Further Reflections On The Planned Parenthood Freak Show

Abortion is murder.

As Christians, we can show mercy to mothers who have aborted their children but our culture is not a wounded mother – it is the product of a merciless ideology.

Murder by abortion has killed well over one billion human beings in the last century and the ideology must be attacked with truth.

A woman’s choice to murder her child is a bad choice, no two ways about it. 

There are a lot of commentaries worth reading about the latest sickening revelations about Planned Parenthood. Here are some of them:

Sanctity of Trees, or Sanctity of Human Life? By Ken Ham.

Now let me say right from the start—this item is not about environmental issues. This article is not about clear-cutting! AiG has a number of articles dealing with how humans should view the environment such as this one called “Is Stewardship the Same as Going Green?”
Today’s post is about the gross hypocrisy and inconsistency I see in the world today.

This week I read a news article titled, “Artist Draws Attention to Illegal Land Development.” The article stated, “Trees are one of the Earth’s most precious resources, providing us with everything from healthy soil and oxygen to building materials constructed out of a renewable resource, and yet there are those who don’t appreciate the sanctity of trees . . . . Artist Yeka Haski decided to paint the stumps to look like shanks of meat, so the crooked developers would realize ‘murder without blood and cries is still a murder.’” You can see the artwork on the trees at this link.

So that article is about the “sanctity of trees”!

Then I read an article titled, “Shock Video Catches Planned Parenthood’s Top Doctor Selling Body Parts of Aborted Babies.” The article states, “New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted unborn children and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.”

And just a reminder that in 2013, President Obama thanked Planned Parenthood. He stated (and remember when he says “health care” and “woman’s right” in this context—he means abortion, the murdering of children),

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

Also remember that President Obama is a supporter of partial-birth abortion (really, partial-birth murder).

So what happened to the sanctity of human life?

I wonder if the same artist who calls cutting down trees “murder” and if the same author that used the term “sanctity of trees” are also being just as vocal about the legalized murdering of millions of children—in fact, 55 million of them in America since Roe v. Wade in 1973!

And another sad observation I make is this. There are those in the church who support gay “marriage,” but there have been a lot of leaders and others from the church who are being very vocal against gay “marriage.” However, has the church been just as vocal each year when millions of children are being murdered in their mother’s wombs?

Think about it! The abortion holocaust far surpasses the terrible atrocities of Hitler. Could it be that one of the reasons God is withdrawing the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit in this culture and turning people over to debased things (read Romans 1) is because this nation has brutally murdered around 55 million children?

So where is the outcry?

By and large I find that many people are more concerned about an insect, a tree, a frog, a bat, a clover, and so on, than they are about the sanctity of human life! The government enacts legislation to protect plants and all sorts of animals, but then legalizes the murdering of millions of children. What hypocrisy! How much more inconsistent could this culture become?

The “murder of trees?” What about the murder of millions of children? “Sanctity of trees?” What about the sanctity of human lives?

These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him: A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16–17)

I encourage you all to read this article titled, “When Does Life Begin?”

The Rhetorical Tear Gas Of Planned Parenthood By Jared Oliphint

The weary fight against our culture’s quickening pace toward redefining humanity seems to be without end. Issues at the core of personhood—sexual identity, a right to life for the small and defenseless, an aspirational family structure—seem to be collapsing both outside and even inside the church. No longer are these mere abstract scenarios, theoretical moral puzzles to be solved as a mental exercise.

Though these ethical scenarios have now been concretely applied throughout our culture, they are still puzzles, and puzzles have rules—for both sides. And if we know what some of the rules are, we can blow the whistle on cheating when we see it. 

Think of the rhetoric that systemically spewed through the culture after the recent Supreme Court decision—“Love Wins.” Love. Implied in “love wins” is that the minority opinion was against love. But love is not the central element of the marriage issue; no one is bound to love their potential spouse as a legally necessary condition for marriage. By taking the issue out of its specific focus on the definition of marriage, and hoisting it up into the bare, general, vague, and legally irrelevant concept of “love,” the discussion and conversation becomes cloudy, murky, and confused. We were thrown rhetorical tear gas, where words were scattered randomly, without purpose, and dialogue has lost its anchor and orientation.

Whose Choice?

In the latest exposure of Planned Parenthood’s public baby-genocide, this rhetorical strategy—keeping terms and concepts generic, avoiding specifics—has been used for decades. Words like “choice,” “right,” and “health” (which each side affirms depending on how those terms are defined and qualified) are trotted out and exclusively claimed for marketing strategies toward the cause. For example, one person tweeted: “I #standwithPP because I’m not grossed out by science and I still support choice!” The most obvious questions prompted from his choice of words are, “Who is grossed out by science in general, or who has even made such a claim?” and “What kind of choice are you talking about? Whose choice about what?” The rhetoric leaves the species for the genus; “selling aborted baby parts” is swapped for “science.” And using more rhetorical sleight of hand, “killing a baby inside a woman’s womb” is swapped for that most generic of words—“choice.” 

