I’m sure many of you reading this have noticed that there are a few recurring themes in the coverage of the Planned Parenthood fiasco. This post is an attempt to deal with those themes and show you how to respond to them. These are the major categories:
1) It’s a Hoax
2) The video was edited
3) The means were dishonest
4) Look at all the good we do, and those horrible people over there want to take that away!
There are major issues with each of these, but we’ll give examples of each, so you can see how they work.
It’s a Hoax:
You may also see ‘bogus,” “fraudulent”, or some other derogatory term applied. The key to this application is an equivocation on the synonym they choose to use. A “hoax” could mean a) something made up out of whole cloth – an invention or b) something established or accepted by means of something fraudulent, or bogus – something factual, but established by means of something dishonest. In other words, they are using the term(s) to imply that the videos are inventions – that it wasn’t really their people talking, saying what they did say, about the subjects that they were speaking of – but not actually saying so. What they aren’t going to come out and say is that the full, unedited videos – raw videos, of the entire encounters, from start to finish – have full transcripts, bolded where the shorter videos take their footage from. You can watch for yourself. Full Video 1 Full Video 2 Full Video 4 As of this posting, the full video of the 4th release had not been posted, although the transcript had been. The 3rd video was not an “undercover” video.
If these were inventions of CMP; Why would Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards apologize for the tone of Deborah Nucatola, the PP representative in the first video? Is she an invention? Is Mary Gatter an invention? Why would Cecile, again, say that the videos “entrapped doctors” – if they were fakes? If they were CGI creations, or overdubbed, with special effects used to make the mouths move, why would she bother saying these things?
UPDATE: White House press secretary on videos –
“There is ample reason to think that this is the tried-and-true tactic from some extremists on the right to edit this video and selectively release an edited version of the video that grossly distorts the position of the person who is actually speaking on the video”
Notice – this is not CGI, not overdubbing, not tampering, in regard to the originals. Watch the frame counter in the top left. Watch for skips, jumps – signs of editing. Not there. If they were, in fact, fake, would there be calls (preposterous ones) for investigation into the legality of the means by which the videos were obtained? No. They would be… fictional movies. Which have no possible question as to how they were “obtained.” Do they? You have to pick one story, or the other – you can’t have it both ways.
Of course, he also admitted to not having watched the videos – and that he was “merely repeating what has been publicly stated by Planned Parenthood.” Well, that’s nice to know. Now we know you have an utterly one-sided conception of the situation, don’t we?
If you never get around to watching the videos, and you just take people’s word on it, use of terminology such as this implies that the videos are forgeries – that they are not real. Yet, of course, they are. Many of us have watched them – and I recommend that you do, if you intend to get into discussions on this topic – because most people you talk to will not have done so. When this occurs, you can, with utmost assurance, inform your interlocutor that you have, in fact, watched the full video. Have they done so, in order to have an informed opinion? Odds are, they haven’t – and probably haven’t watched the shorter one, either.
Secondly, if these were really inventions, why on earth would someone invent them dancing around the issues, euphemistically describing processes, using double-speak platitudes, assuring the “buyers” that they would never do anything against the law, skirting the edges of the acceptable, and the like? In truth, the very arguments that they are using in the “edited” claims militate against the claims that this is a “hoax”. How hard would it be, in this day and age, to make a video that made “her” say whatever they wanted her to say? The very slippery nature of the conversation militates against it being a hoax of the sort it is being portrayed to be.
In short, this is use of deceptive language – intentional obfuscation. I used “equivocation” above, because that is an informal logical fallacy. It is one thing when your pal next door uses one. It is another thing when professional speakers or writers do so. They know very well what is fallacious, and what is not. They also know that fallacies will almost definitely succeed in persuasion when cogent argumentation will not – for enough people to make it worth their while, at least. For such people, it is an intentional deception. They know better. They do it anyway, with a particular goal in mind – to convince enough people that what they say is true to give a counter-opinion traction in society.
The Video Was Edited:
Here’s an example from Media Matters;
A deceptive video from a conservative group purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for the illegal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. But the full, unedited footage and transcript released by the group (emphasis mine) undermines their sensationalist claims, showing at least three crucial edits that reveal the Planned Parenthood official was instead discussing the reimbursement cost for consensual, legal tissue donations.
On the other hand, we have Snopes saying this:
In addition to the above-displayed video, the Center for Medical Progress also released what they claimed was an unedited version of the conversation (which other sources maintain was in fact edited).
So, which is it? The Media Matters article clearly states that the full video is unedited – and uses their transcript! Snopes says that this MM article maintains that is “was in fact edited.”
As to Media Matters’ claims, you should note several things. First, if their intent was to deceive, why release the full, unedited video, with transcript, simultaneously with the “edited” video? They did an exceptionally poor job of deception, if so. If Snopes is right, why didn’t Media Matters ever say what Snopes says it does, instead of using the “full, unedited” video transcript to “prove” their point? Media Matters claims that Nucotola’s insistence that “nobody should be “selling” tissue” means that nobody is selling tissue. Ought does not make is. The problem is, with an investigation like this, you’re not going to get someone to come right out and say what it is they are doing. Not unless they are utterly braindead. Again, if this is true, however – why is StemExpress, who is brought up in both videos by the nominal buyer, advertising profitability for partnering clinics? “Financially profitable” – “Fiscal growth.” Richards’ reply in her Sunday interview was: “That’s a for-profit company. Planned parenthood is a 100% nonprofit company.” You just completely dodged that question, Cecile. The brochure isn’t talking about their profitability – but your profitability. One of your management team is the endorsement on the flyer, too. Who else is StemExpress talking to? The “donors”? Furthermore, why does ABR inform their partners of a nominal fee – in addition to, note the word “also” – the fee for processing/preservation/shipment? The first fee is for the clinic to “enable ABR to execute its tissue acquisition and distribution programs.” This is not a fee for the latter “service.”
Again, we can read the transcript as well as anyone. We know what is being said. The problem is whether we should believe it to be the unvarnished truth passing from their lips. There is an entire discussion about the costs involved with “waste disposal”, and the merits of whether or not to buy incinerators. There is a mention of “disposal service,” and the pros and cons of such a practice – and Nucatola mentions that disposing of “everything” would be “a huge sell, a huge, huge sell.” Would that not be a financial consideration? Then, of course, there is the Lambo comment. Also, we must realize, these were not the last videos. Both professionals showed a keen awareness of their place in the fishbowl of public opinion. As such, they would naturally be wary of saying anything explictly illegal to a mere potential business associate at a first meeting. All the talk about “deceptive editing” concentrates on the “virtuous” statements that PP has no intention of breaking the law. What else would you expect to hear? When you cover politicians, do you take them at their word? If so, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona…
I hate to break it to you, but every documentary is edited. Just about every interview you see on tv is edited. John Stewart? Edited. That’s what you do with video when you want to show something in particular. If I can be even more clear – the author, and his fellow contributors here are not most interested in whether or not Planned Parenthood violated the laws that CMP say they did. What they are interested in is the utter, callous, brutal disregard for the life and humanity of the babies they murder, and arrange the murder of.
The full, unedited video of the entire exchanges were put on YouTube within 30 seconds, at most, of the edited ones. You ever see blooper reels? The unedited, without special effects video of movies, tv shows, documentaries, or the like? The “cut” footage that gets discovered years later, that everyone makes a bit deal about finding, after it being lost? In this case, they are posting the raw footage right alongside the short exchanges they consider most important.
1) The “edits” are not what have us outraged, upset, or calling for Planned Parenthood’s defunding, closure, or what have you. What has us outraged is the sheer unmitigated depravity of the Planned Parenthood representatives. It is truly sick to be talking about dismembering children over wine and salad. It is filthy and demented to joke about wanting a Lamborghini right after you say you will check to see if someone else is getting more than the quoted reimbursement – for the eviscerated leavings (acquired by “less crunchy” means) of what was formerly a living child – just like our children.
2) As I am sure you can attest, the ones MOST outraged are the ones who have watched the unedited video. Almost entirely without exception. I know, personally, because we follow a rather large percentage of the folks who have been most outraged by this issue. Contrary to the utter lack of mention by the New York Times in their fluff piece of July 22nd, lots and lots of us have watched the full version. As Jonathan Merritt puts it in his article concerning the NYT story –
The Times also claimed the video was unreliable because it was “edited.” They are correct that the full video was nearly three hours long while the edited version was only nine minutes. So what? These comments in the longer version do not invalidate those in the shorter version. While editorial board hopes to convince readers that The Center for Medical Progress was deliberately only telling part of the story, but they fail to mention that the full video was also posted online and available. So who is withholding information here? And, by the way, the full video is just as repulsive as the shorter version. In fact, it’s about two hours and 50 minutes more repulsive.
