I’ve taught pro-life reasoning for over 10 years and debated countless people online, but had never dialogued directly with an abortionist until now. Professional child-killer Willie Parker is not just an abortionist, which would be bad enough, but he claims to be a Christian and that his work is for the Lord. As an introduction, this Newsweek interview with him has the usual pro-abort rationalizations.
- He thinks of himself as heroic by aborting the child of an incest victim, as if killing her child solved her problems. The abortion industry routinely protects sex traffickers, rapists and those who commit incest. Not only does killing the child not undo the crimes, these abortionists send the victims back to their abusers!
- He refers to “reproductive justice,” but that’s when you don’t kill the child who has already been reproduced.
- He says he won’t do abortions for those who express race or gender differences, yet he simultaneous claims that those he kills aren’t people yet.
- He claims to be a Christian yet says the Bible supports sexism – i.e., he admits to disagreeing with the Bible.
- He spouts gibberish like this, which of course would justify anything anyone would ever do: “If God is in everything, and everyone, then God is as much in the woman making a decision to terminate a pregnancy as in her Bible.”
- He says women will do unsafe abortions if he doesn’t do them, ignoring that many women do unsafe abortions even when legal, that making them legal increases abortion rates, and that one is never obligated to make it safer for someone to have her child killed.
- He gladly performs abortions like these: “women in poverty and women of color. He has seen patients from a recently divorced mother of three, with a 1-year-old at home, to a 21-year-old middle-distance runner trying to trim seconds off her 800-meter time to qualify for the Rio Olympics.”
- In the Newsweek article he denied that life began at conception, but he admitted it during the Twitter exchange.
So that’s a little about Willie. Someone reTweeted him so I commented and he actually responded. A few of the comments and my replies (multiple Tweets sometimes combined into one):
Dr. Willie Parker — As someone who provides abortions and who witnesses the relief and gratitude of women who obtain them safely, I could say, TOLD YOU SO!, but gloating is overrated. Abortion doesn’t cause depression, but pro-birth zealots sure do. [There was a link to an article alleging that many women don’t feel guilty about having abortions.]
Note how he calls us zealots, yet later whines about alleged name-calling on my part for my precision in calling him a child-killer. I choose my words carefully. Some call the unborn babies, and I know why. But it lets pro-aborts say that isn’t the correct term. They still try that when I say children, but then I point them to the dictionary. Same thing when they deny personhood.
eMatters — Whether your conscience is so thoroughly seared that you don’t regret killing your children is irrelevant. It will always be morally wrong.
My reply was actually about whether the mothers felt guilty, but he took it personally.
Dr. Willie Parker — My critics are many. Occasionally, I reply to make a point, like fetuses aren’t people, women are. My reply: If the world were as simple as you think it is, you’d be right. But since it isn’t & since I’ve never killed a child, you didn’t make a point, you stated the obvious.
eMatters — You are wildly ignorant of science. Check any embryology textbook: A new human being is created at fertilization. Must have been too busy learning to kill at school What else would two humans create?! http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/ And see http://dictionary.com . You kill CHILDREN. Oh, and the seared conscience comment applies to the MOTHERS as well. They should feel guilty for paying you to kill their children, but whether their consciences are seared is irrelevant. I meet lots of unrepentant murderers doing prison ministry. They were still wrong.
Dr. Willie Parker –Insults don’t make your point. Fetuses are human beings, because women don’t give birth to puppies, but to be a human being is not the same as being a person. In my “scientific ignorance” I know the difference between a frog & a tadpole, and an acorn & an oak tree. Do you?
eMatters –Yes, you are ignorant of science. And vocabulary. Once again, the nice folks at http://dictionary.com can help you out: Person: a human being, whether an adult or child: a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. So your anti-science word games fail you again. You kill human children for a living. That’s sick. Surely you know the logical fallacies with your acorn / oak tree illustration, right? https://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.com/2008/10/acorns-and-oak-treesand-abortion.html
Dr. Willie Parker — Women die during childbirth, but we don’t outlaw childbirth. Check any person who delivers babies.
eMatters — Gracious of you, as a professional child killer, to put these fallacious sound bites out there for all to see. You’re the pro and that’s all you’ve got? Willie says women can die during childbirth, therefore it is OK to kill children to their 1st breath. Non sequitur much? Conflating death by natural causes vs. actively killing them? Such great pro-abort logic. Most people can see the difference: A. Human being dies of natural causes (inside or outside the womb) B. Human being is deliberately killed by a 3rd party (inside or outside the womb) The fetus in question is a human being at a particular stage of development: Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Always human and always worthy of protection.
Dr. Willie Parker — Developmentally your argument is that human conceptions are persons throughout: fetuses are babies are toddlers are college graduates. Embryo and fetus are scientific terms, baby and toddler are not. How deftly you switch from science to culture, key for embracing pseudoscience.
eMatters — That’s completely false. Why do you feel the need to deceive like that? I couldn’t have been more clear. It is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development.
Dr. Willie Parker — Given that your thinking is linear, your arguments circular and legalistic, and your reference materials are Webster’s dictionary and live action news, you get to have the last word, insults and all. I’ll keep honoring women’s decisions, and you can judge them and call me names.
eMatters — Yeah, referring to dictionary definitions and medical textbook citations for the specific words being debated is legalistic. 🙂 Pretty lame dodge, Willie. Live Action was just quoting PP. Your attack is an example of the genetic fallacy. If I call you a professional child killer, I am being very precise. You get paid, and by medical and standard dictionary definitions, you kill human children. Killing the children when mothers pay you is a peculiar way to honor them. And you never demonstrated any circular logic. I just pointed to scientific facts: Every fetus you have killed was a human being at a particular stage of development. You tried to weasel word you way out by calling them [non-] persons, then I showed how you were wrong. I hope you repent and believe someday – and soon, before you kill too many more children. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. If you don’t, you’ll have eternity to be punished for your countless crimes against God.
