Isn’t the Solution for Planned Parenthood Very Simple?

The Sexual Revolution & AbortionThey could stop doing abortions.

Since the most recent video scandal, defenders of Planned Parenthood have been retorting that abortion only accounts for a very small percentage of the services that Planned Parenthood provides. As if abortion is an insignificant part of what Planned Parenthood does.
Okay, then. If abortions are such a small part of what Planned Parenthood does, then why not stop doing them altogether? Why not just stick with actual women’s reproductive health services?

But this will never happen. Why? Why is providing abortions a deal-breaker for Planned Parenthood? Why will Planned Parenthood risk losing over $500 million in taxpayer funding rather than stop doing abortions?

They will not stop because their reasons are ideological.

Gender feminism and the Postgender movement will not accept an ethic that compels a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. The key word is unwanted. Apparently, “Progressive” ethics is ultimately about autonomy, self-determination, and “equality,” even if this means demanding a woman’s right to kill her offspring in utero; and it does. These people believe that women cannot be on equal footing with men so long as women are bound by a biologically assigned role that men are not bound by.

The connection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy must be severed, or else women can’t possibly share an “equal status” with men. This is essential to the sexual revolution. It doesn’t matter if a woman freely chooses to have sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy. Her male partner doesn’t have to worry about living with an unwanted pregnancy, so neither should she. It wouldn’t be fair. For radical feminism, legal abortion is basic to ensuring equality with men.

Therefore, those of us who oppose abortion on demand are said to be waging a “war on women.” But we’re not. We’re waging a war on an inhumane utopian fantasy. We accept the natural order of creation and recognize the value, equality, and sanctity of every human life regardless of differing gender roles.

Going backwards?
But maybe gender feminists have a point. Why not use abortion to level the gender playing field?

Because by definition, abortion undermines any meaningful notion of equality. It abuses power, destroying vulnerable individuals in order to advance the status of more powerful individuals. It saws off the limb on which it is sitting.

The only way that abortion can work as an equalizing force is to pretend that a human fetus is not a human being. But it is simply a biological fact that a new human life begins at conception. If we’re going to hold that human life has innate value, then there is no rational way to argue that a human fetus has no value.

If we do not value innocent human life from its beginning point, then we are left with arbitrarily qualifying some other point at which a life is human and has value. Any such arbitrary point opens the door to creepy ethical scenarios. For instance, if we pick viability, does that mean that the dependent elderly and disabled are not fully human? Is it then ethical to terminate them at will and sell their organs for research?

But what about cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?

These objections cannot be brushed off lightly. In cases involving rape and incest, the girl/woman has had a pregnancy forced on her. It is wildly unjust that anyone should ever be forced into such a situation. At the same time it is unjust that an innocent human life should be ended because it originated through the selfish actions of a male perpetrator. There is no perfect answer. Such is the world in which we live.

A Pro-life position does not advocate no abortion whatsoever. Pro-lifers who say so are misinformed, in my opinion. The life-of-the-mother argument is held up by the Left as an example of so-called Pro-life extremism – an example of why Roe v Wade is necessary. But the truth is that abortion was allowed in cases where the life of the mother was endangered before Roe v Wade. Such decisions have always been made by the mother and her family.

How can the decision to terminate such a pregnancy be considered a Pro-life decision? It is Pro-life because the life of the mother is at stake. What is being weighed in such a case is the fundamental right to life of two separate individuals; the life of the mother vs. the life of the child. But in the vast majority of abortion scenarios, what is being weighed is a woman’s “right to choose” vs. the right to life of a child. The right to life is simply more fundamental – the right upon which all other rights rest. If we fail to uphold innocent human life, certainly secondary rights are expendable as well.

As a compromise, even as an ardent Pro-life person I would support a law or amendment making an exception for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, even though I would not necessarily agree that abortion is justifiable in those situations. Factual numbers around these scenarios are elusive, but in combination these constitute probably well under 5% of abortions, so such a law would still do away with so-called abortions of convenience. Abortion for non-medical reasons is not health care.

Planned Parenthood’s better world

Damning investigative videos about Planned Parenthood are not new. They’ve been trickling out for years now. Several years ago, when Planned Parenthood workers from several different states were secretly recorded, assuring white donors that their donations could indeed be designated to specifically abort black babies, what I heard angered me.

