Pixel Tracker

Saturday, March 23 , 2019, 8:08 pm | Partly Cloudy 61º


Mona Charen: The Core Dishonesty of Abortion Defenders

For decades, I believed that displaying grisly photographs of aborted babies was the wrong way to make the pro-life case. Disturbing images, I thought, would only repel viewers, not persuade them. I now think I was wrong.

There are many ways to make an argument. The Center for Medical Progress has demonstrated that a 2x4 has its uses.

These videos, precisely because they are graphic, shatter the complacency and denial that are essential for a regime of mass violence to proceed. They undermine the reassuring fiction that birth is a bright moral line.

Five seconds before the baby emerges, it has no moral worth. Five seconds after — all moral worth. That is untenable logically and pitiless psychologically. 

No one who has a passing familiarity with man's inhumanity to man can be completely surprised that people who consider themselves humane can pull bags of body parts out of the freezer and pick through hands, eyes, lungs and hearts on a light tray. 

As the footage was released, defenders of Planned Parenthood rushed to explain that many medical procedures are grisly.

Writing in The New Republic, Dr. Jen Gunter protests, "These are not 'baby parts.' Whether a woman has a miscarriage or an abortion, the tissue specimen is called 'products of conception.'"

Oh. If they're not baby parts, why are they valuable for research and sale?

CNN's Errol Louis insisted, "Most of us would freak out if we listened to professionals ... discuss details of how a dying person's request to have their body parts donated ... actually gets carried out."

No, we wouldn't. It isn't the gore that causes us to recoil; it's the intentional killing. It's knowing that if the abortionist's hand were stayed for just a few more weeks, that child could live out his whole life.

Following the release of the first video, Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, blindsided and unaware of what was still to come, apologized for Dr. Deborah Nucatola's tone.

Nucatola is the director of medical services who spoke of "less crunchy" techniques and getting intact "calvariums" (heads) and other organs.

Euphemisms are as critical to Planned Parenthood's work as forceps, and as the other videos are demonstrating, pretty much everyone in that business adopts the same breezy tone about "products of conception."

They are so callous that they don't recognize the gut-punch impact of a clinic worker casually noting that one of the samples was "a twin" or "a boy."

Another key fiction these videos retire definitively is that second-trimester abortions are vanishingly rare. As a Planned Parenthood employee assures the filmmakers, one clinic alone does 40 to 50 "procedures" (euphemism again) per month on 16- to 22-week-old fetuses. 

At 23 weeks gestation, according to the March of Dimes Foundation, the chances of survival outside the womb are about 17 percent.

By 26 weeks, the chances are 80 percent. Just three weeks' difference.

When a pregnancy ends in miscarriage after 20 weeks, many states require a fetal death certificate. These rules do not apply when the death is intentional. Strange.

The most hardened abortion supporter (and we see that they are very hard) agrees that when the mother or both parents of a "product of conception" want that "product," the loss of a pregnancy is a tragedy.

Who would be so cruel as to deny that the parents of a 23-week-old baby should have a funeral and burial if they request it? 

The logic of Planned Parenthood is that human dignity and membership in the human family is completely contingent on the feelings of others, specifically mothers. Never mind that millions of couples wait impatiently for the chance to adopt infants. (There are even waiting lists to adopt Down syndrome children.)

Well, reply the abortion absolutists, such as the Sexual Health and Reproductive Justice group, adoption is not a "universal alternative" to abortion. Some women who place their babies for adoption do so with a "heavy heart."

Yes, and some women who have abortions grieve for years. But subjective feelings are irrelevant to human decency.

People who care for parents suffering from Alzheimer's and other disabilities also have mixed feelings. They would not be human if they didn't sometimes wish for the ordeal to come to a rapid end.

Such feelings, however intense they may be, do not justify violence.

Planned Parenthood's defenders, including Hillary Clinton, stand exposed for their radicalism and evasion. Abortion, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren put it last week, is "the most difficult decision a woman will make in her entire life."

There's the core dishonesty: If it's a "product of conception" and not a baby, why is it so difficult?

Mona Charen is a columnist with National Review magazine. Click here to contact her, follow her on Twitter: @mcharen, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today!

Our professional journalists work tirelessly to report on local news so you can be more informed and engaged in your community. This quality, local reporting is free for you to read and share, but it's not free to produce.

You count on us to deliver timely, relevant local news, 24/7. Can we count on you to invest in our newsroom and help secure its future?

We provide special member benefits to show how much we appreciate your support.

I would like give...
Great! You're joining as a Red-Tailed Hawk!
  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.