Home > Abortion, Babies, Planned Parenthood, Pro-life Movement, Surrogate Mothers > An abortion worker’s ‘ah-ha’ moment: when a surrogate mother was paid to abort a Down syndrome baby

An abortion worker’s ‘ah-ha’ moment: when a surrogate mother was paid to abort a Down syndrome baby

October 4th, 2011

by Jewels Green

Note: Jewels Green is a former abortion clinic worker who also had an abortion herself. She recently spoke out about her experiences as an abortion clinic worker for the first time.

Former abortion clinic worker Jewels Green.

September 20, 2011 (LiveAction.org) – After supporting abortion my entire life and working in an abortion clinic for years, my Ah-HA moment seemed to come from an unlikely place. I did not have a profound, sudden shift in my worldview. After years of ignoring the little voice inside me questioning the death around me—the nightmares and the regret—the truth snuck up on me.

I was involved in an online discussion of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy with a group of close friends who were all married mothers, and one among us agreed to be a surrogate for a friend of hers who had tragically lost a child to cancer. We were her confidantes as she went through the months of hormonal preparation for her body to accept the implantation of a baby created outside of her womb. She detailed all of the painfully unnatural things done to her body to prepare for this and she also described the IVF process—all those teeny-tiny human beings—being created in a laboratory, then stored in a freezer.

I confess I honestly hadn’t really ever thought about IVF before, but I found the process disturbing. I sought counsel from the two Catholic members of the forum who openly (but always respectfully) disagreed with what she was doing. The more I thought about IVF and the Frankenstein-like process of creating humans in this way, it all finally started making sense to me. This was unnatural, and it was wrong. These were HUMANS. It wasn’t like in the movie Alien where adults made a choice to climb into sleep chambers to willfully enter a state of suspended animation, this was the complete removal of informed consent and the complete antithesis of the maternal instinct (PROTECT BABY AT ALL COSTS). It was just… wrong.

Then.

Well, then she went on to describe a woman in her surrogacy support group who underwent prenatal genetic testing on the tiny, helpless, not-genetically-related, innocent baby growing in her body (I think you can guess where this is going.) Down syndrome. I followed the daily posts with increasing horror as she related the story of this surrogate mother who accepted “payment of her contract in full” to abort rather than to carry this baby to term and give birth. One among us pleaded with our friend to tell her about Reece’s Rainbow, that if the genetic parents didn’t want their child, he or she could have a chance of finding an adoptive home through this amazing organization that helps match children with Down syndrome with loving families, and in many cases helps defray the costs of adoption. Nope.

This was my Ah-HA moment: This woman was paid to kill the child. And she did. This is murder. Abortion is murder. I cried. I cried for that (now dead) baby. Then I cried for all of the little cold souls in the IVF freezers around the world. Then, only then, could I cry for all of the babies murdered at the clinic where I worked for so long. How many tissue boxes my small counseling office went through and I walked that pregnant mother back to the procedure room and smiled as I held the door open for her to enter the chamber of death. “You’ll be alright, I’ll come visit you in the recovery room.” My God. What had I done? No, I did not pull the trigger; but I cleaned the gun, readied the ammunition, and loaded it. Sure as the guilt of the killer himself, I was sure of my own guilt as well. The wave of remorse and regret was overwhelming. I prayed. I prayed for peace for the babies. I prayed for forgiveness. I prayed for the strength to become a better person.

Keep reading.

Be Sociable, Share!
  1. Roivas
    October 4th, 2011 at 21:14 | #1

    “This was unnatural, and it was wrong.”

    IVF is as unnatural as ibuprofen. To say something is unnatural as a strike against is nonsensical.

  2. October 5th, 2011 at 09:11 | #2

    I always find it funny when “unnatural” is equated with being wrong, and “natural” is somehow always right.

  3. Anne
    October 5th, 2011 at 14:28 | #3

    @Roivas
    @Emma

    Have you each determined that you must justify homosexuality with such vigilance that you will refuse to recognize the simple beauty and mystery of nature itself? How sad.

  4. Roivas
    October 5th, 2011 at 19:50 | #4

    “Have you each determined that you must justify homosexuality with such vigilance that you will refuse to recognize the simple beauty and mystery of nature itself?”

    Show me where in my statement I mentioned gay people, and I shall respond thusly.

  5. October 6th, 2011 at 10:01 | #5

    Anne :
    @Roivas
    @Emma
    Have you each determined that you must justify homosexuality with such vigilance that you will refuse to recognize the simple beauty and mystery of nature itself? How sad.