Later, a Live Action hidden camera filmed a 13-year old girl seeking an abortion at an Indiana Planned Parenthood facility. Rather than report the situation to Child Protection Services, as the law requires, the nurse instructed the girl to lie about the age of her 31-year old partner in order to circumvent the law, and then directed the girl to a neighboring state for a secret abortion. Very disturbing.

Then, when a Planned Parenthood worker was caught on hidden camera coaching a sex-trafficking pimp on how to circumvent the law in order to obtain abortions for his underage, non-English-speaking “workers,” I was angry. However, Planned Parenthood could throw these employees under the bus because they weren’t in high-level positions.

But the latest string of videos, released by the Center for Medical Progress, implicates several Planned Parenthood representatives at the highest levels of the organization.

Since the Roe v Wade decision in 1973, the abortion issue has divided the American public. We didn’t need videos to know that taking an innocent human life for money is a bad thing. But even now, even in light of the latest revelations, I haven’t heard the Right demanding that Planned Parenthood and their radical sexual politics be driven out of existence. But is it so unreasonable to ask that taxpayer dollars not be used to subsidize them?

If “Progressives” must have abortion-on-demand in order for their vision of equality to work, let them do it without the forcing the humane sector to fund it. If there is going to be an abortion industry, let it stand on its own, like other service industries. Let the industry find it’s own sympathetic benefactors. Let us see if a business that terminates infant human lives for money will somehow have the effect of fostering human flourishing, equality, and a culture of enlightenment.

It fascinates me that while we continue to advance scientifically and technologically as a society, we remain morally and ethically lost. The same science and technology that is used by some to ease human suffering and make the world a better place is used by others for oppression and for harm. Human action continues to be darkened by greed, willful ignorance, and arrogance on a worldwide scale. The research lab cannot tell us right from wrong, or even if such a thing as right and wrong exists.

Planned Parenthood is one modern example of misapplied science and technology in the service of a well-meaning, but tragically mistaken, ideology. However, there is plenty of misapplied science to go around on both sides of the political spectrum. When all is said and done, how we perceive our problems and solutions still comes down to our beliefs. Our beliefs dictate our behavior.

Here’s hoping we can still respectfully talk to those whose beliefs differ from our own about things that matter to us all. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Baby doctor

Found on the sidewalk outside the micro brew pub near my house…

Are you looking for great storybooks designed to instill a biblical worldview in the kids you love? Visit my online store HERE!


16 comments on “Isn’t the Solution for Planned Parenthood Very Simple?

  1. carpeanimus says:

    This is a very well written piece and your arguments are laid out intelligently. I say that, even though I disagree with you on this matter. There are a few thoughts I want to share though. I am not someone who subscribes to the school of thought that a fetus is the same as a human. You can technically call it ‘life’ but life comes in many forms and I believe this form is very different from that of a human being, who has been shaped by the world and has developed emotions. And I don’t think there are ‘facts’ to back up either party’s views.

    I think that what you call ‘convenience abortions,’ actually make up a very small portion of all abortions. Abortion is not convenient for anyone involved. It may end pregnancy, which is indubitably inconvenient, but that doesn’t make it convenient by nature. It’s not something most women want to do, it’s something many of them do because they know they’re not in a stable enough position in life to take proper prenatal care or to provide a fair and healthy life for the baby.

    The reason I’m pro choice has nothing to do with the fact that I’m a feminist. I don’t think the fact that women’s bodies are the only ones capable of carrying babies is a source of inequality, on the contrary, I think it’s very beautiful and I love that I have that ability. I’d even venture to say that the reason I’m pro choice is not related to matters of equality. I am pro choice because I personally don’t think it’s responsible or fair to put a child on the world who, from conception, has been dealt the short straw. Babies who exist solely because of rape or incest, babies who didn’t receive quality prenatal care, babies who are going to be born into situations that are unhealthy or dangerous (assuming they aren’t put up for adoption), or who will be raised by a woman who was probably scarred by the experience that induced their entire existence, are all automatically at an awful disadvantage in life. I’m not saying that all pregnancies that may have any of those outcomes should be aborted, by the way. But if someone seeks an abortion because they want their kid to have a better life and a fair start, I can support that decision (as long as it’s done early. I’m not a supporter of late abortions).

    And Planned Parenthood isn’t about to stop doing abortions because no matter what people say, it is a significant part of their operation (and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that). Indeed some of the arguments the supporters are using are deceptive and short-sighted.
    Anyhow, thank you for a well thought out post. I can respect your opinion even though I *rather fervently* disagree.

