Monthly Archives: July 2015

Abortion, Private Property, Planned Parenthood, and $40,000,000,000

My heart is aching today.  As I watched the 4th video drop from the Center for Medical Progress, I watched with horror as what I have thought to be reality actually unfolded before my eyes.  Right there, on a large glass tray, resembling a pie dish, is tissue extracted from a woman who had undergone an abortion.  The technician began prodding with tweezers, and then it emerged:  A cranium, a stomach, a liver, kidneys, a brain, a heart, and arms and legs.

Today, I stumbled across a blog article that seems to sum up the pro-abortion apologetic quite well.  What has become the standard retort for abortion apologists in the wake of these videos, is to trumpet their view that these are “maliciously edited videos” that they only have the appearance of looking like we are seeing the actual selling of baby parts.  It sounds a lot like Richard Dawkins:  Human biology, the universe, and all of life—they look designed—but that is the point of Darwinian evolution:  The mere appearance of design.  The design isn’t there.  It only looks that way.  Disregard all the evidence to the contrary.  Why?  Richard Dawkins says so.

Why should we disregard the appearance of butchery?  Planned Parenthood says so.  Case closed.  In fact, a rogue reporter asked White House spokes-mouth Josh Earnest (who had just moments before noted that the only guilty party was the filmmakers themselves) why the White House felt the need to discredit the reporting shown on video.  Earnest replied arrogantly with some variation of, “Planned Parenthood said so.”

The article I referenced goes on to say, “It’s weird for those of us with two brain cells to rub together, that this is even a thing. Because first of all, obviously Planned Parenthood doesn’t sell BABY PARTS.” I guess you can say that.  Sure.  They arent engaged in the butchery and selling of baby parts.  I mean, after all, if through a clever use of verbal virtuosity, over time, you are able to brainwash all Americans into referring to babies in the womb as fetuses and tissue rather than babies—the term baby becomes irrelevant.  When these fetuses are jettisoned and their parts are harvested; no, these are not baby parts being sold.  They are specimens.  Just your run of the mill intact tissue…and oh look!  Surprise!  This run of the mill tissue has a brain in it!  But to talk about rubbing brain cells together; I watched the video.  It is the technician who is rubbing brain cells together…across a pie dish and asking how much money neural tissue could fetch.

It doesn’t appear to be butchery and profit.  It is butchery and profit.

If you accept the redefinition of words that the left has pushed on us, they aren’t selling babies for profit.  They are selling specimens for profit. But, based on what I saw in this video, the terms are interchangeable.  At one point in the video, Dr. Savita Grande, who is the Vice President and Medical Director for Planned Parenthood Rocky Mountains, when looking at a pie dish that contains the organs and limbs of a recently aborted fetus exclaims, “A baby!”  One of the techs, moments later notes:  “Another boy.”  It seems as if the terms fetus, specimen, baby, and tissue are interchangeable.

This is the first time in my life I have heard anyone who is pro abortion refer to an aborted fetus as a baby.

The article goes on to say that “3% of all Planned Parenthood’s activities are abortions, and more than 90% of those are in the first trimester when it’s about size of a kidney bean, so they do see some pieces of fetal tissue. Which are just going to be thrown away in the garbage, but which the patient can instead choose to donate to important medical research.”

You know what they say, some bumper stickers are so misleading that they require thousands of words to correct them.  This is one of those cases.  That very paragraph is full of so many problematic lapses in logical thought that I could spend hours refuting it.  Let us start here:  When the article notes that “More than 90% of those are in the first trimester when it’s about size of a kidney bean,” I have to ask, what exactly are they referring to as “it’s?”  They aren’t talking about the abortion procedure itself.  They are talking about a living thing.  They are talking about the product of an abortion—which provides tissue.  They are talking about a developing human being.  The next line states that because of this, “they do see some pieces of fetal tissue.”  Of course they do.  The “it” that they referred to is a fetus.  Fetuses are made of tissue.  Therefore, we will find fetal tissue.

This is the kind of thinking we get from our Ivy League graduates these days.

So what is the justification of using this tissue?  Well, they tell us that it can “aid in the research and treatment of conditions like H.I.V. and Parkinson’s disease, when instead those women could just be throwing that tissue in the garbage!”  Here is the question and it is two fold:  First, just because you could cure a disease with the life of another, does that make it morally right?  Second, who gave permission to use this private property for that reason?

For those of you who were educated in public schools, let me put this a bit more clearly:  If I knew that killing person A would cure the cancer of persons B through Z, would it be moral to do it?

It is immoral to take the private property of one person in order to aid the plight of another.  Even if it is legal to do so, it is immoral.  We own ourselves.  Our property belongs to us.  The most basic property we have is our body.  It is immoral to violate that.  Now, if I want to sell you my organs, I believe I should be able to do that.  It is my property and if I want to sell it to you, and you are ok with the price, I am of the mind that it is a reciprocating agreement.  This is a positive sum gain.  But, in the case of the unborn, is it morally justifiable for a mother to act as the proprietor of the unborn child’s private property?  How about an abortion provider?  Can they choose how the private property of one person will be used?  If a new store was being built, and in the middle of the night I walked in and saw unaccompanied tools, wood, and paint lying around; even if I were the mother of the owner of that store, would I be justified in declaring that store unviable; and then taking those tools, wood, and paint, and using them to build my own store?

