Abortion Doctor Admits “Yes, I am killing”

Dr. Curtis Boyd admits he is killing children in his Texas office.  Dr. Boyd is a late term abortionist.  He is one of the only clinics who is willing to perform late term abortions in his state.  Clients, he says, come even across state lines to receive his services.  Dr. Boyd will perform abortions on girls as young as ten years old with pregnancies up to 24 weeks of development.

In a civilized society, it is hard to understand how people like this can make rational sense out of what they choose to do, but the hardest thing for me to understand is why we as a society allow it.  He knows it is a life he is taking, and yet it doesn’t matter.  For him, only one person matters, the will of the mother.

We hear so much about the mother’s right to choose, but don’t we as a society have an obligation to provide for the protection of the innocent unborn?

Life is a gift.  It is precious.

—Beetle Blogger

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. Delirious said,

    November 10, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    Well, at least there won’t be any excuse for his behavior when he gets to the judgement bar of God. He knows what he’s doing, and freely admits it.

  2. November 11, 2009 at 9:07 am

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    The baby has the right to life, and it is being taken away. It’s Unconstitutional to kill anyone, including an unborn child, and the right to life was given by God, not government, so government does not have the right to take that right away from that baby.

  3. Pearl said,

    November 12, 2009 at 11:52 am

    I don’t understand why the death of the unborn need be one of the mother’s “choices.” Why can’t we allow the mother the freedom to choose whether she’ll keep the baby or give it up for adoption, all the while protecting the life of the innocent? The solution to this mass murder is so painfully clear yet so frustratingly ignored.

  4. beetlebabee said,

    November 13, 2009 at 9:37 am

    I agree Pearl. Isn’t it all part of the idea that actions must be separated from their consequences so that those who choose evil can do so freely? My kids try this all the time. They think if mom’s not around, the rules don’t exist. They try stuff and then they get hurt because consequences to actions are natural. Mothers have choices all over the place when it comes to the lives of their children. They shouldn’t have life or death control over them though. That is where the differences between individual agencies meet. Choosing to end the life of a child usurps that child’s right to live.

  5. Chairm said,

    November 15, 2009 at 1:55 am

    BB, have you ever engaged a “pro-choice” advocate in a thorough discussion of what is terminated when a pregnancy is terminated, not by giving birth, but by destroying that which the mother would give birth to if the pregnancy was not aborted?

    I’ve done that a few times in-person but for an on-line version, see the following. This version manages to put into black-and-white the scientific evidence versus the philosophic argument. It can be heavy-going but I think we touch almost every point regarding what the scientific eye can discern. The science is informative but so is the harsh philosophy of the pro-choice commenter.

    The discussion of abortion is preceded by a lively discussion of fertility and marriage. Scroll down to my initial remarks on conception — at comment at 7. February 2009, 4:56 — and from there the discussion flares. I left the closing word to my opponent.

    http://www.gaysdefendmarriage.com/2009/01/30/but-we-let-infertile-couples-marry/#comments

    Cheerio,
    Chairm

  6. Karma said,

    November 16, 2009 at 10:36 am

    The thing that gets me is how so many left-wing vegetarian eco-liberals are “pro-choice” (I call it pro-death, since that’s pretty much what the “choice” is). These are the people who want us to go back to being pretty much animalistic: no “carbon footprint”, everyone living in packs where every person has what every other person has. Very much like the animals that they revere….yet how many animals on this earth EVER engage in voluntary reproductive termination? How many female animals, even those that tend to attack their young, ever harm themselves during pregnancy? They want so much to protect the animals, but have no desire to protect their own species? Does anyone else find this slightly insane?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: