr. Deborah Nucatola appeared in the first video released last July, sipping red wine and stabbing her salad as she discussed the dismemberment of aborted children, including where to “crush” their bodies for a "less crunchy" technique.

The second is Dr. Mary Gatter, who appeared in the second undercover video, haggling over the prices Planned Parenthood expected to receive for the aborted children's organs and tissue. At one point, she joked that she wants the revenue to pay for “a Lamborghini.”

And the third is Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards, who was also caught in the first video praising Dr. Nucatola.

Despite the shocking evidence uncovered by CMP, Richards has insisted her organization did not receive any profit for what she dubs its "fetal tissue donation program." She apologized only for Dr. Nucatola's "tone." She has since said that Planned Parenthood will not receive any remuneration for babies' body parts.

"These three architects of Planned Parenthood’s baby parts scheme have devoted their lives to the destruction and exploitation of human life in the name of ‘choice,’" said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League. "If we won’t pray for them, who will?”

He asked Christians to pray for these three abortion industry profiteers - and for Richards, who is a post-abortive woman - in order to fulfill Jesus Christ's commandment in the Bible, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you” (St. Matthew 5:44).

“In God’s eyes, what abortion has done to these three women may be worse than what they’ve done to unborn children, who now rest in our Lord’s loving arms," Scheidler said.

For most Catholics, Lent began yesterday on Ash Wednesday, and lasts 40 days.



Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

News, ,

Texas AG faces ethics probe for defending conscience rights of natural marriage supporters

Lisa Bourne

AUSTIN, Texas, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The attorney general of the state of Texas is facing an ethics investigation for having affirmed the constitutional religious freedom of state workers to decline to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if it goes against their religious beliefs.

Attorney General Ken Paxton took steps to address the issue of conscience protection in his state before and after last June's Supreme Court's Obergefell decision imposing same-sex "marriage" on all 50 states, first issuing a statement the day prior clarifying that Texas law recognizes the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and recommending that state officials wait for direction from his office should the High Court move to redefine marriage.

Paxton then issued a statement two days after the ruling, his office allowing county clerks and their employees to retain religious freedoms that may allow accommodation of their religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and said as well that justices of the peace and judges would similarly retain religious freedoms.

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

A month later, a group of some 200 attorneys filed a complaint asserting that Paxton's position encouraged officials to violate the U.S. Constitution and break their oaths of office, according to ABC News.

The complaint was dismissed at first by the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, but it was reinstated February 2 by a state Supreme Court-appointed appeals board, which contended that the complaint alleges a "possible violation" of professional conduct rules.

The appeals board decision to reinstate the case does not mean Paxton violated professional ethics, according to the ABC report, but does require him to respond to the complaint in conjunction with the investigation.

"The complaint has always lacked merit," said Paxton spokeswoman Cynthia Meyer, "and we are confident the legal process for resolving these complaints will bear that out."

Paxton was among several state officials across the U.S. who moved to ensure conscience protection in the immediate aftermath the Obergefell ruling, at times garnering the ire of homosexual activists.

Last July, South Dakota's attorney general granted permission to county clerks with conscientious objections to opt out of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples as long as another clerk in the office would issue the license. 

Rowan County, KY clerk Kim Davis was jailed last fall for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because it violated her religious values.

In a highly contentious case, Davis had asked for a religious accommodation allowing her office to issue altered licenses to homosexuals without her name on them, which was eventually granted by Kentucky's Governor Matt Bevin. However, the ACLU sued, seeking to force Davis to issue the old forms with her full name on them. A federal judge rejected the suit earlier this week.

Last year, homosexual activists sent harassing messages, including threats of violence, to Oklahoma State Senator Joseph Silk and his family after the Republican legislator sponsored a bill that would have given the state's business owners the freedom to follow their religious convictions in regard to homosexual "marriage."

Paxton faces penalties varying between a reprimand and disbarment resulting from the ethics complaint. The Texas attorney general is also facing securities fraud charges.



Advertisement
Featured Image
Lee Snider / Shutterstock.com
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

News, ,

This pro-abortion billionaire may run for president

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

NEW YORK, February 11, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - He's an upwardly mobile, socially liberal billionaire whose political affiliation has changed numerous times over the years. He's teased numerous presidential campaigns in the past, but this time he's talking like he's serious. And no, he's not who you think he is.