As he goes on to say, all of these pieces completely ignore the real issues that we have with the video. It addresses only the concerns that their own camp might have with the video.
The most embarrassing part of the Times article, though, is not what they say but what they do not say. The editorial board totally ignores the most disturbing content in the videos. Actually, they ignore the content of the videos almost completely. None of the quotes at the center of the outrage are discussed.
You’ll find no mention of how a Planned Parenthood doctor determines which parts of the baby to “crush” In the Times article. You won’t encounter information about how a Planned Parenthood physician discussed using a “less crunchy” technique to retrieve “whole specimens.” And you definitely won’t read about how the Planned Parenthood doctor attempted to negotiate a higher price for tissue because she claims she wanted “a Lamborghini.” These are the most damning components in the videos, but the editorial board’s article never even mention them.The Times did not merely get the Planned Parenthood story wrong; they missed it completely.
Those parts that we are upset with are *exactly the same* in the full-length videos. In fact, seeing the banality of the context and conversation surrounding such utterly horrendous description of dismembering, crushing, suctioning brains out of children just like ours – for more money than they already receive for such a filthy and disgusting murder of the most defenseless members of our society makes us about as angry as listening to Jeffery Dahmer speak in a monotone about his own murders. Yes, we put these people in the _exact_ same category as serial killers. We put Planned Parenthood in the same category as the Nazi death camps, too – except Planned Parenthood’s body count is far, far higher.
How can we we push about these allegations of “deceptively edited” videos?
First, push the basis of their claim of “deception.” What do they mean by that? The vast majority of their claims go out the airlock as soon as we note that the full raw video was released simultaneously. Were they edited? Sure. How else can you condense 2 hours of footage into an 8 or 9 minute video? Did it show the most damning portions of the conversations? Of course they did! Why else did they make the videos, and engage in this project? What we need to ask them is this: If there was intent to deceive, why did they release the full video and transcripts of the entire encounter simultaneously with this “deceptively edited” version? Why, if it is so deceptive, are reporters defending Planned Parenthood citing the transcript as if it is accurate? Again, the transcript provided by the “deceptive” editors.
Second, push the conflicting accounts from their sources. New York Times says that the full videos weren’t released until later. That is not true – and is still not corrected in their initial piece, or the following editorial – with no correction or apology issued to date. Snopes says that Media Matters says that the full videos were edited. Snopes apparently can’t read – because Media Matters says no such thing.
Third, push the spin coming out of Planned Parenthood, and point out that the “deception” involved in “editing” the comments of their own staff seems to be coming from their side. Look, when even George Stephanopolous asks the question: “When these doctor are talking about less crunchy ways to perform these abortions so that the organs can be preserved, what’s happening, are they just lying?” and Richards response is: “All of this is taken out of context.” – it’s obvious that is not an answer. She flat out evades that question. Here is the context, from the transcript.
Buyer: Definitely, yea that would be helpful. So even though you don’t have high volume, I see that their are other niches you could fill for us. Don’t you think so?
Gatter: Here is my suggestion. Write me a three of four paragraph proposal, which I will then take to Laurel and the organization to see if we want to proceed with this. And then, if we want to pursue this, mutually, I talk to Ian and see how he feels about using a “less crunchy” technique to get more whole specimens. Then, if we agree to move forward, the steps, I would need to apply for a waiver at PPFA, in order to do this, we need to have a contract, do you have a contract?
Buyer: What we’ve used in the past is a materials transfer agreement. And obviously, that’s open to discussion.
“Less crunchy” is the term Gatter uses, without prompting, in the middle of her own suggestion. It is her description of how to get more useful specimens. This is Richards’ only reply to the question actually asked. The rest of the response is a lecture about how we must obviously hate science.
Right after, and I’m not sure whether George is making a dig that she doesn’t get, or just as clueless as she is – but he prompts Richards; “As long as the procedures are never altered” – her response; “Exactly.” Now, if there is no change; what is the word “less” in Gatter’s description for?
From the transcript, again.
Buyer: The intact specimens, I wanted to touch on that. What I was trying to say is if the 10 to 12 week specimens, end of the 1st trimester, if those are pretty intact specimens, that’s something we can work with.
