Why Don’t Prochoice Authors Argue For Infanticide?

Here are shocking bits from an article in The Atlantic:

“What are the shades of moral difference between terminating a fetus that could not survive outside the womb vs. one that can, even if, as in this case, it would suffer from significant disabilities? What’s the difference between those decisions and the decision to kill such a child after it has been born, or let it die? That last question, about infanticide, is particularly charged, not least because of the common-sense “disgust” factor. As Jeff McMahan, a former Rutgers professor who’s now at Oxford, wrote in 2007:

‘Although philosophers have conducted a wide-ranging debate about the morality of abortion for more than thirty years, generating in the process an extensive literature on the topic, they have, with very few exceptions, shrunk from extending the debate to include a discussion of infanticide. I know from discussions with prominent writers on ethics that some have been deterred from writing on the subject by fear of possible consequences for their reputations, careers and even physical security … My own experience is much more limited, but tends to confirm that discussing infanticide is not the best way to win friends or secure admiring book reviews.'”

What does this mean? It means that the logic of abortion should lead pro-choice people to accept and advocate infanticide. But hardly any will take that step.  Why? Not from some high moral principal, but because to do so would be bad for one’s work and social life. I suppose this is one time to be thankful for cowardice.

Source: Personal Stories of Abortion Made Public – The Atlantic

Another Dark Chapter In The History of Free Sex

captain-cook-entertained-by-the-natives-of-tahiti

The section below is from the book, “The Age of Wonder” which is an award winning volume that chronicles the connection between scientific discovery and the ideals of the Romantic Age. In the first Chapter the author writes about the history of Captain Cook’s voyage of discovery. Here he gives ample attention to the time Cook and his crew spent in Tahiti.

I am posting a lengthy section below, and it is worth reading all 4 paragraphs. This narrative is largely taken from the diary of James Banks who documented their experience. As I read this I was struck with more than a bit of Deja Vu. There is something familiar operating here.  What they witnessed in Tahiti fits the appetites of our generation for a mythical paradise of free and open sex.  But, he also narrated the suffering that grows from this kind of selfishness. What am I talking about? Infanticide and more. It is tempting to view native cultures as pure and innocent, uncorrupted by the ideas of western culture. However, the truth is different.  Every society has it’s own virtues and vices. Attempts to  portray any one culture or age as a eutopia usually exaggerate the virtues and ignore the vices.

This snapshot from history is not unique. It has been repeated many times in cultures ancient and modern.  The American generation that started the sexual revolution forgot to study history.  So now we are stuck in the painful double loop of both repeating and failing to learn from the sins of the past.  In spite of our most prurient longings there is no such thing as sex without consequences.

Here are a few things I took away from this passage:

  • This level of sexual debauchery often starts early. Young girls were taught to engage in lewd dances before they reached puberty.
  • There is no sexual sin without grave consequences to others.  We seem to believe that as long as we do not transgress the one sexual absolute of consent that everything will be just fine. But the way we wield the weapon of sex leaves deep wounds. Every culture that lives this way ends up damaging the weak and vulnerable, even if they once offered their consent. The rest of the account describe the horrible consequences of the plague of sexually transmitted diseases among the natives and sailors.
  • There is always a double standard in the world of free sex. In Tahiti men were allowed to get away with adultery while a woman would be beaten for it.  Part of this is because of that natural strength advantage that men have. The other is the fact that in reproduction the woman’s body is designed to carry the child. This is the way we are and it has implications, even in our sin. And the answer to this double standard is NOT that women should be able to be just as bad as men.
  • Banks spoke with several couples that had previously murdered 2 or 3 children and THEY EXPERIENCED NO REGRET. This is the long term effect of cultural sin. The fact that some people can commit horrible acts without empathy doesn’t make those acts virtuous. Just because some cultures engage in certain practices doesn’t mean they ought to.
  • The decision to kill an infant was driven by the men. When a man wanted free sex but was unwilling to take responsibility for the child, then that child would be killed, even against the wishes of the woman. The way that men manage their strength and leadership is often a driver in this kind of depravity.
  • The status of motherhood was despised. Once a woman had born a child, she was viewed with some degree of contempt.  High views of motherhood  are not compatible with a free-sex culture.

