Friday, July 17, 2015

Planned Parenthood and the Shiny Noble Service

Image source:
Just a few quick notes on the exploding Planned Parenthood scandal. Sorry for the lack of links; I've been keeping my distance because: 1) I implied I was going to wean myself away from the culture wars; and 2) there's always the possibility with sting videos that you may find it's a put-up job. As much as I'm for the pro-life movement, I'm not a consequentialist: evil means poison good ends. So thanks to Molly Z. Hemingway for some of the info here.

As Hemingway explains, the MSM lost 14 hours lead time from the moment the story broke, and for the most part has been engaged in some creative damage control. I can't get over the number of crapburgers we Catholics are forced to eat where the faults and malfeasances of our leaders are concerned; yet the same media that crams them down our throats can't take an honest, hard look at the Church of Moloch. I guess it all depends on whose ox is gored.

There's a heavy bit of equivocation going on: one of the popular arguments is that you're not really "selling" organs if you're only collecting for expenses, or just a little more. As we say down here in Texas, "That dog won't hunt." If money is changing hands for a good or service, it doesn't matter if the net is a profit or loss — you are selling.

It's tempting to "forget" that 501(c)(3)s are businesses, regardless of the fact that they're non-profit ... and even the word "non-profit" is a little misleading. They can collect more than they spend ... they just can't distribute the excess to equity holders; technically, they don't have equity holders to which profits could be distributed. If Planned Parenthood had shareholders, said owners would have a pretty good dividend income. I won't say they're all about the money: PP has too many true believers on board for such a cynical assessment. Nevertheless, they really don't need the federal subsidies they get; they have too many true believers among the herd willing to write them multi-zero donations at the drop of an ad misericordiam.

It should be noted that the Center for Medical Progress released not one but two videos — one a"good parts" edit of about nine minutes' length, the other the full three-hour interview. From my perspective, this was a tactical mistake: they should have only released the full interview, with perhaps a list of times for the "good parts", and allowed other outlets to do their own edits. Releasing the edited version simultaneously allowed the MSM and PP apologists to distract their audiences and imply that CMP left out a lot of things that would have revealed PP's total innocence.

What really strains credulity, however, is the "Noble Service" argument. See, organs are harvested from dead bodies all the time. And with the harvesting of fetal organs, we can come up with all sorts of Life-Saving Cures That Will Benefit Mankind. Look! Something shiny!

This is the sort of thing that gives rise to the shield of Godwin's Law; it just begs for an ad Naziarum.

Forget, for a minute, the "involuntary donor" argument. Parents can donate the organs of their minor children, even those whose craniums weren't deliberately crushed to cause death. The Shiny Noble Service argument actually misses the point: in describing the procedures by which fetal organs are harvested, PP executive Deborah Nucatola unintentionally but effectively demolished the "blob of protoplasm" image pro-abortion advocates work so hard to keep planted in our brains.

Blobs of protoplasm don't have skulls. "Tissue" is used euphemistically, as if the doctors were dealing with stray pieces of skin; but the average person doesn't associate livers and stomachs with "tissue" even if the term is accurate. The fact that Nucatola describes, in graphic detail, the fact that abortionists must vary their killing technique in order to get the good stuff, as it were, goes well beyond the "ick factor" ... especially as she talks about it over a salad and wine at a restaurant. You're almost looking for a side of fava beans on the table.

I have read a couple of hard-core feminists who have said, in effect, "Hey, I know it's a living human being, and I really couldn't give a shit, because my autonomy trumps its life!" Scary, but it's an honest admission, even if it merely admits a narcissism bordering on sociopathy. However, it's an honesty few on the pro-abortion side can manage. As Tom McDonald said to Elizabeth Scalia concerning Cecile Richard's apology for the "tone" of Nucatola's remarks: "If it's not a life, why would the 'tone' matter?"

Continuing with the honesty: I'm not sure how many people are offended by it who were more or less part of the "mushy middle" before. Not many, is my guess. We've become moral maniacs, willing to spit profanities and create protests over minor things while closing our national eyes and ears to things that really matter ... especially to the Great Western Atrocity. It would be great if we could create the social and economic conditions that didn't pressure young women into ending their children's lives ... but abortion is cheaper. So long as the girl doesn't end up bleeding and dying on your doorstep because of a botched procedure in a clinic without hospital access, it's not your problem, is it?

Crushed craniums? That's what happens in an abortion. Get over it, sheep, and eat your grass. And hopefully your imagination won't play you a video of it in your dreams tonight. Sleep well, consequentialists.