If doctors don't encourage abortion that much, may be people won't really consider an option. Doctors are not fulfilling their moral responsibility.

Greed has taken over. I wonder if there anything in the hippocratic oath about this?

Thats dumb whether people hear about it from doctors or any body else there going to do it cause they want to. You can't blame doctors for everything thats why I would never be a doctor, you save someones life they sue you you help them die the family sues you! Why bother helping people in the first place?

I'm interested in knowing what resources did you derive
the information that doctors encourage abortions from.
Also, in what cases would claim they encourage abortion?
In cases of danger to the mother's life if she continues
the pregnancy, in cases where the baby will be born with
a horrible illness? Or, as your question implies, in cases
where the pregnancy is unwanted/unplanned?
If it is as your question implies please provide your
resources.

Now as for the moral responsibility, doctors are sworn to
do no harm, and are also obligated to provide *all* the
information available. Therefore, since an abortion is a
legal and medical option, doctors would be doing their job
properly informing a patient of that option.
Recommending an abortion wouldn't be considered against
their oath under many circumstances (like thsoe mentioned
above; risk to the mother's life, severe illness)
in the first example the doctor is obligated by his/hers
oath to protect the mother's life and well-being first,
thus by providing her with information on abortion and
its benefits to her well being and the risks posed by
not terminating the pregnancy, said doctor is not doing
anything that is morally questionable - on the contrary,
said doctor is fulfilling his/hers oath.

In the second case it would depend on the severity of the
illness and the parents ability to provide proper care for
the child. That of course would start a debate on whether
or not an illness is cause for abortion (those who would
argue against it would provide exmaples of people born with
all kinds of disorders that are either living a fullfiling
life or existing - that is, surviving in spite their
condition) - that, though, would beg the question of
what is a fullfiling life, what are the odds of living a
fullfiling life (after defined) with a certain illness,
are the parents able to provide the necessary resources to
ensure proper development inspite of illness and ultimately
guarantee the child's physical and mental ability to be
able to create a fullfiling life for themselves etc.

In my opinion, when an illness is severe to the point that
the sufferings and difficulties outweigh the ability to
enjoy life then terminating a pregnancy is the reasonable
and HUMANE thing to do. Just because one might have an
opinion that all life is worth living, doesn't give them
the right to put another human being through the suffering
of actually living through an extremely difficult and
limited life. Saying that by having an abortion you're not
letting the person choose whether or not they want to live
is in itself ridiculous because by that you are saying that
they can grow up and choose suicide, or in cases where the
illness impares cognitive abilites the word choice would be
ill defined since such a person would not be able
to truly make that kind of decision, due to their limited
ability to understand the choice and its meaning.
Therefore in my opinion in severe cases it is the healthy
parents' responsibility to make that tough choice for their
potential child, and think about what kind of life that
child might have and not make a choice based on whether
or not they'll feel guilty. It is also important to examine
the resources parents would have to deal with an illness,
some illnesses are severe in the beginning but there is a
high rate of success in averting their effects and minimize
or eliminate them overtime, but the question is are those
resources available to those parents, and what are the
consequences if they are not.

Know it's the people people that get their babies slaughtered

Your question is flawed. Doctors are not to "blame" for giving abortions. Its part of their job. If there were no legal, professional medical facilities for women to get abortions, they would just go somewhere else to get them. You can't control people's behavior to fit in with your own personal morals by denying them things. It doesn't work that way. With or without proper abortion facilities, women will still seek to get abortions. It's the same with sex. You can preach abstinence all you want to keep kids from having premarital sex, but the reality is most of them will have it anyway. And what is the alternative? Women going to unqualified doctors? Back room secret abortions where the quality of the medical care sucks and puts the mother's life in danger as well? I have no desire to see society move backwards in time to the 17th and 18th centuries. Like it or not, people will continue to behave and do things that don't fit in with what you define as right. You have to live with it. Worry about yourself; mind your own back yard. If you personally never want to have an abortion because you think its wrong, that is fine. But others do, and will continue to do so. I would rather they had the medical care that our modern medically advanced society is capable of giving them. THAT is what I define as a doctor's MORAL responsibility.

Well said, Reason!!