    • Hello Carpeanimus,
      Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I actually agree with a lot of what you’ve said. I agree that “abortions for convenience” is a lame term. That’s why in my post I called them “so-called” convenience abortions. But it is these non-medical abortions that make up something like 90 percent of abortions.

      I also love that you love your ability to conceive and bear children, and that you think it’s a beautiful thing! I so agree, and I think it’s a profound role. I said what I did because I’ve been reading a feminist work lately (The Dialectic of Sex by Shulamith Firestone,) and she, (and other feminists,) see biological sex roles and the nuclear family as the root of all inequality of power in relationships.

      I must take issue with your first point, that “there are no ‘facts’ to back up either parties views” as to whether the fetus is a human being. This makes me crazy. If there were ever a known biological fact, it is this one: A new human life begins at conception. A sperm cell alone, though alive, will never become a person. An ovum alone, though alive, will never become a person. However, at conception, these two haploid cells combine and a new human life with 46 chromosomes begins to develop. It is certainly human, and it is certainly a “being” unto itself, though dependent on the mother. I just don’t see any way around this.

      Thanks again for respectfully disagreeing. I’ll check out your blog.

  2. I often get feedback to my blog posts on my Facebook page that don’t show up here. Here’s one by Bec Pennington that I thought was worth reposting:

    Yup. Modern science means we now can deliver and save the life of a child or exterminate it at the same age depending upon whether or not it is wanted. Modern science means a person *born* with Down’s Syndrome this year has a life expectancy of 60 years, up from 25 years back when I was little. But modern science also means that we have amnio tests for Down’s and that the average life expectancy of a Down’s child *from conception* is 20 weeks gestation; 92% of all Down’s-positive tests in the U.S. end in termination. Modern science is trying to track down DNA clues to autism to enact the same trend with them. This is the reality. This is what we do with science.

  3. Great article.

    Upon analysis, the feminist’s “equality” argument doesn’t fare well, because the notion that a woman’s “male partner doesn’t have to worry about living with an unwanted pregnancy” is false. Courts often go after delinquent fathers and attempt to force them to provide financial support for their illegitimate children. Nor does the fact that such children are “unwanted” by their fathers exculpate those fathers from their moral, natural duties toward their offspring.

    So if feminists justify abortion on the premiss that they have no obligation to keep children which are “unwanted”, then (according to their distorted notion of “equality”) men should not be required to provide any support for their unwanted children.

    Regarding rape and incest: While those are very difficult cases, I don’t think a Pro-life person could consistently support an abortion in such cases. Either an unborn baby is a living human with a right to life or he is not. It’s not at all clear how difficult or unfortunate conditions of conception diminish the value of an unborn child. If such were the case, then why not legally be able to kill any adult who was the product of rape or incest? If the answer is, “because they’re living humans with rights,” then that returns us to the question as to whether the unborn (including those resulting from rape and incest) are living humans or not.

    So at the end of the day, the real question will always be about the nature or ontological status unborn. Scientifically, there’s no longer any room for debate (as you well noted). Bioethicist, Peter Singer, recognize this, and so he advocates a permission to murder those living humans (both unborn and infants) who, according to his arbitrary and subjective criteria, have no inalienable right to life. (How such an unethical person acquired the position of bioethicist is anyone’s guess.)

    • Agreed. “Scientifically, there’s no longer room for debate.” At best one could argue that there’s not necessarily a precise “moment” of conception. But as this relates to the abortion-on-demand issue, it’s not relevant.

      Just to clarify, in fairness to gender feminism, my description of the feminist objection may have been unclear: “Her male partner doesn’t have to worry about living with an unwanted pregnancy.”
      By this I meant to say that her male partner doesn’t have to carry a growing baby in his body for 9 months. But still, your point is well taken.

      • Yes, I actually thought about the distinction between carrying the unborn child and raising the child when I wrote that. My point was simply that if “unwanted” is justification for ending an innocent human life, then why couldn’t “unwanted” also be justification for rejecting any financial responsibility as well. The point being that one’s duties are not predicated on one’s subjective desires or predilections.

        The problem here is not the feminist’s desire for equality. The problem is the feminist’s rejection of the distinction between men and women and the distinct duties to which each are obligated according to the created order. While men and women have some equal rights with respect to basic ethical considerations, they are not identical and do not have equal rights when considering their differences as men and women. Having equality of rights should not be taken to imply an absence of distinctions or an absence of duties related to the distinctions between men and women.

