'Cool’ Abortionist Tells New York Times: Unborn Baby Is a ‘Human Entity,’ Not a ‘Person’

One abortionist is revealing his abortion religion – and one New York Times writer couldn’t get enough of it.

In a piece published Wednesday, New York Times Magazine columnist Ana Marie Cox interviewed Willie J. Parker, a Mississippi abortionist and former Planned Parenthood medical director, on his upcoming Life’s Work memoir. During the interview, Parker pointed to his faith as the reason he performs abortions. And while abortion is “life-ending,” he added, it isn’t “killing a person” – just a “human entity.”

From the very beginning, Cox hyped that Parker’s book “is rooted” by his “moral and spiritual argument in favor of abortion rights.”

Before working in the abortion industry, Parker said he experienced a “life-altering” “conversion” that led him to believe that, as a Christian, he should perform abortions, instead of vice versa.

“I needed to convert from a religious understanding that left me paralyzed to act on my deepest sense of connection to one that empowered me to do what I felt to be the right thing,” he told Cox.

But, as Cox pointed out, Parker admits in his book that abortion is a “life-ending process.” Parker didn’t deny it; but his definition of human “life” wasn’t synonymous with a human “person.”

“Life is a process, not an event,” he argued, and so, “A fetus is not a person; it’s a human entity.” He added, “If I thought I was killing a person, I wouldn’t do abortions.”

So, “in the moral scheme of things,” he said, “I don’t hold fetal life and the life of a woman equally.” Both have “value,” he conceded, but “I find myself unable to demote [a woman’s] aspirations because of the aspirations that someone else has for the fetus that she’s carrying.”

In their conversation, Cox also referenced Parker’s “verbicaine” method during abortions where he tries to “lighten the mood” through conversation despite the “narrative that makes abortion seem morbid and tragic.” She also brought up Parker’s love of football, a sport that he called “larger than life.” (Ending a life is OK. But a football game? That’s another question.)

Cox also asked Parker about his “connection between your heritage as a descendant of slaves and the idea that abortion is ultimately about ownership of a body.” (Well, that’s true – ownership of an unborn baby’s body, that is.)

“I come from a heritage of people who know what it’s like to have your life controlled by somebody else,” he responded. But, instead of the unborn, Parker meant women, because “if you don’t control your reproduction, you don’t control anything else about your life.”

But the “biggest insult,” he told Cox at another point, is the “notion that there’s such a thing as a black genocide, as if the people who care about abortion really care about black women and black babies.”

<<< Please support MRC's NewsBusters team with a tax-deductible contribution today. >>>

In her last question, Cox lost all pretense as an unbiased interviewer. “I can’t help mentioning that you’re not married,” she said before asking, “Is that a choice on your part? Because you seem pretty cool!”

On that note, maybe it’s a blessing in disguise if The New York Times forgets about reviewing stories telling the truth about the horrors of the abortion industry.

This isn’t the first time Parker has appeared in the pages of The Times. In 2015, the Opinion Pages published his piece, “Why I Provide Abortions,” where he insisted that abortion “respond[s] to our patients’ needs” and therefore expresses “the deepest level of love that you can have for another person.” He has also appeared in Cosmopolitan, where he compared a Planned Parenthood executive to “Jesus before crucifixion.”

This email today

The ‘Gosnell Movie’ team just posted:

1 new Announcement:

Dear Backers

We wanted you to know this shocking news as soon as possible. We were devastated when we heard Gosnell was being excluded from The New York Times’ main best sellers list even though it was the fourth biggest selling book in the US last week.

Make no mistake our book Gosnell - The Untold Story of Americas Most Prolific Serial Killer was incredibly popular. According to Publishers Weekly, the publishing trade magazine, it was the fourth biggest selling book and Amazon had us consistently as number 3 of ALL books sold in the US.

But The New York Times fiddled the figures and excluded us from the top 15 hardback non-fiction list.

And now they have revealed how they cooked the numbers and it is SHOCKING.

The “newspaper” has admitted it does not use sales numbers to decide which books are “allowed” on its “Best Sellers List”. For The New York Times the numbers of books bought by real people don’t matter. According to a statement they take into account the “context” of the sales. The context?????

According to The New York Times this “context” allows them “to provide Times readers our best assessment of what books are the most broadly popular at that time.” In other words - to hell with the numbers we will decide what is popular and you can be sure it won’t be a truthful book revealing the truth about abortion - even though that is what people are buying. The New York Times Best Sellers List is a Fake List in a Fake Newspaper.

Well we need to send a message to these “elites” who seem to hate the the truth.
Please send this link www.GosnellBook.com to as many people as you can and buy as many copies as you can. Give them to friends or donate them to your local library.

We need to make sure that the mainstream media can no longer ignore this book or the truth about Kermit Gosnell. They tried to coverup the case when he was on trial. We defeated them then and we can do it again.

The cover-up stops now.

Thank you,
Ann and Phelim

In 1981, the United States Congress conducted hearings to answer the question, “When does human life begin?” A group of internationally known scientists from around the world appeared before a Senate judiciary subcommittee (85). Here is what the U.S. Congress was told:

Harvard University Medical School’s Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Principal Research Associate, stated, “In biology and in medicine, it is an accepted fact that the life of any individual organism, reproducing by sexual reproduction, begins at conception” (85; cf. 81:18; 72:149).