Michael Bloomberg, who served three terms as mayor of New York City, has confirmed to media sources that he is considering running for president as an independent in 2016.

Bloomberg told told the Financial Times this week that he finds American political "discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters," and that he's “looking at all the options."

The 73-year-old tycoon was a registered Democrat before switching parties to run in the less contested Republican primary in 2001. He became a registered independent in 2007.

As mayor, Bloomberg governed as a social liberal who strongly supported abortion and the LGBT political agenda.

In 2011, Bloomberg signed a controversial gag order directed at crisis pregnancy centers. A year later, he endorsed Barack Obama's re-election, saying that abortion-on-demand is part of "the world I want to leave my two daughters, and the values that are required to guide us there."

After leaving office, he received Planned Parenthood's Global Citizen Award at its annual gala on March 27, 2014.

That's the same year Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a $50 million undertaking to expand "reproductive health," including a major partnership with Planned Parenthood-Global to overturn pro-life laws in four nations: Nicaragua, Sengal, Uganda, and Burkina Faso.

Jeb Bush sat on the board of the philanthropy, which also strongly supports Common Core educational standards, at the time.

Mayor Bloomberg played a pivotal role redefining marriage in New York state, giving the four Republican state senators who voted for New York’s same-sex “marriage” bill the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law. One retired and a second lost his primary fight.

His strong emphasis on health regulations, such as attempting to ban soft drinks larger than 16 ounces, did little to enhance his popularity and were deftly parodied by Sarah Palin. (A state court struck down the proposed regulation.)

His $50 million gun control crusade dissipated after his cause failed in state after state.

The financial heft he could bring into the race, as well as his quirky politics, has tempted Bloomberg to enter presidential politics in the past. He considered a presidential run in 2008 and thought more strongly about a third party bid in 2012, after hosting the inaugural convention of the “No Labels” movement in New York City in 2010, but he backed off each time after not seeing a viable path to victory.

With an estimated fortune of $39 billion, he has said he would be willing to spend more than $1 billion on his campaign in 2016 - but he would only enter the race if the Republican Party nominates Donald Trump or Ted Cruz, and the Democratic Party nominates Bernie Sanders.

He called Jeb and Hillary Clinton "two quality” candidates and "the only two who know how to make the trains run." Jeb reciprocated last month, telling CNN that Bloomberg is "a good person, and he’s a patriot and wants the best for the country.”

At least one of his competitors is eager to see Mike run. "I hope he gets into the race," Donald Trump told Greta Van Susteren on Fox News Wednesday night. "I'd love to compete against him...I would love to see Michael in the race."

That is likely because polling shows Bloomberg would draw most of his support from the Democratic candidate. "Although he is characterized as the New York counterpunch to Trump, Mayor Mike Bloomberg is more the nemesis of Bernie than he is of Donald," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Bernie Sanders would defeat both Trump and Cruz in a head-to-head match, according to Quinnipiac. But if Bloomberg entered the race, he would win 15 percent of the vote largely from Sanders, giving Trump a one-point victory in the popular vote (and narrowing Cruz's loss to one point).

However, he could throw a major wrench in the Democrats' electoral college total, according to columnist Pat Buchanan.

"Not only would Bloomberg lose the Big Apple, his statewide vote would come mostly from the Democratic nominee, giving Republicans the best opportunity to carry the Empire State since Ronald Reagan coasted to re-election in 1984," wrote Buchanan, who served as White House communications director during Reagan's second term.

“It’s not beyond imagining that he could get in and have an effect on the race,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, told The Hill.

Perhaps sensing this, numerous Democrats - including Senators Claire McCaskill and Jeanne Shaheen - have thrown cold water on a Bloomberg presidential run.

Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida congresswoman, said this week that an independent Bloomberg candidacy "won't be necessary" - because the Democrats already represent social liberals.

"I really think when he takes a good hard look, he will conclude that the issues that are important to him...[have] a natural home among our Democratic candidates," she said. "And so, I think Michael Bloomberg's agenda is well cared-for and advanced among our Democratic candidates, and his candidacy, I think he will find, won't be necessary.""

His entrance into the race would be a true injection of "New York values" - making him the third or fourth New Yorker in the race - alongside fellow billionaire Trump from Queens, the Brooklyn-born Sanders, and onetime New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Annie Linskey, a reporter for the Boston Globe who once worked for Bloomberg, told Fox News on Monday that there is "about a four" percent chance that Bloomberg will run.



Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook