Infants in the Hands of Planned Parenthood: What is the Duty of Love?
Thanks to the videos by the Center for Medical Progress, the abortion industry is nervous. Abortion advocates are feeling threatened — by the truth. The public conscience may finally be waking from its apathetic coma, awakening to the baby body parts industry that has been in our midst for decades.
We’ve witnessed Planned Parenthood’s insatiable appetite for babies to abort and then sell piece by piece. We’ve seen the “red water.” We’ve heard all about the “line items” and the demand for kidneys, hearts and brains.
Planned Parenthood is frantic over the potential loss of $500 million federal dollars each year.
That means it’s time to step up the abortion propaganda. Hence, the #ShoutYourAbortion Twitter campaign this past week, asking post-abortive women to get on Twitter and tell the world how wonderful their abortion was. Time to celebrate killing babies!
Whoopi Goldberg used her bully pulpit on The View to heap scorn on those who want to defund PP, yelling at Congress to “Get out of my vagina!”
They’re Dead Anyway; We Might as Well Use Them
They justify aborting unborn babies with talk of a “woman’s right to her own body.” They justify the bloody body shops that eagerly bid for the aborted remains by pointing to the promise of medical breakthroughs. “We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy.” Thus begins an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine written by attorney R. Alta Charo. The editorial is largely a reiteration of Planned Parenthood’s own talking points. It could have been written by Cecile Richards.
Charo considers the issue of fetal tissue research to be settled and closed by the 1988 Fetal Tissue Transplantation panel, and she’s alarmed that its morality is being challenged anew. “The panel noted that it is commonplace to use organs and tissues from deceased people, whether their death was caused by accident or homicide,” she writes.
Perhaps, but people are buried after they die. Their bodies are prepared for burial, and treated with respect. The child killed by abortion, though a distinct human person, is afforded no such dignity. On the contrary, “The panel also considered the pointlessness of refusing support for this research, which uses fetal tissue that will otherwise be discarded.” You see? It’s understood, it’s expected that they are merely to be discarded. Like trash. They’re given no burial, no funeral. No dignity. No recognition that they ever existed as human persons. They are regarded as raw material for us to use, and then discard.
The letter continues: “A closer look at the ethics of fetal tissue research, however, reveals a duty to use this precious resource in the hope of finding new preventive and therapeutic interventions for devastating diseases.” Notice that the unwanted preborn child is only precious as a resource to be used. And as the author insists in his opening sentence, “We have a duty to use fetal tissue for research and therapy.” A duty to use.
This is how America, from this day forward, will twist itself into pretzels to make abortion seem noble, selfless and even humanitarian. If “choice” isn’t getting the job done anymore, then it’s for the good of all that we must jealously protect the “right” to slaughter the preborn child so as to maintain a steady supply of that precious resource, fetal tissue.
Remember, the cure for the disease you dread most depends on that fetal tissue. How can you possibly want to prevent the discovery of such a cure?
Charo then paints her opponents as hypocrites by pointing out that our vaccines were created using the cells of many aborted fetuses. She attempts to use the Church to prop up her argument further: “Indeed, the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, while arguing for a right to refuse to use pediatric vaccines derived from fetal tissue and calling for development of vaccines through other means, nonetheless concluded in 2005 that parents’ duty to protect their children from illness justifies their use of current vaccines.”
She conveniently fails to mention that for most of the mandated vaccines, there is no ethical alternative. Parents have no choice but to consent to the unethical vaccine. By law their children must be vaccinated to attend school, daycare, participate in sports, etc. It is a no-win situation created by researchers and pharmaceutical companies at the burden of all those who object but have no alternative.
The Vatican’s Pontifical report recognized this burden and reassured parents that their moral culpability was diminished accordingly, and for the sake of their children’s health, they may receive the vaccines. That is a far cry from condoning how the vaccines were made or condoning the continuing use of the bodies of aborted babies for medical research.
“Given the panel’s conclusion that research use of fetal remains is ethical,” she continues, “it seems clear that the needs of current and future patients outweigh what can only be symbolic or political gestures of concern.” So Charo finds opposition to using aborted babies for medical research no more than symbolic or political. No doubt she considers the moral argument against abortion itself to be merely symbolic or political.
What is the Duty of Love?
Is it ethical to use aborted fetal tissue for medical research? An important question, but it’s the wrong first question. The first question must be, What is the duty of love? Love is entirely absent from all this talk of “use” and “resource.” Love sees the child in the womb as a human person who is precious, period. Love will not take the child’s life in the first place.
How much horror must we be confronted with as a nation before we repent of having treated our preborn babies as inconsequential nothings and commodities for our use and disposal?