    Now that YOU bring up homosexuality, isn’t it funny how it occurs in nature, all on its very own? :)

  6. Anne
    October 6th, 2011 at 11:03 | #6

    @Emma
    “Now that YOU bring up homosexuality, isn’t it funny how it occurs in nature, all on its very own?”

    @Emma
    I always find it funny when “unnatural” is equated with being wrong, and “natural” is somehow always right.

    I can’t wait to see who wins the argument you’re having with yourself.

  7. Deb
    October 6th, 2011 at 11:49 | #7

    Roivas :
    “This was unnatural, and it was wrong.”
    IVF is as unnatural as ibuprofen. To say something is unnatural as a strike against is nonsensical.

    IVF requires the injection of steroids into the woman to develop follicles. It then requires the farming of the ova from said follicles. It then requires the collection of male sperm. After this point, it requires the joining of the sperm with the ova outside the human body, and then the freezing of these fertilized ova. At which point multiple fertilized ova are placed into the womb of a woman.

    Juxtapose IVF with sexual intercourse. In sexual intercourse the sperm is allowed to fertilize the ova in the “owner” of the ova’s fallopian tube. The fertilized ova travels down the fallopian tube into the uterus, where it attaches to the uterine wall. All of this (save the intercourse part) is done without any assistance at all in just 10 short days.

    One pregnancy occurs without assistance, which is naturally how human beings came to continue all these years. The other is not the natural way human being came to exist all these years, so it is unnatural.

  8. Roivas
    October 6th, 2011 at 12:50 | #8

    “One pregnancy occurs without assistance, which is naturally how human beings came to continue all these years. The other is not the natural way human being came to exist all these years, so it is unnatural.”

    “IVF is as unnatural as ibuprofen. To say something is unnatural as a strike against is nonsensical.”

  9. Anne
    October 7th, 2011 at 09:04 | #9

    @Roivas
    “IVF is as unnatural as ibuprofen. To say something is unnatural as a strike against is nonsensical.”

    Perhaps; To someone who fails to see the infinite beauty in the nature of human procreation.

  10. Deb
    October 7th, 2011 at 11:02 | #10

    Roivas :
    “IVF is as unnatural as ibuprofen. To say something is unnatural as a strike against is nonsensical.”

    Let’s talk about natural or natural as being a strike against. I agree that just because something is unnatural it is not necessarily wrong. So how do we determine right and wrong? Or to use your language, a strike against or for?

    Roivas, what is your code? By what factors do you decide whether another person’s actions are morally permissible or not? Before you start criticizing Christians, you should lay out your moral code so we know your “starting point”. Well, let’s have it, what is your code for deciding whether an act is moral or not?

  11. Roivas
    October 8th, 2011 at 06:04 | #11

    “Well, let’s have it, what is your code for deciding whether an act is moral or not?”

    By whether it harms someone who the people around them. It gets quite a bit more complicated in real life, but that’s the basic foundation.

    What’s yours?

    “Perhaps; To someone who fails to see the infinite beauty in the nature of human procreation.”

    How about the infinite beauty of 100% natural cancer?

  12. Anne
    October 9th, 2011 at 04:58 | #12

    @Roivas
    “How about the infinite beauty of 100% natural cancer?
    No trackbacks yet.”

    My cousin was diagnosed with Leukemia when she was 17. She died at 27. Her journey was one of the most beautiful and amazing things I have ever witnessed in my life. I am forever in her debt for revealing to our family the grace which can be manifest through the deepest sufferings. She has been with me in every moment of my life since her death.

    “Everything is Grace.”

  13. Deb
    October 9th, 2011 at 11:54 | #13

    @Roivas

    “By whether it harms someone who the people around them. It gets quite a bit more complicated in real life, but that’s the basic foundation.”

    That’s it? “It’s complicated”? Seriously? You attack the Christian worldview because it is clearly defined. Meaning, not hidden, and therefore open to discussion and attack. But when asked to give your code for deciding whether or not something is morally permissible you basically say “It’s complicated”?

    Cop out.

    “By whether it harms someone who the people around them”

    This sort of thinking has been addressed here: by someone much smarter than I on matters of philosophy.

    http://www.scifiwright.com/2011/05/dialogue-with-a-nihilist/

  14. Roivas
    October 9th, 2011 at 17:33 | #14

    “My cousin was diagnosed with Leukemia when she was 17. She died at 27. Her journey was one of the most beautiful and amazing things I have ever witnessed in my life. I am forever in her debt for revealing to our family the grace which can be manifest through the deepest sufferings. She has been with me in every moment of my life since her death.”