Whose Freedom?

Moreover, Matthew Kohut tweeted: “The latest attack on Planned Parenthood strengthened my support for women’s freedom.” Freedom joins the list of other general, non-specific words frequently tossed around at the expense of substance. The issue is not whether women should have freedom, but to what sort of freedom we are referring and how that freedom would apply in the context of another’s competing freedom—in this case a young child’s. If these tiny victims had the ability to speak on behalf of themselves, I’m sure they would ask how these freedom advocates defend a mother’s non-specific freedom against their own specific freedom to exist and survive, to not be destroyed against their will.

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards seldom veers from this tactical game plan. Among a string of substantially useless, vapid truisms, she says: “Spreading false information is an age-old strategy of people hell-bent on denying women care and shaming them for exercising their rights.” If there is any age-old strategy at work, it is Planned Parenthood’s plan to hide away the specifics of the abortion discussion, since the details are grotesque and evil. Keep the language as general and non-applicatory as possible. “Care for women.” “Exercising rights.” Each catchphrase begs for an answer: “Care” for whom? Whose “rights”? Which “woman”?

Ready to Illumine

Even the name Planned “Parenthood” is sinister in its deception. An organization that puts an end to a woman’s role as a mother, and to a man’s role as a father, is not in the business of planning parenthood, but in planning its irreversible end. When the name of an organization sacrifices accuracy for marketing purposes, there should come a time when the market turns against its deceiver for its bait-and-switch methods. 

Part of a Christian ethic involves representing God’s world accurately, as the way he has made it (Exod. 20:16). Deceptive and confusing rhetoric should have no place in secular discourse, but it should be especially absent among Christians. When marketing goals and party-building tactics seep their way into the church, Christ’s name suffers. So believers should be particularly careful that we don’t fight rhetorical fire with fire. And with that Christian conviction comes a responsibility to call out deceptive language when appropriate. When efforts are made to couch ethical issues in vague, foggy terms, Christians should be alert to this tactic, ready to expose the specifics of issues out of their dark corners and into the light of God’s truth.

Jesus Loves The Little Children By Kevin DeYoung

Oddly enough, it’s sometimes progressives who are most eager to move the culture backward.

As we reflect in horror at the utter callousness with which some persons and organizations speak of (not to mention crush) the tiniest humans, it’s worth remembering that the ancient world was unabashedly open to the killing of children. For starters, they had almost none of the sentimentality we have towards kids. There was no Disney, no summer camps, no play dates. Family life–even if there was such a thing–certainly did not revolve around children. In general, children, were useful at best, burdens at worst, and almost never coddled.

If there was one dominant fact regarding children in the ancient world it was their high mortality rates, especially among infants. Many newborns were stillborn or died in labor. Those who made it safely out of the womb often went hungry. There were too many mouths to feed and too little food. As a result, children were often abandoned, exposed to the elements, literally left on trash heaps to die. From 230 B.C. onward, the most common family in Greece was a one-child family. Families of four or five were rare. Some families might want two sons, but rarely would they want two daughters.

Unwanted children were disposed of, often sold into slavery. Others were aborted in the womb. Many more were simply killed as infants. Newborns were not considered part of the family until the father officially acknowledged them and received them into the house by religious ceremony. Consequently, ancient Greeks and Romans thought little of little babies and did not hesitate to get rid of them.

In the ancient world, it was uniquely the Jewish people who prohibited abortion and infanticide, the latter of which was not outlawed until Christianity took on a privileged place in the empire. Christians have always opposed killing children, whether infants outside the womb or infants inside the womb. The two were one and the same crime. “You shall not abort a child or commit infanticide,” commanded the Didache, a late first century church constitution of sorts. Despite the muddled arguments of progressive Christian groups and demoninations (whose obfuscation with language is positively Orwellian), opposition to abortion and infanticide is not simply one position for Christians, it is the Christian position.

Jesus welcomed children when others wanted to push them away (Mark 10:13-16). He said the measure of our love for him would be measured by our love for children (Mark 9:36-37). He took the children in his arms as if to say, “Honor these little ones, and you honor me. Send them away because they are weak, socially insignificant, and bothersome, and you’ve demonstrated you don’t understand the values of the kingdom.”

As abortion is again in the public eye (though willfully ignored by major media outlets), let’s pray for our society to change its mind regarding the smallest and most helpless of its citizens. Let’s pray for the church to lead the way in protecting, honoring, and caring for children–not matter how unborn or unwanted. Let’s pray that every judge, politician, and doctor becomes convinced of the sanctity of unborn life and acts accordingly. Let’s pray for the flourishing of pregnancy centers and women’s clinics that provide an alternative to abortion. Let’s pray for the women contemplating such a tragic choice, and for the family members encouraging them in the wrong direction. Let’s pray for men to be men, to stop fooling around and to stop fleeing when they have. Let’s pray that hundreds of politicians, thousands of pastors, millions of would-be moms and dads, and 300 million hearts are gripped by a Jesus-inspired view of children.

Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world. Even the ones with an umbilical cord.

“A Lot of People Want Intact Hearts These Days” — Planned Parenthood, Abortion, and the Conscience of a Nation By Albert Mohler

Yesterday’s release of a video showing the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood casually discussing the sale of organs from aborted babies is a moral challenge thrown right in the face of all Americans.
The video reveals Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical services for Planned Parenthood, discussing the intentional harvesting of organs and other tissues from babies aborted in Planned Parenthood clinics. While reaching with her fork for salad, Dr. Nucatola openly tells a group she believes to be medical researchers that there is a great demand for fetal livers, but “a lot of people want intact hearts these days.”

Dr. Nucatola went on to explain in chilling detail that abortionists often plan in advance how to harvest desired organs, even telling the group that a “huddle” is sometimes held with clinic staff early in the day, so that targeted organs can be harvested from unborn babies.

Her language is beyond chilling as she described how abortions are conducted specifically to harvest intact organs: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part. I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” She also described using an abortion technique that appears to be partial-birth abortion.

The undercover video was released by the Center for Medical Progress, a group with ties to previous efforts to expose Planned Parenthood and the reality of its murderous work. As expected, Planned Parenthood struck back, claiming that the video misrepresented Dr. Nucatola, Planned Parenthood, and the procurement of fetal organs.

In the video, Dr. Nucatola suggests that a cost of $30 to $100 would be a likely range of charges for organs and tissues harvested from aborted babies. She also tells the group that Planned Parenthood does not want to be seen as profiting from the sale of such organs, but she makes clear that this concern is not hampering the harvesting and transfer of the organs.

The sale of human tissues is illegal in the United States, as is the timing or arranging of an abortion if the cause of the abortion is the procurement of organs or tissue. Within hours of the release of the video, Republican presidential candidates and at least two governors were calling for investigations into the involvement of Planned Parenthood in the business of selling fetal organs.

Likewise, the defenders of Planned Parenthood attacked the video and the organization behind it. But Planned Parenthood is clearly concerned about the effect of the video, and it should be. The sight of the senior medical director of Planned Parenthood reaching for salad as she explicitly discusses tearing apart babies in the womb is impossible to reduce to words.

Planned Parenthood called the video “heavily edited, secretly recorded,” and said that it “portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.”

The Center for Medical Progress also released over two hours of what it said was unedited video of the conversation. As in the case of previous revelations of wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, the group goes after the accuser more than the accusations.

But Planned Parenthood is having a hard time keeping its story straight. Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications for the national organization, acknowledged the transfer of fetal organs and tissues, but said that it was all legal and insisted that “there is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood.” And yet, a public relations firm supporting Planned Parenthood, also put out a release stating that “the transcript indicates that Deborah Nucatola was speculating on the range of reimbursement that patients can receive after stating that they wish to donate any tissues after a procedure.” Well, which is it?

Planned Parenthood stands at the epicenter of the Culture of Death and receives almost half a billion dollars a year in government support. They are not going to be able to explain this video away.

I have no reason to believe that the video is anything less than totally credible. But, even if Planned Parenthood somehow finds a way to evade justice in terms of criminal activity, the part of the video that Planned Parenthood does not –and cannot — deny reveals their senior medical director enjoying a conversation over a meal in which she describes tearing apart the bodies of unborn human beings in order to get the desired organ: “I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

When the Allied forces liberated the concentration camps of the Nazi regime, General Dwight D. Eisenhower ordered the ordinary German citizens of nearby towns and villages to walk through the camps and to see what they had allowed and facilitated. Eisenhower’s point was all too clear — you allowed this to happen, and you share the guilt.

So it is with all Americans. Planned Parenthood and the abortion industrial complex are funded with our tax dollars. Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, was a racist openly committed to eugenics. Millions of unborn babies have died in its facilities. The group thrives because Americans allow it to thrive.

When this video went viral yesterday, I waited to see how the mainstream media and abortion supporters would respond. That response has, for the most part, been exactly what I expected — defend Planned Parenthood at any cost.

But the video is out there, and it will stay out there. There is no way to un-see it once it is seen.

Writing at Cosmopolitan magazine, abortion supporter Robin Marty said that she had seen the video. Then she said, “Now, frankly, I’m just going to yawn.”

Maybe she will, but if so that will require a massive act of denial. Later in her own essay she stated: “I shuddered when listening to the discussion of how the fetus can be removed, and the idea of a ‘menu’ of fetal tissue and organs that could be procured depending on the gestational age of the pregnancies being terminated and the number of patients who consent to donating is one I hope I never have to encounter again.”