“The idea of sexual innocence proved more complicated for a European to accept: ‘All privacy is banished even from those actions which the decency of Europeans keep most secret: this no doubt is the reason why both sexes express the most indecent ideas in conversation without the least emotion; in this their language is very copious and they delight in such conversation beyond any other. Chastity indeed is but little valued especially among the middling people; if a wife is found guilty of a breach of it her only punishment is a beating from her husband. Notwithstanding this some of the Eares or chiefs are I believe perfectly virtuous.’

“What later came to be regarded as the most scandalous of all Tahitian customs, the young women’s seductive courtship dance, or ‘timorodee’, Banks describes with calm detachment and a certain amused appreciation: ‘Besides this they dance, especially the young girls whenever they can collect 8 or 10 together, singing most indecent words using most indecent actions and setting their mouths askew in a most extraordinary manner, in the practise of which they are brought up from their earlyest childhood. In doing this they keep time to a surprizing nicety, I might almost say as true as any dancers I have seen in Europe, tho their time is certainly much more simple. This excercise is however left off as soon as they arrive at Years of maturity. For as soon as ever they have formed a connection with a man they are expected to leave of Dancing Timorodee-as it is called.’

“The only Tahitian practice that Banks found totally alien and repulsive was that of infanticide, which was used with regularity and without compunction as a form of birth control by couples who were not yet ready to support children. Banks could scarcely believe this, until he questioned several couples who freely admitted to destroying two or three children, showing not the slightest apparent guilt or regret. This was a different kind of innocence, one far harder to accept. Banks pursued the question, and found that the custom originated in the formation of communal groups in which sexual favours were freely exchanged between different partners: ‘They are called Arreoy and have meetings among themselves where the men amuse themselves with wrestling &c. and the women with dancing the indecent dances before mentioned, in the course of which they give full liberty to their desires.’

“He also found that the Arreoy, and the custom of infanticide, owed their existence ‘chiefly to the men’. ‘A Woman howsoever fond she may be of the name of Arreoy, and the liberty attending it before she conceives, generally desires much to forfeit that title for the preservation of her child.’ But in this decision he thought that the women had not the smallest influence. ‘If she cannot find a man who will own it, she must of course destroy it; and if she can, with him alone it lies whether or not it shall be preserv’d.’ In that case both the man and the woman forfeited their place in the Arreoy, and the sexual freedoms associated with it. Moreover, the woman became known by the term ‘Whannownow’, or bearer of children. This was, as Banks indignantly exclaimed, ‘a title as disgracefull among these people, as it ought to be honourable in every good and well governed society.”

Holmes, Richard. The Age of Wonder: How the Romantic Generation Discovered the Beauty and Terror of Science. Print. p. 37

The Insanity of Using the Rights of Future Generations as An Argument For Abortion

 

I recently saw Planned Parenthood ReTweet this article (linked below) and I stared in disbelief.

PP insanity

Did they really just say that? That has to be someone pretending to be prochoice in order to make them look illogical…

Nope, they said it.

This is part of the insanity of abortion, that someone would try to make an argument for abortion by talking about the rights of children yet to be born.  Future generations must have the right to abort their children, even if they don’t have the right to exist. In this mindset, the right not to be pregnant trumps the right not to be killed.

But evidently we do have some responsibility to future generations? Are we responsible to them? We need to protect their rights?  On what basis? Which rights? If we don’t protect their rights, what happens?

“Will our daughters, sons and young neighbors have the same reproductive rights we have? Only if advocates of chosen childbearing tap the deep moral roots and emotions beneath abortion care.

Picture a future in which children come into the world by design rather than by default. In this future, young women and men pursue their dreams and form the families of their choosing without the ever-present risk of a surprise pregnancy that plagues young lives today. Contraceptives almost never fail, and most pregnancies are healthy thanks to “preconception care” and prenatal care.” (emphasis mine)

She also writes about an imagined pro-choice future:“In this future, young women and men pursue their dreams and form the families of their choosing without the ever-present risk of a surprise pregnancy that plagues young lives today. Contraceptives almost never fail, and most pregnancies are healthy thanks to “preconception care” and prenatal care.” (emphasis mine)

Again, note the argument. We should be able to terminate a life in order to make sure that other lives are healthy.  It sounds caring, but it is diabolical. Can you imagine if this ethic was applied to any other element of healthcare? If you’re not healthy, we’ll put you down like a dog at the vet.  (Which by the way, we should note that dogs have more rights than unborn children. You cannot inflict any pain on an animal while euthanizing it. Not so with children.)  That ethic may work for animals, but not for humans. This sounds like a soft expression of eugenics to me. Taking the life of sick people in order to improve the lives of everyone else is BAD MEDICINE.