    If suffering is beautiful, then a man like Saddam Hussein is Christ himself. Just look at all the gorgeous suffering he caused.

    In my world, it would be a better place if your cousin was still alive. But maybe that’s just me.

    @Deb

    “Do you honestly believe that anything which causes no physical harm to oneself or others is never a matter for moral contemplation, nor an issue where any moral concepts are involved in discussing the pros and cons? ”

    This sentence alone shows the irrelevance of the article you cited. Wherever did I say that only physical harms are my concern?

    “That’s it? “It’s complicated”? Seriously? You attack the Christian worldview because it is clearly defined. Meaning, not hidden, and therefore open to discussion and attack.”

    I could elucidate a number of specific principals I have that operate in different circumstances. But the basis of these principals go back to the previously stated foundation.

    And the world is a complicated place. Anyone who promises easy answers is selling you something.

    And you still haven’t answered my question. What’s your moral basis.

  15. Deb
    October 10th, 2011 at 07:02 | #15

    @Roivas

    I am a Catholic.

  16. Anne
    October 10th, 2011 at 08:20 | #16

    @Roivas
    “If suffering is beautiful, then a man like Saddam Hussein is Christ himself. Just look at all the gorgeous suffering he caused.”

    We were discussing nature, not human behavior.

    “In my world, it would be a better place if your cousin was still alive. But maybe that’s just me.”

    Unfortunately (for you), “your world” doesn’t exist. Maybe that’s why we’re having such difficulty communicating with each other. I’m discussing the world as it is, and you are talking about an impossible concept of what you would like it to be.

    Death and suffering will always exist. What changes is how we choose to deal with them. Where my cousin is in death, and where the world is because of it, are exactly how they are supposed to be. There is beauty in it. We can choose to see it or we can deny the beauty and live in despair and desperation.

    There is immense beauty in our efforts to relieve other peoples’ sufferings. But suffering will always be part of the human condition. What we each choose to do with suffering which cannot be relieved speaks volumes as to who we are and who we will ultimately become in our humanity and spirituality. It reveals our purpose to ourselves when we allow it. And it leads to despair and frustration when we don’t.

  17. Roivas
    October 10th, 2011 at 14:37 | #17

    “We were discussing nature, not human behavior.”

    “I am forever in her debt for revealing to our family the grace which can be manifest through the deepest sufferings.”

    That is the original statement. Nowhere did you specify that only nature made suffering is beautiful. So rather than sidestepping my argument, could you at least attempt to address it?

    “Death and suffering will always exist. What changes is how we choose to deal with them. ”

    You’re right. Some of us try to put lipstick on pigs and declare them beautiful as they lean down for a kiss. Others will decry the fact that such injustice is the rule, and try to fix it.

    @Deb

    Saying that means nothing. There are Catholics who use contraception and abortion, in slightly greater numbers than average in the population. There are Catholics who have sexually abused children and successfully convinced the church to look the other way. There have been Catholic soup kitchen owners and Catholic serial killers. Both Senator John Kerry and Justice Antonin Scalia are Catholic. Merely saying you belong to that sect tells me nearly nothing about the basis of your moral system.

  18. Anne
    October 11th, 2011 at 05:49 | #18

    @Roivas

    Christ took on human suffering for our sake. HE DID NOT INFLICT IT. He showed us the purpose and power in bearing it.

    If you cannot distinguish between Jesus Christ and Saddam Hussein then I don’t think we really have enough common ground to even engage in discussion.

  19. Roivas
    October 11th, 2011 at 11:17 | #19

    I was using hyperbole. And yet again you evade my argument. If suffering is beautiful, why does that not make inflicting suffering a good thing?

  20. Anne
    October 12th, 2011 at 03:46 | #20

    @Roivas

    “If suffering is beautiful, why does that not make inflicting suffering a good thing?”

    I did not say suffering was beautiful. What I said was that beauty can be found in how we respond to suffering.

    “And yet again you evade my argument.”

    I have not evaded anything. We were discussing beauty in nature. You brought up cancer. I responded that we can find beauty in everything, even suffering and you respond that Saddam Hussein is Jesus Christ.

    You change subjects and use shock value comparisons just to spark conflict. You’re so busy looking for opportunities to give yourself points on your personal debate scorecard that you can’t even follow the discussion. You are not here for anything productive, you are here looking for a sparring partner – I’m not it.

Comments are closed.