A positive sum gain basically says, “You make me feel good, and I will make you feel good.”  If I walk into a grocery store and tell the grocer, “I value your milk more than I value my three dollars,” and he says to me, “I value your three dollars more than I value my milk,” we have just voluntarily exchanged private property.  On the other hand, if I walk into the same grocer and say, “If you don’t make me feel good, I will make you feel bad,” or if I hold up a gun to his head and say, “If you don’t give me your milk, I will kill you,” this is called a zero sum gain.

Zero sum gains are immoral. Taking the property of one for the benefit of another is immoral.  It is immoral regardless of the age.

The article then goes on to complain about ghoulish video makers who have brought attention to Planned Parenthood through its videos.  “So yeah, there’s the fact that Planned Parenthood obviously isn’t “selling baby parts.” And then there’s the fact that the group releasing this video are some of the same people who worked for the group Live Action, which is best known for…editing together misleading videos attacking Planned Parenthood.”  What I am not clear on is this:  Why is butchering video tape such a crime, but butchering fetuses is to be protected?  There is a dead monkey on the line somewhere—and he is probably being dissected and sold to the highest bidder.

In this case of confiscating private property—the business that takes place at Planned Parenthood—is somehow protected from others using it for their own gain?  It is moral to confiscate the life of a baby in order to use it for research, but it is immoral to confiscate the ideas and conversations that take place justifying this activity in order to use it for research?  There is another dead monkey on the line.

We are then treated to this:  “So despite the fact that this is an obviously made up and ridiculous accusation, actual politicians are taking it seriously.”  First of all, it isn’t made up.  We have it on video.  We have audio.  At this point, at best, we are haggling over the semantics.  It reminds me of the woman who is seated next to a lonely business man on a long flight.  He turns to her and says, “I will pay you a million dollars if you will spend the night with me when we land.”  She agrees to it.  As they are making their descent, he turns again and says, “I lied.  I only have twenty dollars, will that do?”  The woman exclaims, “Just what kind of woman do you think I am?” to which he replies, “We have already established that.  We are merely haggling over the price at this point!”

We know what is going on.  We know there is dissection taking place.  We know that money is changing hands.  We are haggling over definitions.

As if we havent already heard a plethora of poorly articulated arguments, this one may take the cake:  “Well, now it’s 2015 and an organization that is mostly responsible for making sure poor women have access to basic medical care including cancer screenings, checkups, and birth control, are accused of convincing women to abort their babies and then tearing them into parts and selling them on the black market.” Again, we aren’t accusing anyone of using the black market.  I am quite certain it is happening legally.  These ideologues are the same people that write health bills that are 20,000 pages long.  They make their living off of trading moral for legal.  Speaking of health care for the poor and for women:  Isn’t that what we HAD to pass Obamacare for?  Why do we need Planned Parenthood?  The women and the poor are taken care of, on the dime of the taxpayer. That is why I pay my “fair share.”  I thought that was settled—case closed—period.  Emperor Obama has decreed.

It seems that the only variable left is the fetus.

Oh but there is more:  “And I realize, that if it helps you achieve your goals — whether they be persecuting people of a different faith or cutting funding for poor women’s health care — it becomes surprisingly easy to believe something unbelievable.”  So those who are against abortion are suddenly anti-religious pluralism, anti-women, and anti-poor?  We havent cut the funding for poor women’s health care.  It has increased.  The cost of healthcare for the rest of us has gone sky high to pay for it.  Persecuting people of a different faith?  Who are we talking about, Southern Baptists or the ISIS guys?

One nut with a Jerry Falwell book on his coffee table shoots up an abortion clinic, and all of Christendom is indicted.  Thousands of Muslims yelling “Allahu Akbar” kill thousands of Christians, and we celebrate pluralism and diversity.  Go figure.

Please notice what wasn’t done in this article.  No argument was made as to why the property of one should be taken to serve the purposes of another.  Not one argument was given.  Instead we were treated to words like: Patient, Choose, Donate, It, and Tissue. These are the words that some use to justify murder.

If you ever wanted empirical evidence of human depravity, the latest videos about Planned Parenthood are it. We are subsidizing the Mengele’s and Hitler’s of our day—and no that isn’t hyperbole. And make no mistake, the Nazi regime didn’t start in the cruel torture laboratories and death camps of Auschwitz and Bergin Belsen— Instead, Victor Frankl notes, “The gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”

Your tax dollars go to fund Planned Parenthood (the paramilitary wing of the democrat party and institutional left) and the lucrative salaries that it’s executives make. They live lavishly off the literal backs (AND livers, kidneys, brains, skin, eyes, etc) of babies being dissected.

The tragedy is this:  You and I are complicit.

Why would they lie about this activity and decry the cutting up of video rather than recognize the sordid fact that they are cutting up babies? Simple: Follow the money.  The left is against the free market except when it comes to the selling of baby parts. Follow the money because that is what it is all about. You have bought the big lie—and it is 50 million too late.  I encourage you to figure this up: 50,000,000 @ 800$/ per?

I will save you the calculating time:  $40,000,000,000.00

Freedom without constraints will lead a person to the most debased of acts. For example: The consumption of scarce resources; namely aborted babies for profit.

What will you do about it? I am contemplating this question myself.

Advertisements