As always, the defense of abortion is shrouded in deceptive mask of euphemisms about our dreams and prosperity. Absolute insanity

Insanity abortion

Source: Claiming Abortion Care as a Positive Social Good—Four Steps to Change the Conversation and Win

When Did Leaders In The West Know About the Holocaust?

This article chronicles the investigation of an important question from history.  Exactly when did the leaders outside Germany have reliable knowledge that the Nazi’s intended, and indeed were in the process of exterminating the Jews?  It obviously contains the kind of details that you would have to include to do reliable detective work of this nature. The answer is this: it seems that a lot of people knew an awful lot, and did nothing.

What strikes me is that this contains an example of what it means to be “on the wrong side of history.”  That term has been bandied around a lot recently.  In the case of the Shoa, there are examples of many leaders, politicians, journalists, and relief workers who knew what was going on, but they did nothing. They failed to speak up. They failed even to acknowledge that this evil was taking place. They failed to take even simple, low-risk actions to save lives.  History is not looking kindly on them, to say nothing of God’s perspective.

“After the war the ICRC [International Committee of The Red Cross] came under much criticism for its unwillingness to make public, however cautiously, the known facts about the murder of the Jews… Eventually, more than fifty years after the event, the ICRC through the head of its archive (not the president of the International Red Cross) admitted that the activities of the organization (or rather their absence) had been less than honorable.” (emphasis mine)

Are there any modern examples of atrocities happening beneath the indifferent eyes of the watchers?  Are there situations where politicians and leaders refuse to acknowledge that bad things are even happening? Where they refuse to speak up, or even watch the videos? Where they refuse to take action to save lives? Where news agencies refuse to cover solid stories of millions of dollars made in exchange for innocent lives?

Ignoring facts is what you do when you want to keep your blood money and maintain plausible deniability.  Investigating the facts and responding courageously is what you do when you care more about doing the right thing than about keeping your job.  I wonder what history will say about our modern-day indifference?

Source: When and How Did Authentic Information About the Shoah First Become Known? – Tablet Magazine

Vox: Where Philosophy Goes To Die

 

Crimes Against Philosophy

Trigger Warning: LOGIC

In this article (which you should read) philosophy professor Shaun Rieley takes Vox (a typically liberal publication) to task for its decision NOT publish an article by a prominent philosopher Torbjorn Tannsjo from Stockholm University.  Evidently the editors of Vox asked Tannsjo to contribute a piece for their magazine, but later decided not to publish it. What concerns Rieley, is not that Vox decided not to publish because they disagreed with the article, because they didn’t, but that they killed the piece because of the uncomfortable implications that might arrive from it.  That troublesome need for coherence…

Tannsjo argued that humans in general have a moral duty to reproduce offspring.  He arrives at this conclusion using some tight logical conclusions from utilitarian ethics.  The average person might think it is silly, but evidently his position is respected by professional philosophers and hard to evade.

All fine and good.   What is remarkable to me is that the editors at Vox don’t seem to disagree with Tannsjo, at least in general terms.  What bothers them is the idea that some conservative people might read the article and arrive at conclusions that are at odds with the editorial mission at Vox. They might use the ideas in the article to support a pro-life agenda.  It might become clear that Vox’s prochoice position is in conflict with their other values.

Rieley writes,

“In other words, it’s not so much that Tannsjo’s argument was wrong, so much as it could potentially be interpreted as giving aid to those who hold “wrong” (read: “conservative”) opinions on abortion and birth control.”

Now Vox has the right to publish whatever they like.  But what should concern everyone is that these kinds of ideological parlor tricks are happening more often.  The pattern of squashing dissent, or turning a blind eye seems to be happening more frequently in places where liberal thinkers run the show.  In my opinion, this is not intellectually honest. I have more respect anyone that acknowledges and attempts to wrestle through difficult questions  rather than toss them into the closet.

