I think it is an appropriate time to present a series of posts on Planned Parenthood and the wrongs that are being perpetuated within our midst. Thus, I have accumulated some resources from all over for your to browse and become more informed on regarding Planned Parenthood, abortion, and related issues. Please read and share these posts. We can no longer be silent: we must speak up for those who are unable to speak up for themselves.
Meet the Filmmaker Exposing Planned Parenthood– An interview with David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Process, the group that has released a number of videos exposing Planned Parenthood executives discussing the use of fetal body parts. A quote from the article: “All we had to do was say two things. Number one, that we supported their work. And number two, that we wanted to buy their fetal body parts. Those were the magic words. And they were willing to bend over backwards to accommodate that.”
Considering the “Planned Parenthood’s Abortion is only 3% of what it does” Defense– It has been parroted time and again: abortion is only 3% of what Planned Parenthood does! Therefore… what? When you look at the numbers, that 3% is pretty significant. Not only that, but the argument itself is quite faulty as an excuse.
Planned Parenthood Videos: Is this a Wilberforce Moment for the Church?– William Wilberforce was a defender of human rights who helped to get slavery outlawed across the British Empire. One of his strategies was to show people slave ships so that they couldn’t pretend not to know what was happening. The Planned Parenthood videos have shown only some of the horrors of abortion. We need to stand up, not look away, and refuse to allow it to continue.
The Faqs: What You Should Know about the Planned Parenthood Defunding Vote– This post discusses the vote to defund Planned Parenthood in light of various questions that arose around it, including why the Republican majority leader would vote against it (hint: it’s not because he’s in favor of abortion).
The ‘Ick Factor’ And The Planned Parenthood Videos– Is the response to the Planned Parenthood videos really just a gut “ick factor” reaction? Is it instead based on something more concrete?
“Keep Your Eye on the Ball”– A refutation of one of Planned Parenthood’s responses to the videos that are being released. It points to some of the absurdities being circulated in defense of Planned Parenthood.
Should You Be Outraged with Planned Parenthood Today? (Flowchart)– A flowchart that asks whether we should still be upset with Planned Parenthood over their abortion practices.
A Voice for the Voiceless– Sarah Bessey, author of Jesus Feminist, argues that feminists ought to speak up against abortion, particularly in light of the recent videos.
Now We Know Her– A personal story about a family prepared to abort their child should any defects have been spotted. This post demonstrates some of the inconsistency in the pro-choice reasoning, but does so in a winsome and personal fashion.
Silence in the Face of Evil (Comic) – Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor who was martyred by the Nazis for his resistance, argued that silence in the face of evil was itself an act: not to act is to act. Here’s a little quote from him alongside a comic.
My Own Posts
Whose Body Parts Are They?– I ask a simple question in light of the Planned Parenthood videos: whose body parts are they?
Abortion, the Violinist Analogy, and Body Parts– A common argument for the moral permissiveness of abortion is the violinist analogy. Here, I analyze that in light of the Planned Parenthood videos.
Planned Parenthood Does Much Good– I analyze the argument that Planned Parenthood does much good and whether that should matter.
This Gish Gallop of references fails in only one respect: to find out what is actually the case. Other than that minor detail, well done.
Given that the click tracking on the post hasn’t registered clicks to every link, unless you’re operating behind a proxy or something, your comment is made out of ignorance. Moreover, even if you aren’t, you say that it fails to “find out what is actually the case.”
Well, just as one example, Sarah Bessey’s post states ” I want equal pay and decent healthcare for low-income women that includes contraception and supportive partners and a wide availability of midwives and supportive birth environments and real material support for children who are differently abled in mind or body and at least a year of maternity leave and on and on and on.”
I suppose you think this is false, because you said this post did not find out what is actually the case. That kind of stinks for those women who would like equal pay and decent healthcare. But oh well, tildeb has spoken! This is not actually the case! We need no decent healthcare and equal pay, says tildeb! Or maybe you didn’t actually read the posts… maybe, shockingly, people with whom you disagree might have something worth saying!
The FAQs post states: “Senator McConnell supported the legislation and even co-sponsored the bill. So why did he vote against it? Because under Senate procedure, when a cloture motion to proceed to the measure fails to pass with the required 60 votes, the Majority Leader may switch his ‘yes’ vote to ‘no,’ which allows him bring it up for reconsideration at a future time.”
I suppose you think that this is actually not how the law works, given that you said this post did not find out what is actually the case.
The list could continue. But hey, why bother to interact with those with whom you disagree in an honest fashion, right?
I disagree with that, but that seems to be your modus operandi. Oh well.
Remember: no comments in which you refuse to use self-designations will be approved. You’ve been given that warning before. I expect people to say “pro-choice” and I expect you to use “pro-life.” If you can’t be civil, then you will not be allowed to comment.
The problem with that rule, JW, is that it is a justification for these groups to be presented dishonestly. The term ‘pro’ means ‘for’. So those against ‘pro’ must against ‘for’… an antonym quite properly defined as ‘anti’. This is dishonest in that those of us who understand the vital component to health care that is abortion are not ‘anti’ life whatsoever but very much ‘pro’ life. Oops, that’s already been co-opted by those who do not understand why a vital component to health care is abortion services. This co-opting is intentional. And you’re supporting it.