And it was just as creepy seeing all his fans calling him a hero and such for being so caring.
P.S. And of course, I got the usual pro-aborts chiming in with fallacies about how we don’t help the poor after they are born. I usually post this when I get those comments.
7 thoughts on “A dialog with a professional child-killer”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A “child” is by definition already born and alive for years.
An early term fetus is a fertilized egg.
Forced birth on girls and women against their consent will NEVER be ethical or legalized back into legislation in progressive (secular) nations.
Your blog is titled “think and thrive,” so I’m counting on you to follow your own advice.
False. The unborn meet the definition of child, and “with child” is a longstanding idiom. Just see the nice folks at dictionary.com. BTW, your definition of just “being alive for years” will not be found there.
“An early term fetus is a fertilized egg.”
Not sure what that proves. I already said that humans go through different stages of development: Just a fetus? No, it is a human fetus. Human embryo ==> human fetus ==> human baby ==> human toddler ==> etc. Same human being at different stages of development. My point was that abortion kills a human being — a human child.
Your “forced birth” phrase is just a rhetorical trick to shift the focus from your child-killing. That would be like saying infanticide is OK otherwise you are requiring “forced parenting.”
And the comment proves nothing. It is just a tautology, basically saying that people who think child-killing is ethical and should be legal will always think child-killing is ethical and should be legal. True enough, I suppose, but not much of an argument.
I encourage you to visit http://www.abort73.com/ and learn how to better characterize the views of your ideological foes. You may not find the arguments convincing, but hopefully you’ll at least misstate pro-life reasoning less often and will not make such bad errors in logic in supporting abortion. Hopefully you’ll come to realize the scientific, logical and ethical merits of the pro-life position.
Pro-life reasoning is simple and accurate: It is a scientific fact (http://tinyurl.com/yfje8lq ) and basic common sense (what else would two human beings produce?) that a new human being is reproduced at fertilization. Seriously, go check out any mainstream embryology textbook. I’m too pro-science to be pro-choice. Based on the settled science, it is then simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions.
The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life. Arguments about “bodily autonomy” ignore the body destroyed in the abortion.
In other words, it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.
All the best to you.
“Child” is a rhetorical trick to shift the focus from the fact that you are promoting forcing girls and women to give birth against their will.
An early term HUMAN fetus has no brain or central nervous system, and therefore has no conscious awareness or ability to experience pain.
It is highly hypocritical to suggest that girls and women should have to suffer to spare the lives of fertilized eggs who can’t suffer. “Human” or not.
Abortion laws have restrictions, as they should – there is absolutely no reason a girl or woman at one month pregnant should be forced to carry it to full term and give birth.
It takes more than 20 weeks for a fetus to even BEGIN developing the lower boundaries of sentience (which is consciousness and ability to feel pain).
No more unsafe at home abortions or forced birth on society! And I dare someone to try and push our society into the past and prohibit abortion again (good luck with that).
But first maybe you should take a look at the hundreds of billions of animals dying every year for cheeseburgers and milkshakes, THAT is unethical ; not early term abortion.
For someone who poses as a thinker you just repeat fallacious bumper sticker slogans to justify killing your children.
Using dictionary definitions is not a rhetorical trick, it is what adults do when they have conversations. Words mean things. It is illuminating that you consciously deny what you know to be true to justify your child-killing.
The “forced birth” bit is an example of rhetorical trickery. No one is standing there forcing them to do anything. They are pregnant, so aside from a miscarriage or actively killing the children, they will naturally give birth. They aren’t being forced. Your fallacious sound bite could be used by anyone wanting to kill their children outside the womb. After all, your laws against killing the children “force” them to be parents against their will. And don’t appeal to adoption, because then you’d be “forcing” them to do that as well.
Just be an adult and own your worldview: You think people should be able to kill their children.
What silly reasoning. You could kill people outside the womb in many painless fashions. On your logic, those murders are OK. And you could kill those in comas because they aren’t sentient. And again, they aren’t just fertilized eggs, they are children, and human children at that.
The reason is that it is immoral and a violation of basic human rights to kill human beings like that.
LOL. What a cartoonishly silly Leftist murderer you are. Killing your children is a moral good, eating a hamburger and drinking milk is not. Uh, on what grounds, honey? The Bible doesn’t prohibit milk or meat (except some restrictions just for the Israelites in the OT).
If you don’t believe in God, then you have ZERO grounding for any moral claims. We are just molecules in motion. If we came from dust and will go to dust, no amount of fantasies about the universe coming from nothing and evolving to what we have today will provide a basis for universal morality.
And Darwinian evolution is big lie, so if you hold that view read some new reasons here: https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
I hope you come to your senses and stop rebelling against your creator. Eternity is a mighty long time to regret your foolishness at rejecting God’s offer of grace.
P.S. Words mean things, and you can’t have productive discussions on anything if people won’t agree to basic dictionary definitions of words like “child.” Therefore, you are banned from commenting here. I have no moral obligation to dialog with people who can’t even read a dictionary.
Again, abortions kill children. Your problem is with the nice folks at dictionary.com, not me.
noun, plural children.
. . .
4. a human fetus.
11. with child, pregnant: She’s with child.
P.S. Enjoyed your May 19 post on guns. Good job.
God bless your ministry and being in the front line with the cause for justice with the preborn