Once again, which is it?

We must pray that this video will mark an important turning point in our nation’s conscience. Images and words can become seared in our minds. The horrifying knowledge of harvested baby hearts must lead to our own broken hearts.

A nation that will allow this, will allow anything.

Are Pro-lifers Imposing Their Values On Others? By Bill Muehlenberg

In the abortion wars the number of silly and patently fallacious arguments used by those sanctioning baby killing are many. Every lousy excuse they can dream of is used as they attack those seeking to defend the unborn from being led to the slaughter.

I have dealt with plenty of their bogus claims over the years, and there are plenty more that can be covered. Let me here deal with another commonly-used myth peddled by the pro-death camp. Abortion supporters are quite keen to tell those who are pro-life that they have no right to impose their moral views on other people.

abortion 21They claim that because some people are concerned about abortion, they are somehow taking away the freedoms of others, they are being busybodies, and they are acting as some sort of moral Taliban. They insist that on the abortion issue we must simply sit down and shut up.

But there are all sorts of problems with this line of thinking. Firstly, in a democracy, all points of view are entitled to a hearing. That is exactly what makes for a democracy: allowing the free flow of ideas, and enabling countering views on contentious issues to be freely presented and discussed. And after all, does not the other side claim the banner of ‘choice’? Why then do they seek to deny the other side the right to be heard?

And this myth is based on the false idea of tolerance, which has become the greatest virtue in contemporary culture. Tolerance used to mean respecting the other person while disagreeing with his or her ideas. Today it means you must accept the other person’s views, or be seen as intolerant, judgmental and narrow-minded.

But, as Francis Beckwith argues in his important 1993 volume, Politically Correct Death, “to be tolerant of differing viewpoints involves just that – differing viewpoints, all of which cannot be equally correct at the same time”. And as American philosopher J. Budziszewski has pointed out:

If you really believe that the meaning of tolerance is tolerating, then you ought to tolerate even intolerance. If you really believe that the best foundation for toleration is to avoid having strong convictions about good and evil, then you should not try to harbour the strong conviction that intolerance is bad. . . . Consistency would require that if it is intolerant to prohibit the abortion of babies in the womb, then it must also be intolerant to prohibit their protection.

And values are being pushed all the time. The real question “is not whether values are going to be imposed or legislated, but whose values” as Carl Horn puts it. It just so happens that at the moment, the values of the pro-death camp are predominating, legally, socially and culturally.

They are certainly imposing their values on the rest of society, and they are very proud of it. That is why they do not want the other side to be heard. They enjoy the ideological hegemony they currently possess. They see it as a major threat when the other side is allowed a word in edgewise.

Moreover, on important moral issues we need to speak out. Should we tolerate polluters, racists and rapists? This is like saying ‘I am personally against environmental destruction, racism and rape, but who am I to push my personal beliefs onto others’. When the protection of innocent life is at stake, we not only have the right but a duty to speak out.

And such moral concerns need to be reflected in the law. Issues as important as killing human beings need to fall under the domain of civil law. As Stephen Schwarz has rightly stated, “All civil rights should be protected by law”. The truth is, basically all law is imposed morality.

Let me conclude with some wise words from F. Lagard Smith on these matters of tolerance and imposing one’s views. They come from his excellent 1990 volume, When Choice Becomes God. He rightly notes that “few of us really want to be in the business of deciding what is acceptable behaviour for everybody else.” But, he continues,

neither have we abandoned altogether being our brother’s keeper. Just let the Ku Klux Klan resurrect lynching, or have some group of neo-Nazis talk about exterminating Jews again, and we will all throw down our pro-choice banners and become the most intolerant people you ever saw – and rightly so. They could talk all day long about their “right to decide,” but we wouldn’t tolerate it.
Under those circumstances not one of us is going to say, “I’m personally against lynching and genocide, but I don’t want to impose my values on others.” When innocent life is at stake, we realise that we can no longer be pro-choice. At that point, pro-choice is a license to kill.

In the battle over abortion, the question simply cannot be framed as one of tolerance. If an unborn baby is not a human life worthy of protection, then let the woman decide whether to have an abortion. On the other hand, if an unborn baby is in fact a human life worthy of protection, then a woman can have no choice. When innocent life is at stake, we have no choice but to protect it. To do otherwise would be to invoke the tyranny of tolerance.

Saying no to pro-choice on the issue of abortion is not for the purpose of imposing our values on others. It is to keep others from imposing their values upon those who, because they are powerless to defend themselves, will never have a chance to choose their own values.

Yes exactly right. When it comes to defending the innocent against their destruction, it is high time indeed that we impose a bit of morality.


Feel free to discuss.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s