I would urge that you read this whole blog post. You may want to skip the videos due to their extremely disturbing nature, but please bear with me as this subject deserves some critical thought. I have spent a great deal of time chewing this over and believe that we need to visit this topic as rational, critical thinking people to give it the thought it deserves.
It probably comes as no suprise to the more discerning readers that there has been a flood of activity around this topic with the recent videos exposing planned parenthood and the body-part trafficing of the organization:
What has shocked me most about this is how cool and calm these people are talking about the sale of body parts of the unborn, not unlike serial killers or mass murderers who demonstrate that they have no conscience. As Stalin was rumored to have said, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic." They have stopped thinking about who they are eliminating in order to make their profits and not considering the carnage they leave in their wake.
The process of killing the conscience with semantics and definitions
I don't know which side of this debate you are on. All I can give you is my experience and apply some logic to this argument. As a firefighter, my job was to preserve life, born or unborn. This was often done at great personal risk both to myself and the brave men I worked with. We worked with a conviction that all human life had value and if that life happened to be unborn, then it was even more helpless and this brought on a sense of urgency that was rarely found in any other emergency we attended. I have witnessed people willing to run into a burning house to save their precious children who were considered lost and with no hope of survival, yet these parents were willing to risk pain, permanent injury and likely death for the chance to save a child who was most likely dead or so seriosuly damaged they had no chance of a "quality life" as so many people put it.
On one hand as firfighters and EMT's we are told that life, even unborn if priceless and of infinate value, on the other hand as regualr citizens we are told that choice trumps life and in fact that a fetus isn't even alive. I mean, if you knew that what was growing in the womb was actually a living human being, could you carry out this type of procedure?
So how do organizations like planned parenthood define life? Well, when asked when life begins, Cecile Richards, the President of Planned Parenthood Action Fund said, “It’s not something that I feel is really part of this conversation…every woman needs to make their own decision.”
How is this not part of the conversation? If life has already begun when they carry out this procedure, wouldn't that be murder? If it has not begun, then why do they need to sever the head from the body, stab the face with a scalpel or cut through the spinal cord to stop the heart beating and the unborn from moving if it is already dead?
You see, it's far easier to convince people that abortion is morally defensible if you avoid this conversation altogether and focus on the choice of the woman.
An uncomfortable parallel
For many young people these days, the regimes of Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin are nothing more than forgotten history. Yet these regimes put no value on the weak, the old, the infirm and the unborn. It was not strange for evil men like Hitler or Stalin to insist that inferior genetic examples like those with down syndrome, gypsies, Jews or the old were eliminated. In fact, definitions were provided by the state and it's scientists in most cases to ensure people could rationalize that they were not dealing with actual humans, but rather something inferior, something of no value. This allowed Hitler to kill millions, and Stalin tens of millions, perfectly legally of course.
But surely their argument is justified? Because at the end of the day, they were protecting their entire national community from genetic inferiority and poor health and those they disposed of from a poor quality of life. This is a much more noble cause than the free choice of just one pregnant teenager afterall. So why on earth did we execute these Nazis at the Nuremburg trial for carrying out something so noble, so valiant and something entirely legal if we apply the same standards applied to abortion? Why were their actions seen as morally reprehensable, and yet those actions of planned parenthood and similar organizations are seen as just offering someone freedom? Maybe it is because we have swept all this under the carpet, ignoring logic and moral consistancy, and rather focus on the virtues of abortion and the need for choice. This video makes the comparison perfectly:
The argument often used is that these fetuses provide life saving material and as such, the disposal of these unborn children is somewhat justified.
At this point, the argument for what defines life is usually brought up again. I mean, if science does not define a fetus as alive, then why should we feel guilty about allowing thousands of unborn, non-living clumps of tissue to be crushed, torn apart and sold?
Science is quite hypocritical on this issue. With all the recent activity with the exploration of Mars, scientists are looking for signs of life on the planet. NASA would be thrilled to find microbes in order to prove life exists on Mars:
Nasa and life on Mars
So Microbes are considered life, yet a fetus at up to the age of 24 weeks is not. I would urge you to click the below link to see images of fetuses aborted at 24 weeks, not for some sick, twisted reason, but because someone owes it to these kids who's parents have been duped into thinking they are not alive, have been aborted and afterwards sold as nothing more than meat:
24 week old fetus
Science and State, the standard for moral bankruptcy
So here we are at a moral crossroads. Do we choose science and the state to decide for us what is morally right, or do we use logic and the premise that all human life is intrinsically valuable? If you may have noticed, I have left choice out of this argument completely, because I don't believe that morality should be swayed by the rights of the strong to choose over the weak.
Throughout my career I have chosen employment that has saved, educated and built up those around me. I have worked in special needs classrooms and have conducted physical therapy on children physically deformed, many of who were adopted and loved as much as one could possibly be loved. They led full lives and were valuable not just to their parents, but also to people like myself who learned that life is richer giving to those who don't have, and protecting those who can't protect themselves.
I would urge all who read this to think critically about this issue and ask themselves, "At what age is it ok to kill a toddler?" If you find this question disturbing, then you cannot morally justify the killing of a fetus that can just as easily be proven to be a living, human child just waiting to be born.
Where do we go from here?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.- Edmund Burke -
Who will speak for those who have no voice? Who will tell these young mothers that have been convinced that they are just removing a clump of cells that there is hope and help available?
If none of what I have written has disturbed you or pricked your heart, then you need to do some soul searching. At what point did we become so cold and morally bankrupt that we ever bought into this pack of lies, that killing the weak and helpless for any reason, no matter how noble we may think it is is morally justified? How is this justifiable now that we know that their tiny bodies are being sold by those touting the virtues of abortion?
I would urge you to look into this issue deeper and to start asking the questions most people don't. You may find that it may cause some heated discussion, but you may also find that you may save the lives of those who nobody was willing to fight for.