But Willie Parker refuses to acknowledge that pro lifers actually care about stopping the intentional killing of innocent human beings. He is committed to smearing his opponents by attributing sinister motives to them without a single shred of evidence. For example, Parker claims that men oppose abortion because of a “misplaced horror of women’s sexual autonomy.” He further asserts that, “Women’s sexual independence is the thing men have always wanted to control.”Mike Adams
. . . "Willie Parker provides no evidence to support his speculative attacks. In fact, his 217-page defense of abortion lacks a single footnote or endnote. Thus, there is no way of verifying the empirical basis of these attacks. However, he does make a few admissions in his book, which reveal why he is so eager to divert attention from his own motives.
"Willie Parker admits to aborting humans as early as six weeks after they are conceived and charging $550 for the procedure. He also admits to aborting pregnancies that are “father along” and charging as much as $1400 for those procedures. He also claims that he sometimes performs as many as fifty abortions in a single day. If we assume that he makes the bare minimum of $550 on each procedure then Parker makes $13,750 in a single day’s worth of providing “abortion care” (read: killing innocent human beings). This helps explain why he wants people to refrain from making judgments about people’s sex lives. The more sex people have, the more money he makes in the abortion clinic.
"In order to justify earning a living in this line of work, Parker could simply deny the minor premise that abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. But he does not do this. Instead, he denies the major premise that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. He does so by dehumanizing the unborn in general – for example, insisting that the term “unborn child” is not medically accurate. He notably uses the term “person” as a substitute for “human being” throughout his book. This allows him the privilege of substituting a term that is not medically accurate for one that is – in the hopes of persuading people, as opposed to humans, that some of their neighbors are more deserving of life than others.
"But what specifically makes some humans deserving of protection, while others are deserving of destruction? Parker begins to make his specific case on page 11:" . . .
