His name is Willie J. Parker, and he's in OBGYN. He's also the author of a new book, Life's Work, all about the joy of being an abortionist. And now he's the subject of a fawning New York Times interview. Parker used to oppose abortion, but now he's for it. Why? The answer isn't really clear, but we're supposed to sympathize with him because he clearly wants to help women. Here is Parker's explanation for his shift from pro-life to pro-abortion. Quote, I had come to a crisis moment regarding a religious understanding that left me unable to help women when I felt deeply for their situation. 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.

In other words, leave God behind. I have a better system, so go for it. This is actually kind of disgusting to compare the ideological movement from not killing babies to killing babies to a religious conversion. And the notion that this guy felt bad because he couldn't help women who wanted abortions, and thus abortion had to be correct, that's license to commit all sorts of moral atrocities. You feel bad for the woman whose husband's kind of a jerk, so you go and kill him.

But here's the amazing... wanted abortions, and thus abortion had to be correct, that's license to commit all sorts of moral atrocities. You feel bad for the woman whose husband's kind of a jerk, so you go and kill

him. But here's the amazing thing. Parker admits, this doctor admits, that abortion is a life-ending process. He says, quote, if I thought I was killing a person, I wouldn't do abortions. A fetus is not a person. It is a human entity. So it's a quasi-human, which means that it should have quasi-human rights,

even by that logic. No. Not according to Parker. He thinks so long as you're not fully human by his vague definition, you have no rights whatsoever, and you can be killed for the sake of convenience. He says, quote, in the moral scheme of things, I don't hold fetal life and the life of a woman equally. I value them both. them both. But in the precedents of things, when a woman comes to me, I find myself unable to

demote her aspirations because of the aspirations that someone else has for the fetus that she's carrying. Again, this is pretty gross. He doesn't value them both. If he did, he put some sort of conditions on the termination of what he calls fetal life. Instead, he just says that a woman's desire for a promotion at work

outranks some outsider's aspirations for her fetus. But what about the fetus's aspirations? Is the

value of a baby's future truly just subjective? What if the baby's already born and the mother

wants to kill it? Shouldn't outsiders aspirations for the baby now trump the mother's desire? Or no?

Parker talks about making abortion easy for women,

using his rhetoric to endure women to any sort of emotional struggle. He calls this creepily enough

verbecane, seriously. He then says that elite white women are responsible for people worrying about

abortion, and that's, you guessed it, racist. Here's what he says. Quote, when women acquiesce to a role

determined primarily by their

biology of reproduction, even if it's unconsciously, they judge each other for rejecting that primary

identity. So if you think that the most essential role for a woman is to procreate and humanity

doesn't go on unless you do that, then anything to interrupt that process is to be counterintuitive

or immoral. The biggest insult to the notion that there's such a thing as black genocide as if the people who care about abortion really care about black women and black babies. Well, people who don't want to kill black babies in the womb care more about black babies by definition than Dr. Parker, but when you're talking with the New York Times, it's always convenient to pull the race card.

It's also worth noting here that women are not acquiescing to some sort of arbitrarily defined societal role when they talk about the value of motherhood. This is called biology. The

perpetuation of the human race occurs because women get pregnant and have babies. To see this as some

sort of curse, rather than the greatest blessing on the planet, it makes you kind of a sick human being. Parker finally compares pro-lifers

to slavery. Slavers. He says people often struggle with why I as a man am deeply committed

...