But instead we see the easy path of intellectual conformity.  We see a move to ignore or suppress facts and discussion that might disagree with the reigning wisdom.  It seems that Vox doesn’t trust people to think for themselves. They have to protect their dogma from any threats, even when those threats come from truth and reason.

Rieley continues,

“Philosophy proceeds by engaging with those various points of view, sometimes to defend what is being attacked, and sometimes to attack what is being defended. Indeed, this is how philosophy has proceeded since the time of Socrates. Without this back-and-forth, philosophy becomes all but impossible.

“Leiter laments that so few are interested in reasoning. This is true. It is much easier to retreat into the comfort of one’s own unexamined assumptions than it is to challenge them by thinking through difficult arguments that one finds disagreeable, and either assent to them, or learn to refute them.

“Nevertheless, free citizens of a republic are obligated to do the hard work of philosophical engagement. Liberty is hard work in this sense, but if liberty is to be sustained, this work is necessary. Unfortunately, by rejecting the piece, Vox has missed an opportunity to participate in the important task of facilitating this engagement.”

Source: Vox: Where Philosophy Goes To Die

14 Reasons why I am attending the Protest at Planned Parenthood Tomorrow

14

I have many reasons for my position on abortion. I am going to list a few here, and try to do it in a way will encourage you to act.  IF YOU ARE PROLIFE, YOU SHOULD JOIN A PEACEFUL PROTEST TOMORROW.  It is a national event.

One conviction that I have is that even if you are prochoice, you should be outraged by what Planned Parenthood is doing.

I am attending the peaceful demonstration in Fresno tomorrow. You can find more info here.

You can also learn more about other events here.

  1. If we care about creating a just society, we need to protect the value of every human being. I read a statement once that makes a lot of sense: “Everyone matters, or no one matters.” We can’t act like people have value and “human rights” and then turn around and deny those rights to other humans like me. It doesn’t make any sense. We have to ask the question regarding the fetus, “what is that?” And the answer can’t depend on how we feel about it. As ardent prochoice advocate Mary Elizabeth Williams said, the unborn “don’t qualify as human life only if they’re intended to be born.” It is crazy to rejoice with pregnant friends, grieve with couples that have had a miscarriage, and then ignore what abortion does to children. Everyone matters or no one matters.
  2. I need to take a stand for the lives of children. As a man I feel responsible to stand up for the weak and helpless. The most helpless human beings in the world are unborn children. If I never take a stand, then I can’t respect myself or expect others to respect me.
  3. So few are willing to take a stand on this issue. There are many Americans, maybe even a majority, that believe abortion is wrong. But the group that is willing to take a stand on this issue is much smaller. I don’t want to have hidden convictions.
  4. I hope to encourage some other people that are struggling or on the fence on this issue. I hope that when they see me, hear my reasons, see the other things I do for children and the poor they will be able to dismiss all the nonsense they hear about the prolife movement.
  5. I believe that God created children and loves them. I believe that they are made in his image and should be valued. I can’t pretend to love God and then be indifferent when his image is desecrated.
  6. The recent release of videos has brought the horrors of abortion to the front of the American conscience like never before. This is the biggest event in the abortion arena since 1973. We may not see another event like this any time soon. I want to see real change. I don’t want to waste this open door.
  7. I want to support and partner with the leaders in the prolife community that have taken risks and made sacrifices for the lives of babies. I know what it is like to feel like you are all alone. I want to support them. I am happy to stand with them on this issue.
  8. I want to use my anger and frustration in constructive ways. I think that changing the abortion laws and the abortion industry in our country is one of the best things that can happen for the unborn, and it will also be a good for women. I have watched all the videos. I have cried. I have been distracted. But I don’t want that to be fruitless.  I want good to come of this!
  9. I believe in the power of forgiveness and grace. Many women and men are suffering from guilt and shame from their involvement in abortion. Some of them knew what they were doing, some didn’t. The vast majority had no idea of the consequences they would face. I believe in the power of the grace of Jesus Christ to bring healing and restoration to people in need. But this can only happen when we face the reality of our dark choices. I want people suffering in secret to have an opportunity to experience healing and grace.
  10. If Planned Parenthood was doing this to puppies or kittens they would have been arrested long ago. You can’t dismember an animal or cut them into little pieces while they are still alive without anesthesia. We actually dissected “fresh” rats in my anatomy class years ago. They had to be euthanized with Ether before the process, and animal rights groups checked on them.   Unborn children shouldn’t be treated worse than animals. Why should the unborn be treated differently? Because to treat them chemically would be to render their tissues unfit for resale.
  11. Planned Parenthood has shown that it is manipulating our government contract system by making political donations to candidates that support them (here one article of many on this topic. Here is another). This is a conflict of interest and a clear example of corruption.
  12. Many media outlets have intentionally ignored the stories attached to the recent videos. And the PR firm that was hired by PP sent letters to various outlets encouraging them not to cover the story. And it isn’t that they have alternate evidence, they are ignoring it. The white House press secretary said that they haven’t even seen the videos. With such staggering violations of human ethics at stake, isn’t it warranted to even look.
  13. I do NOT want to tell my grandchildren that I was silent during this time. Most likely I will have some grandchildren in the coming decades. I also think that we will talk about history and the value of life. When they ask me if I remember when the undercover Planned Parenthood videos came out, and what I did about it, I don’t want to have to change the subject. I want to tell them that I prayed, and wrote, and loved, and spoke up for the lives of the innocent.
  14. I don’t want to be a coward. It is clear that following Jesus involves a cost. I also know that many pastors and friends don’t speak up on abortion, even though they think they should because they are afraid. They are afraid of many things. I am convinced that Christ is greater than all my fears. The words of Rev 21:8 are sober: “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Those ruled by fear cannot be ruled by faith. I am often frightened. I am going to trust God and step out in faith.