Gatter: So that’s an interesting concept. Let me explain to you a little bit of a problem, which may not be a big problem, if our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to using an IPAS or something with less suction, and increase the odds that it will come out as an intact specimen, then we’re kind of violating the protocol that says to the patient,“We’re not doing anything different in our care of you.” Now to me, that’s kind of a specious little argument and I wouldn’t object to asking Ian, who’s our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS at that gestational age in order to increase the odds that he’s going to get an intact specimen, but I do need to throw it out there as a concern. Because the patient is signing something and we’re signing something saying that we’re not changing anything with the way we’re managing you, just because we agree to give tissue. You’ve heard that before.
Buyer: Yes. It’s touchy. How do you feel about that?
Gatter: I think they’re both totally appropriate techniques, there’s no difference in pain involved, I don’t think the patients would care one iota. So yeah, I’m not making a fuss about that.
So, whether or not Gatter thinks the argument is specious – are the procedures altered? Gatter says yes, but that it doesn’t matter, in a pragmatic sense. Richards says no, absolutely nothing changes – and then throws a bunch of dust in the air. Hmm. Who is editing what?
How can we push them on their own moral ambiguity?
First, stress that there is a legal concern, and a moral concern. The legal concern is not the primary moral concern. It is ancillary to the moral concern. It would not, could not be a concern apart from the primary moral concern. That moral concern is what brought us all out swinging, so to speak.
Second, stress that their questionable use of “deceptive” is a very thin straw to hang their whole case on. It is by no means obvious that the repeated assertion that Planned Parenthood is uninterested in profiting from, “tissue” that is donated to it has anything to do with whether they are selling it, and just investing the dividends in their own company, or employees – which a non-profit can do, and still not be a for-profit concern. That thought makes the Lambo comment a bit more pointed, doesn’t it? Ignoring the counter-arguments made to demonstrate that there is financial gain involved by insisting that you are a non-profit only looks evasive. Freely acknowledge that there are ambiguities in the discussion- by the very nature of the discussion involved – but that such ambiguities do not lie squarely in our laps, but need to be thoroughly investigated. After all, a politician will always insist that he’s only accepting campaign contributions even when his vote is being bought – won’t he?
Third, stress the discontinuity between consensual donation of your own tissue vs. the donation of someone else’s tissue. Yes, they will complain about “begging the question” – but that merely opens them up to a return charge, on exactly the same grounds. We aren’t talking about two-headed, four-legged women here. It must also be discussed that part of the law they are so busily engaged in saying Planned Parenthood didn’t violate is to ensure that women don’t have babies specifically to “donate” them. The law itself says that it is illegal to “solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue.” (42 U.S. Code § 289g–2) If this is the case, what are the implications for the fetus-is-part-of-the-woman argument? Explore them.
Fourth, don’t concede the euphemisms. Their entire virtuous certainty about the rightness of their cause is enveloped in their ability to use euphemisms for each and every stage of the murder and dismemberment of a human being. What the fourth video did is blow the lid off of the people they are claiming to “protect” – the workers in the clinic use the terms baby, boy, etc. In other words, the only ones duped by these euphemisms are the supporters of Planned Parenthood. Scientists don’t use those terms, medical professionals don’t use those terms, and neither do the abortionists, while working at their grisly trade. They will get upset, but I’m not really overly sympathetic to objections on those grounds. Take care not to be needlessly combative if you learn that they are themselves the living victim of an abortion – but also keep in mind that they had their own child killed. God forgives even murderers – but they have to admit they are murderers, and repent.
The Means Were Dishonest:
So were Rahab’s. So were Moses’ and Joshua’s, for that matter. So were the Hebrew midwives’. So were Samuel’s. So were Jesus’ – twice. So were Nathan’s. The Village Atheist, at this point, is going to be screaming YESSSSSSSSS! At the top of his lungs, no doubt. However, as we know, they have the exegetical skills of mouldering jello – so we will leave them to their celebratory interpretive dance, while we talk about the real issue at hand.
Richards said, and I quote here, I’m not making thus up, that “the most disgusting the part of this to me is these folks lied, lied to gain access to clinics, you know, what doctors and clinicians face to actually provide health care to women in this country is already pretty incredible.” Yes, because, of course, it’s really a right-wing conspiracy to deprive people of pap smears. Because we hate women. Obviously. Despite a goodly percentage of the people up in arms at her right now being women. What she can’t say, and won’t say, is that she very well knows precisely why they engaged in such subterfuge. Because we think they are genocidal monsters who slaughter children like Hitler slaughtered Jews – and call it healthcare – precisely so that they can lump it in with their sideline of legitimate “health care for women” – and call us all mean names for it. We get it. Thanks. Got the memo.