        The grand irony is that feminists speak of a right to equality, but they reject the very created order upon which such rights are objectively ground.

  4. Connie Nobbe says:

    I am a nurse in a NICU, and we try to save “fetuses” (preemies) that are wanted (if at a viable gestational age), at the same age that could be terminated by late abortions. The way I see it, they have not been shaped by OUR world yet, true, but they have been shaped by their own world, and they clearly do experience pain and try to live. We medical people can see these things in the delivery room because these little ones are right in front of our eyes. They do cry out on the warmer, but don’t have the strength to continue breathing enough to sustain themselves, so we breathe for them until they can manage it. They have very weak muscle tone and cannot fight what happens to them, although they can usually flail their little arms and legs to the best of their ability to fight any painful medical intervention (like kids do). There is no doubt, as we rescue these little humans, that they are human and have a will to live. When they can’t breathe, they reach out or try to “climb up” for air. When I see the videos of an abortion tech holding up a little arm with her tweezers (arms the size that I take blood pressures on and put IVs in), and other body parts that have been torn apart, it terrifies me that anyone can think its okay. It’s not. Neither were any of the other genocides in history. The only difference is these humans in the womb cannot cry out during their slaughter, because their lungs have no air in them, and nobody sees their face because they are pulverized before they come out, so it’s invisible to the public.

    Animals that are euthanized get better treatment. They are at least “put to sleep.”

    I also do not think that the company who counsels scared, pregnant young women about what their options are, should be profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Human tissue (other than blood products which the body can make more of) should not be for sale, period, or you create a market for such. Seriously. What a dark world we live in.

    That’s my point of view.

    • Connie,
      Thank you for sharing your insights. I love your heart. And your brain.

      I especially like your final comment about how those standing to profit from a woman’s pregnancy should not be in a position to influence her decision.

      At the risk of going (only slightly) off topic, this is precisely one of my main objections against having elected/appointed government officials involved in making healthcare decisions for people. If, for example, big pharmaceutical companies are contributing to political campaigns, how can we hope to expect elected officials to make unbiased decisions?

      Anyway, it’s great to hear from someone working in the field. As someone who had a newborn spend 2 weeks in ICU after birth, I very much appreciate what you do!

  5. Jonathan Williams says:

    Carpeanimus seems to describe a human as one who has been “shaped by the world and has developed emotions.” When does this take place? Is this automatic at Day One of the baby’s life? Has that life yet been “shaped” and “developed”? At what point do we declare, according to this standard, that “life” is a “human life”? I thought shaping and developing began in the womb – responding to voices, hearing music, etc. Please help.

  6. Jonathan Williams says:

    Oh … one more question. If a baby, now born, is slow to respond, say … it won’t nurse … or is in ICU and just lies there helplessly – still unshaped and still apparently emotionless – totally dependent upon the good will of doctors and nurses who are caring for it – then, is it not a human and then, can we justifiably end its life? Please help.

  7. Perhaps a better question would be to ask Carpeanimus whether her criteria for what counts as “human”, “living”, or possessing of a right to live is arbitrary or whether she has some objective ground upon which she predicates her view. For the Biblical theist, we ground our view of human value on God’s revelation to us. But on what does one ground one’s views when untethered from objectively ground ethics or a revealed ontology of mankind and the world?

    • What? Did you just say that our view of human value is based on God’s revelation to us! Holy Crap! That’s one of my favorite points in the whole universe! For years I’ve been asking my secularist homies to give me a compelling basis for attributing objective, innate human value to every human being that beats this: “God created male and female in His own image.”
      Still waiting. There must not be one.

      Frank…we are going to be buds.

      • Don’t hold your breath for an answer, because secularists have no objective ground upon which they predicate human value, ethics, or any of their value-based claims. Whether they appeal to empathy, utilitarianism, cultural relativism, civil laws, darwinian survival instincts, or even the Golden Rule, those reasons are all arbitrary and incapable of imposing any obligatory duty on anyone, including any duty to value the lives of others.

        Secularists love telling us their subjective reasons why they want to treat others well. My question to them is, “but by what objective standard can you denounce the anarchist, nihilist, or sadist who doesn’t share your motives? Why should they treat others well? Says who?”

Please share your thoughts...

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s