You Should Read This: “I Don’t Know If I’m Pro-Choice Anymore”

Protect children

“That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”

This is what Ruben Navarette’s wife told him about his neutrality on the subject of abortion. Navarette is a syndicated journalist who has never written on the topic of abortion, until now. And what prompted the change of heart?  The videos. And an angry woman that is close to him.

The whole article is worth reading. Here are some highlights:

“After all this, I still consider myself pro-choice, as I have for the last 30 years. I staked out this position during my freshmen year in college. Even then, I understood the abortion debate was a tug-of-war between competing rights—those of the mother versus those of an unborn baby. I sided with the mother. And I tried not to think about the baby….

“I arrived there for a simple reason: Because I’m a man. Many will say that this is not a very good reason, but it is my reason. Lacking the ability to get pregnant, and thus spared what has been for women friends of mine the anguishing decision of whether to stay pregnant, I’ve remained on the sidelines and deferred to the other half of the population.

“Over time, I made refinements—going along with waiting periods and parental notification laws at the state level, and coming out against the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.

“As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”

“At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.

“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”

via I Don’t Know If I’m Pro-Choice After Planned Parenthood Videos – The Daily Beast.

Corroborating Evidence. Why I Don’t Believe The Planned Parenthood Videos Are A Lie

corroborating evidence

A number of people have expressed suspicion about the recent Planned Parenthood videos, even calling them “deceptive.” It seems that many of us are eager to give the abortion industry the benefit of the doubt. We don’t want believe that such terrible things can be happening just up the street, paid for by your income taxes, defended by our darling political candidates.

There are a few people that I have read that seem like they are attempting to evaluate the facts without bias. For instance Tim Stanley at the Telegraph wrote a piece on the current scandal.  He travels around debating pro-lifers. He is an abortion apologist and he is disgusted by what has been happening. He writes,

“The Planned Parenthood scandal isn’t about whether or not abortion should be legal. It’s about medical ethics, big money politics and public morality. You can be pro-choice and still feel sick to your stomach about it.”

There are others like Camille Paglia who wrote, 

“Now I am a former member of Planned Parenthood and a strong supporter of unconstrained reproductive rights. But I was horrified and disgusted by those videos and immediately felt there were serious breaches of medical ethics in the conduct of Planned Parenthood officials.”