Dr. Watson A. Bowes, Jr. of the University of Colorado Medical School testified that “the beginning of a single human life is, from a biological point of view, a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception. This straightforward biological fact should not be distorted to serve sociological, political, or economic goals” (100:114).

Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni of the University of Pennsylvania Medical School noted: “The standard medical texts have long taught that human life begins at conception” (100:114).
He added: “I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty . . . is not a human being. This is human life at every stage, albeit incomplete, until late adolescence” (100:114).

Dr. McCarthy De Mere, who is a practicing physician as well as a law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: “The exact moment of the beginning [of] personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception” (100:114).

World famous geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, Professor of Fundamental Genetics at the University of Descarte, Paris, France, declared: “. . . each individual has a very unique beginning, the moment of its conception” (85; cf. 81:18).

Dr. Lejeune also emphasized: “The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence” (85; cf. 72:149).

The chairman of the Department of Medical Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, Professor Hymie Gordon, testified, “By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception” (85; cf. 72:149).

He further emphasized: “. . . now we can say, unequivocally, that the question of when life begins. . . . is an established scientific fact. . . . it is an established fact that all life, including human life, begins at the moment of conception” (85; cf. 72:149; 81:18).

At that time the U.S. Senate proposed Senate Bill #158, called the “Human Life Bill.” These hearings which lasted 8 days, involving 57 witnesses, were conducted by Senator John East. This Senate report concluded:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being — a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings. (85:7)

In 1981, only one scientist disagreed with the majority’s conclusion, and he did so on philosophical and not scientific grounds. In fact, abortion advocates, although invited to so, failed to produce even one expert witness who would specifically testify that life begins at any other point than conception (100:113).*

* A few held that life may begin at implantation. However, implantation, while important, in no way defines life.
Many other biologists and scientists agree that life begins at conception. All agree that there is no point of time or interval of time between conception and birth when the unborn is anything but human.

Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., is one of the twentieth century’s titans in the field of embryology and reproductive science. He was the first scientist to consistently achieve in vitro fertilization of human eggs. This prominent scientist emphasizes, “The zygote is human life” (100:40).

G. L. Flanagan observes, “From their first hour the human cells are distinctly human” (71:12 in 90).

Dr. Margaret Liley and Beth Day state: “A human life begins with a single cell” (71:17 in 91).

Axel Ingelman-Sundberg and Claes Wirsen assert that, “It is a living being from the moment of conception” (71:17 in 92).
World famous geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky states: “A human begins his existence when a spermatozoon fertilizes an egg cell” (71:16 in 93).

Another leading scientist, Ashley Montagu, confesses, “Every human being starts off as a fertilized egg” (71:16 in 94).

Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia states, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote) a new [human] life has begun” (96:1087).

All of this evidence is why Professor Jerome Lejeune has stated: “If a fertilized egg is not by itself a full human being, it could never become a man, because something would have to be added to it, and we know that does not happen” (71:18). Biologically, no one can deny that we are human from conception.

In all stages of our growth, whatever the developing child is called, we are human. At birth humans are called babies. Inside the womb, humans are called “fetuses.” Before that, humans are called “embryos.” Before that, humans are planted on the uterine wall and called “blastocysts,” and before that, humans are called “zygotes.” Before that, only an individual sperm and egg existed, and not a human being.

Professor Roth of Harvard University Medical School has emphasized, “It is incorrect to say that the biological data cannot be decisive. . . . it is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception, when the egg and sperm join to form the zygote, and that this developing human always is a member of our species in all stages of its life” (85; cf. 81:18; 72:149).

In conclusion, we agree with pioneer medical researcher, Landrum B. Shettles, M.D., Ph.D., that “. . . there is one fact that no one can deny: Human beings begin at conception” (24:16).

Again, let us stress that this is not a matter of religion, it is a matter of science. Scientists of every religious view and no religious view — agnostic, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Hindu, etc. — all agree that life begins at conception. This explains why, for example, the International Code of Medical Ethics asserts: “A doctor must always bear in mind the importance of preserving human life from the time of conception until death” (101:317).

This is also why the Declaration of Geneva holds physicians to the following: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity” (101:317). These statements can be found in the World Medical Association Bulletin for January, 1950 (Vol. 2, p. 5) and April 1949 (Vol. 1, p. 22). In 1970, the World Medical Association again reaffirmed the Declaration of Geneva (101:317).

What difference does it make that human life begins at conception? The difference is this: If human life begins at conception, then abortion is the killing of a human life.
To deny this fact is scientifically impossible.*

*But to accept this fact and maintain that taking human life is not morally wrong is incredible. It is even reminiscent of Nazi Germany and yet today such arguments are increasingly accepted (e.g. 136:16).

FROM: When Does Life Begin And 39 Other Tough Questions About Abortion John Ankerberg and John Weldon 1989

https://www.xinxii.com/gratis/122101rd1371492541.pdf

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.