The Procedure: A Recommendation

We can distinguish between the reality, video of the reality, photos of the reality, and words that describe the reality. Many think terms like 'baby' or 'homicide' are loaded against abortion, as if we have a burden to prove that has not been proven when we use such terms. Usually, such individuals prefer to use euphemisms, instead, under the mask of some sort of 'neutrality', despite the fact that the euphemisms are not themselves 'neutral', but misleading. Because this comes up again and again, we must always go back to the reality, or to video of the reality, or photos of the reality, to keep the discussion grounded. For that purpose, I recommend _The Procedure: The Horror of Abortion Exposed_.  

In this video, words are covered, but Dr. Calhoun, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist, shows the bodies of two aborted babies. Also shown is footage of the remains of aborted babies from an abortion clinic. 

Though much of what is said about abortion is said in order to distract from the actual realities, this video footage helps everyone to remain grounded in reality. Despite the fact that abortion advocates need to get as far away from the actual reality as they can in order to maintain the skewed position they are advocating and marketing, if we are interested in truth and goodness, we want to be very clear about what abortion is, what it does, and what it means to have a successful abortion. This video footage is very helpful in that regard.

Of Dogs, Humans, and Abortion

This morning, I was reading on the web and found this, an abortionist asking a key question:

"But can I ask you a question? You have asked many questions, so let me ask you: Why is it okay to put a dog to sleep because it hurts too much, but it's not okay to put a human to sleep? He needs to suffer? That's reasonable? I don't think so."

Interestingly, this abortionist, a professed atheist who thinks that abortion is either equivalent to birth control, when performed early, or, if performed later in pregnancy, euthanasia, does not seem to see why killing a dog might be different than killing a human being.

As philosopher Bryan Cross points out, the combination of nominalism and empiricism results in scientism, whereby a difference between dogs and humans is no longer seen. Coming to see again is part of the solution, and, in part, that requires philosophy---not reduced or truncated philosophy, but something that is more sincere, more fully developed, and more morally serious. And, it requires returning to what we knew before we even started doing philosophy or medicine, to things that are true regardless of philosophy and medicine. Indeed, one of the marks of good philosophy is its connectedness to what we know before we do it. In other words, philosophy builds on common sense or common experience or what we know before we do philosophy. A philosophy that cuts against or undermines that pre-philosophical knowledge, if you will, is something to be very cautious of. 

A doctor who no longer sees the difference between a human being and a dog is also something to be very cautious of, especially for those in the womb, if not also for those out of the womb. Is he a medical doctor acting as a vet or a vet acting as a medical doctor? With respect to abortion, and aside from the fact that unjustified abortion is not an attempt to make an individual healthier, he is treating humans like dogs, if not worse than dogs, not even recognizing their dignity as human beings, reducing them to mere animals in his mind and then physically destroying them to the point of death, which he refers to as 'sleep'.

The Religion of Birth Control

Margaret Sanger actually referred to abortion as 'barbaric', but was in favor of birth control. She said that it would 'ease the financial load of caring for with public funds....children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.'

Here we have more of the same, more eugenics dressed up, this time in the form of birth control. Of course, Planned Parenthood is more eugenic than even Sanger imagined it would be. So, some liberals are intent on either preventing conception with respect to certain types of people or having them aborted if they are conceived, though, again, apparently Sanger thought abortion resulted in 'outrageous slaughter' and 'the killing of babies,' which, she thought, even the offspring of the 'unfit' did not deserve.

 

Peter Singer on Killing Babies

Not hiding behind any euphemisms, Peter Singer has an essay titled 'Killing Babies Isn't Always Wrong.'

Discrmination Against the 'Unfortunate' and 'Disadvantaged' in the Form of Abortion and RU-486

In 1992, Roe v. Wade co-counsel Ron Weddington urged the new president-elect to rush RU-486 to market. He wrote:

"You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country. No, I'm not advocating some sort of mass extinction of these unfortunate people. Crime, drugs and disease are already doing that. The problem is that their numbers are not only replaced but increased by the birth of millions of babies to people who can't afford to have babies. There, I've said it. It's what we all know is true, but we only whisper it, because as liberals who believe in individual rights, we view any program which might treat the disadvantaged  as discriminatory, mean-spirited and ....well....so Republican."

He continues:

"Government is also going to have to provide vasectomies, tubal ligations and abortions....There have been about 30 million abortions in this country since Roe v. Wade. Think of all the poverty, crime and misery...and then add 30 million unwanted babies to the scenario. We lost a lot of ground during the Reagan-Bush religious orgy. We don't have a lot of time left."

Here we have the morning after pill and abortion as liberal social policies against the 'disadvantaged' and 'unfortunate'. This is discrimination in the form of unjustified homicide, at least with respect to the abortion aspect. But here we do not have Jim Crow laws, but Roe v. Wade and RU-486. It is a type of discrimination that kills, at least with respect to abortion. The logic is plain and we have it from the Roe v. Wade co-counsel himself.

Cheap Abortion As a Social Defense

While we are often told by liberal progressives that abortions do not kill 'babies' and while liberal progressives often act as though we have committed an intellectual crime by using the term 'murder' or 'baby' in relation to 'abortion', some liberals are actually quite honest about why they want more abortions. For example, in 1992, Nicholas Von Hoffman said the following in the Philadelphia Inquirer:

"Free cheap abortion is a policy of social defense. To save ourselves from being murdered in our beds and raped on the streets, we should do everything possible to encourage pregnant women who don't want the baby and will not take care of it to get rid of the thing before it turns into a monster...At their demonstration, the anti-abortionists parade around with pictures of dead and dismembered fetuses. the pro-abortionists should meet these displays with some of their own: pictures of the victims of the unaborted---murder victims, rape victims, mutilation victims---pictures to remind us that the fight for abortion is but part of the larger struggle for safe homes and safe streets."

 

I recall being in residency and one doctor frequently commenting on how 'stupid' patients were and how they should be sterilized. Of course, sterilization, as bad as it is, is not the same as unjustified homicide, but one wonders if he, too, would not have agreed with the comments above. 

It is also interesting to note that a high percentage of Planned Parenthood clinics are near or in minority communities. Eugenics was largely discredited with Hitler, but it lives on in Planned Parenthood and with abortion. It is now just cloaked in 'family planning' terms.

Jesse Jackson on Abortion

When he decided to run for President, he changed his position, but, in 1977, Jesse Jackson said that abortion was basically 'genocide against the black race.' He added, 'AS A MATTER OF CONSCIENCE, I MUST OPPOSE THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR A POLICY OF KILLING INFANTS.'

It is true that abortion takes the lives of a huge number of black people, with some saying that it takes more black lives than heart disease, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. Nationwide, 512 out of every 1,000 black pregnancies end in an abortion. Jackson's comment is interesting in light of the numbers. 37% of abortions are abortions of black human beings despite the fact that the black population makes up far less than 37% of the population.