But most of the voices I hear coming from the prochoice side of the discussion are vigorously defending Planned Parenthood as if that organization cannot be separated from women’s rights.  We are often eager to believe that corporations could be corrupt and unethical, but not this corporation. And so there is an eagerness to denounce the video evidence the way conspiracy theorists deny the lunar landing. But in this case it may be worse because many have rushed to defend Planned Parenthood but admit they haven’t even watched the videos

This account below from Abby Johnson is an example of one of the reasons I don’t believe they are deceptive. I suppose it is not really just a “reason” but more like a category of evidence. They match up with what many other former PP employees have said. There is A LOT of corroborating evidence.

By the way I recently learned about an investigative report from 15 years ago done by 20/20 that pretty much reveals the same thing. Though not from “pro-life extremists.”

Abby Johnson was a director for Planned Parenthood and she left the organization when she realized the horror of abortions. You can read her story in “Unplanned.”

She writes (about abortion in general not necessarily fetal tissue donation in this quote) on her Facebook Page,

“I remember one day at Planned Parenthood we were standing around in the POC lab talking about how far along Warren Hern performed abortions (he performs them up until the date of birth in Colorado). I remember my boss laughing and saying, “He aborts them so far along they come out crying and looking for their mama.” Everyone in the room laughed as she made the motion of holding a baby up and spanking it’s bottom. I went to a friend of mine and asked her what she thought of aborting babies so late…I had always been uncomfortable with late term abortion. She said, “Well, it’s better to kill them before they are put in a dumpster.” And that was how I then began to justify late term abortion in my mind…”better than in a dumpster.” 

Since leaving Planned Parenthood, that conversation has always haunted me…how easily I could justify something so heinous. I have since learned that if you have to justify something, then you probably shouldn’t believe in it. 

Thank God for redemption and mercy.”

The videos echo what a number of present and former abortion providers have been saying for years.  There is a LOT of this kind of testimony.  If you are interested in looking at this issue, you don’t have to rely on the videos by themselves.  This post is just about one other source of corroboration. There are others. But to be open minded about this you would have to at least believe that it was possible that as a nation we have been defending the indefensible.

Read more about former abortionists here.  It seems like one of the most powerful tools for changing their minds was exposure to abortion itself.

Here is a page with links to videos with former abortion providers telling their stories.

Can I Kill It?

Can I Kill It?

You are washing dishes and your young child walks up behind you and says, “Dad, can I kill it?”  What do you have to know before you can answer that question?  You have to know what “it” is. If it is a spider you might say, “yes, please, let me help you.” But if it is the neighbor’s cat or his baby brother you have to say no. There are certain things we do not kill

A friend (Josh Brahm) told me this story. And I am sure he got it from someone else. But it is a fitting parable for the abortion issue

Have you noticed that recently there is a bizarre commitment to avoid this question? Some people approach it like it is suspicious package at the airport. As if ignoring the truth will somehow make it go away.  The reason is fairly obvious. If we answer this question it based on observation, common experience, and science then the answer is pretty clear, and it comes with a freight train of implications. Unborn babies are just that. Babies that haven’t been born yet. They are indeed human babies.  In recent weeks America has been confronted with these uncomfortable facts. They have limbs, livers, kidneys, skulls, hearts with electrical systems, central nervous systems, etc.  The exact same kind that other humans have. That is why they are worth so much money.

My family and I watched this video interview (below) with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards where she answers the question “when does life begin” by saying the question is irrelevant to the work of Planned Parenthood.  I guess it isn’t good for business to admit that the organisms that you are planning to kill and sell are both alive and human.  Even worse, she says that because there is disagreement on the subject of what constitutes a living human, each woman gets to determine that for herself.  I wonder if Cecile would be eager to allow others to make that decision about her.  BTW, I will let you in on a secret, having one set of standards for yourself and another set for other people is not good.

By the way, on the issue of trying to deny full humanity to other people, haven’t we learned from history?  It isn’t good to believe that someone is 2/3 of a human.  “Am I not a man?”

I am a man

A few thoughts.  First of all, this is dodging the issue. This question is definitely relevant, and we definitely know when life begins. My son, a college sophomore who just completed anatomy and physiology in preparation for a nursing major, watched the video and exclaimed, “that’s ridiculous, an unborn child matches all 7 characteristics of life!”