Using the same reasoning, pro-choice means those who disagree with abortion services on moral grounds must be ‘anti’- choice, right? Hey… that’s EXACTLY what we find in practice by those who want to disallow women and their doctors from being able to exercise choice in reproductive health care services that include abortion as one of many choices!
You see, JW, you can’t have it both ways. Either speak truth to power or do not. There is no middle ground. And your rule in place here is meant to allow this gross linguistic distortion and deception to stand… as if that’s the moral thing to uphold.
It is moral to allow people to self-designate rather than to assign labels to them. When you choose to re-designate people, you are participating in a type of colonializing that includes wielding power over the “other.” I will not allow that to stand.
That rule is going to stand and you will either follow it or your comments will not be approved.
This is not a matter of debate. People’s self-designations will be allowed on this site, even if I disagree with them. The only exception would be if they were crude [edit: at my discretion- of course people could try to make up some ridiculous self-designations to spam my site and that would not be allowed either]. Comments made on this site will reflect that or be deleted or edited.
And, again, it seems that we have no reason to think that the initial comment was made from a position other than ignorance. Presumably, you would agree that women need decent healthcare. Ergo, you do not actually think that these posts are all mistaken. The red herring attempts were interesting, but given that you do agree on equal pay and decent healthcare, you minimally disagree with your original statement.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging and commented:
Thank you for sharing!
You’re very welcome J.W.!
I shared this on Facebook.
This is a very superb round up. Best one in my opinion. Thanks.
Now we start to get to the truth of the matter. I’m sure this will show up in the next edition of Really Recommended Posts along with this little ‘debatable’ article.
No, I don’t think I will, considering that the allegations of “editing” are a bit slanted (and before you talk about bias, let’s not forget that the “investigators” who found these videos were edited not only admitted that the analysis “did not reveal widespread evidence of substantial video manipulation” but were paid by PP). Also the “yuck factor/ick factor” argument is terrible. I actually linked a response to it in this very post–further proof that you probably didn’t even bother to look at the posts (but why should you? reading the other side might be dangerous). I like the scare quotes around “debatable,” as if moral issues written about at one .org site are suddenly no longer debatable. Good touch.
Finally, even if the videos are edited, mangled, made up (which they’re not, as PP’s own investigators found), that doesn’t begin to respond to this slew of posts, most of which don’t in any way rely upon the PP videos to make their points against abortion.
But again, we’ve already pretty much established you didn’t bother to look at any of these posts (as noted through the click tracking and clear ignorance of the content of the posts themselves). Why should you, after all? Being disingenuous is the modus operandi, I have found, in your comments.
You’re right; I didn’t go through this gish gallop. I stated that up front. I began researching the issue and not jumping to the conclusion I want to find – just like the state boards have done. Guess what? I found – just like the ALL state boards to date have found – that these videos are intentionally dishonest and its producers funded and committed to vilifying PP for religious reasons repackaged as if a ‘moral’ issue… not by telling the truth (no matter how many linked sites you want to offer in support of your aims here to go along with this vilification) but by disseminating this kind of ‘journalistic’ garbage.
That is why when I researched the video – as any good skeptic should do who wishes to find out what’s actually the case (PP is selling baby parts for profit!!!) – I quickly realized that it clearly paints a false picture admittedly intended to inflame those who already presume that abortion services are a disreputable moral issue (where anti-abortion advocates assume they hold the moral high ground by divine fiat) than what they really are in truth: services that are an essential component to women’s health care and that sometimes advances human knowledge in medicine by working with fetal tissue.
Calling me disingenuous for not checking out each link in this gish gallop is laughable but not nearly as funny as calling the New England Journal of Medicine just another “.org” site. I’m glad you feel so confident in your medical acumen to be so ready to dismiss certainly one of the premier influential medical journals on the plant. I don’t have nearly that level of confidence in my own knowledge (but who need knowledge when one has religious belief to fill in the gaps, eh?).
You’re right, I did err in my judgment of the prestigious nature of the site you linked. My apologies. I did, however, read the link (unlike you, who, rather than reading those shared here and just dismissed them wholesale as lies, even when several don’t even reference the PP videos!). I am not a consequentialist, and I do not think the ends justify the means. The article relies almost entirely on this metaethical framework to make its point. A similar debate over whether we should use Nazi research has also taken place. I do not think one expert opinion somehow settles the debate. Nor should you.
However, I do also have to comment on the tone of your comments. You have continually gotten to be more insulting and–yes–demeaning in the way you address me and others here. Your last parenthetical remark is clear evidence of this fact. I’ve allowed a lot of this to slide over the years here, but it’s gotten to be too much. You’re not in here to engage (as you admit, you’re not even willing to read what is written about here!), so I’m not sure why you are here commenting. I was hoping for good dialogue, but what I have is insults, not something you can deny doing. I have asked for courtesy and not received it. Unless and until you can demonstrate an actual interest in dialogue and completely refrain from insults, your comments will no longer be approved here.
You say you value other life, but the only thing you do here is demean others who do not share your beliefs. I’m not going to tolerate it any more. Your final comment here was rude and mean-spirited. I hope that you can come to change that in the future, but after years of interaction, you still see me as nothing but an idiot, apparently. That does sadden me, but it also indicates that you’ve not engaged in a spirit of mutual respect and understanding. I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the point to enduring these snide remarks any more.