When asked when life begins, he said, "Personally, I believe in the strength, intellect and fortitude of women. When a woman says a fetus is a person, I think it is one. I believe the woman empowers the fetus."
Dr. Richard Grossman, abortionist, as quoted in The Durango Herald
I firmly support Dr. Grossman's right to believe what he wants and his freedom to express those views however contrary they are to my own beliefs. But here is the problem; the central question in the issue of abortion is not, “What do you believe about the unborn?” The question is, “What are the unborn?” What we believe is often a matter of personal opinion and our opinions can be freely held and even expressed (though once expressed we risk public correction for flawed ideas). But our opinions should not govern whether or not another life form can be violently destroyed, for that sort of authority we need to know substantively what that life form ACTUALLY IS not what I think about it. So in order to be free to terminate the lives of unborn human beings for matters of convenience we must objectively answer the question, “What are the unborn?”
Dr. Grossman's explanation demonstrates his presupposition that the unborn are NOT intrinsically valuable human beings. He shares with us his own ideas about how they attain value, and in his opinion the mother's attitude toward the unborn make it valuable or valueless. This fails on multiple levels to address the pertinent question. First of all, it is a complete dodge of the question that was put to him. As medical doctor, he is fully aware that life begins at conception and so he is changing to a philosophical discussion of personhood and value. In addition, he does not address the unborn life in any real way at all. When asked to identify the moment that life is present, he punts to the mother. His honest answer is that he does not think that the unborn have any value at all, unless his reasoning is based on the bizarre metaphysical assumption that when a mother cares about her unborn child a magical metamorphosis occurs that substantively changes the identity of the unborn. The mother says it is now a person and Voila! a person magically appears. This magic can happen at any point in pregnancy and can even be reversed. The mother changes her mind and says it is now not a person and presto/chango the person is gone again and a valueless life has returned. That would be truly bizarre, but we must conclude that this is not what he is saying.
What he is saying is that the only thing that makes the unborn worth preserving is the opinion of the mother, and that is the very definition of extrinsic value. The value comes from the desires or needs of another and not from the identity or substance of the unborn human life. The unborn have no value in this view. The mother's opinions or whims are all that matter and all considerations end with her choice. The unborn is simply nothing of worth without the mother's desire to preserve her.
The very terrifying reality is that this rubbish is the justification that Dr. Grossman uses to explain why he performs abortions. I have repeatedly said that the abortionists are different from all other pro-choicers in that they not only believe the rhetoric of that view, but they profit by directly applying those beliefs to a gruesome end. I would hope that they would have a more rigorous defense of their actions than this, but we are a fallen people. We need few excuses to seek evil. Dr. Grossman needs to answer the first question honestly. The question is, “What are the unborn?” If his answer truly is that they are nothing of consequence then we need to know when we become something of consequence as human beings. I will help him out a little bit here, if his answer is that we only matter when other people say we matter then we do not really matter at all.
If you find someone comfortable with that position I would give them a wide berth, and certainly don't employ them to deliver your child.
HT Jivin Jehoshaphat