Second, the question of what constitutes a human life is not something we want to allow people to decide for themselves. Historically, this has been the strongest tool of tyrants. Deny the status of human being to your quarry, and you can perpetrate your will in barbaric ways.  That has been the story of imperialism.

Let me ask you a question: Does her answer give you confidence that she is engaged in good and honest activities? Or like she is being evasive and trying to hide from inconvenient truths? What is your take on the interview?

Photo courtesy of Justpo

Planned Parenthood is the Ray Rice of the Pro-Choice Movement

 

Planned Parenthood is the Pro-ChoiceRay

During the 2014 football season a scandal erupted surrounding Ray Rice, a running back for the Baltimore Ravens. A casino surveillance video showed Rice dragging his unconscious fiance out of the elevator. There was real concern and even outrage  expressed. But the whole story wasn’t known to the public at first. Then a second video was leaked from INSIDE the elevator showing Rice (an NFL running back) punch an average-sized woman into unconsciousness. Many remarked that it was not merely the vicious blow that he delivered but the way he treated her unconscious body that seemed to add insult to injury.

Seems pretty clear cut. This is a bad guy, right? Well, he is also a very successful running back, and a favorite in the community. He racks up lots of yardage and points for the Ravens and that translates into lots of money and fan support. Hard core fans couldn’t believe that the video told the whole story. There must have been more. She must have attacked him first. Maybe she had it coming…

The NFL has conduct policies and Ray Rice should have been in big trouble. He should have lost his job. But the initial punishment handed down by the NFL’s commissioner Roger Godell was light in comparison to the crime. And the public was rightly outraged. Gradually the NFL’s history emerged of showing leniency to it’s successful/money-generating players while handing out harsh punishments to the rank and file.  It seems that strong, successful football players get cocky and think they can break the law and get away with it.  And for a long time they have been right.  Everyone was glad to give them a get out of jail free card as long as they put up numbers for the team.

As the storyline solidified, the outrage surrounded the ethics of the NFL.  Did they have any ethics?  Is winning games and making money more important than doing the right thing? More important than violence?

Eventually the scandal bumped from the head story on ESPN to the front page everywhere.  But something was different this time. Players are accused of rape, sexual assault, and physical abuse all the time. The NFL has been facing these issues for years. What made Rice’s case such a big deal? 

It was the video, that horrible video. You couldn’t watch the video without disgust.  Gradually public sentiment shifted and  Ray Rice was suspended and fired. The initial punishment was overturned and replaced with something more fitting. Why? One reason. The video.

Then the headlines drifted from talking about Ray Rice, to talking about the NFL.  Had they seen the video when the first, lighter punishment was handed out.  They claimed that they had not. They claimed they only saw the footage from outside the elevator.  Did they know how bad it was?  Did they even want to see the whole story?  Was the new punishment really a stance for what is “good and right” or just a response to public opinion. Was the NFL in damage control mode, only moved when the potential loss of revenue from the scandal outweighed the loss of revenue from Rice’s talent?

The nation was having a conversation. Do athletic accomplishments give you a pass on domestic violence? Are the goals of making money and winning football games more important than protecting vulnerable women?

Well, Planned Parenthood is the Ray Rice of the prochoice movement.  In fact, right now it is their bad behavior that is the biggest threat to abortion rights in America.  Sure they rack up a lot of yards for the team, but they can’t contain those disturbing videos.  Their star players, their medical directors, are seen haggling dismissively about the body parts of children and talking about the need to get their stories straight so they can stay out of legal trouble.

And sadly the prochoice movement is acting like the NFL, acting like the mindless fans that support their team no matter what. It seems that abortion covers a multitude of sins.  If you provide abortion services, you are not even vulnerable to wrong doing.  If you are watching,  right now many prochoice voices are suggesting that it isn’t even possible for Planned Parenthood to be guilty of breaking the law.  No need for an investigation.  On social media we are told that if Planned Parenthood looses its funding, women will have no place else to go. Women are telling stories about all the great things that Planned Parenthood has done for them.  And they sound like mindless fans worried about their fantasy football scores.

But what about those videos? There is a good chance that we haven’t yet seen what happened inside the elevator.