Further, challenge them on this sudden concern for the morality of the means involved. They didn’t seem to care about the morality of a Kermit Gosnell, who pickled baby’s feet as trophies – they weren’t concerned about the “extreme violation of patient privacy” inherent in retention of “post-abortion fetal tissue neither patients nor health care professionals authorized” then, were they? Furthermore, the entire issue is hidden behind Orwellian Newspeak so impenetrable that it ceases to be meaningful language. For instance, Richards believes that: “every woman needs to make their own decision” about when life begins. “For me, life began when I delivered them.” Again and again I have seen people, with no citations whatsoever, deride our counter to that as “anti-science”. Really?
See that? The first two are textbooks. The last one is a hostile ethicist, who argues that post-partum infanticide is equally ethical. “Human” is short for “human being”. It is an ontological category, as can be discerned from the word “being”. We don’t say, however, that we are “having a fetus”, as Joe Carter bitingly suggests Planned Parenthood supporters do, for the sake of consistency. They say, of course, “we’re having a baby.” Why, if the child is unwanted, does that child’s status suddenly become unclear? Are ontological categories suddenly subjectivistic? I thought our world was thoroughgoingly materialistic? It happens because this materialism that the world is so proud to display goes utterly by the board when it comes to any subject which is inconvenient for their materialism. Then, we switch categories to something that is a “personal choice”. Of course, challenges to that “personal choice” mysteriously become… anti-science. Imagine that. Pay no attention to the immaterialist behind the curtain, Dorothy.
For further reading, two important posts: Spies and Lies and The Ethics of Righteous Video Sting Operations
Challenge them about their ethical priorities. There is an absolute antithesis between our moral codes in view, at this precise point.
First example: As the LA Times points out, there is a huge outcry over the trophy hunting of an African lion named Cecil – simultaneous with the (primarily) Judeo-Christian outrage over selling baby parts. I’m sure you have seen comparisons posted everywhere. While the LA Times author sees a point to compromise on here – it is because he doesn’t know why, exactly, we’re outraged. To some extent, that is because most secularists tend to read the more politicized (and therefore, in general, less theological) sources on the “right.” Another reason is that we often don’t express theological tenets in ways that “outsiders” understand to be such. Our shorthand references are, in many ways, a mystery to them. Also, sadly, many simply don’t ever express their theological principles – or don’t have them. They are just “politically” conservative. The reasons could be multiplied. This article, however, is written with Christians, and specifically, apologetically minded Christians in mind.
What the LA Times article didn’t cover is that while many of us would disagree about the merits of trophy hunting for sport – this author is not particularly exercised about it either way – we would, for the most part, be disgusted at the virtual depopulation of the African elephant for ivory. It is a waste, and very commonly cruel, besides. Also pertinent is the name of one of the founders of the RSPCA – the original SPCA chapter – William Wilberforce. That name is important, because he was also one of the leaders of the movement for English Abolition of slavery. We dislike cruelty to animals – first, because they are God’s. We are only caretakers. Secondly, because we were created to care for them!
“For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine.” – Psa 50:10-11
Or consider this:
“A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal, But [even] the compassion of the wicked is cruel.” – Pro 12:10
On the other hand, there is a very direct comparison made – by Jesus Himself.
“Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they?” – Mat 6:26
We answered the way we did because: a single lion, no matter how badly killed, is not worth as much as a child is, let alone 330,000 of them a year.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made man.” – Gen 9:6
This is not to say that we should have no concern for lions, or forests, or whales, or any number of other areas of our fallen world – but that our chief concern is about those created in the image of God – in Latin, the Imago Dei.
Second Example: Accusations of taking “rights” away from women – coupled with “healthcare” are excellent indicators of where we are mutually opposed. Abortion – the murder of a human child in the womb – is something that Christians, and the Jews before them, everywhere, always, have opposed. We opposed it in Rome, we opposed infanticide there, the Scripture was implacable against the deeds of Molech worshippers, who sacrificed their firstborn children in fires. The replies you will get, when you bring this up, will be the typical EvilBible retorts. Be ready for them. However, in addition to that, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what an unborn baby is. Not only that, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what rights are. Further, they have been conditioned to feel an almost superstitious reverence for the “proper” term for something – as long as they were told that this term was “proper” by someone in authority. Lastly, they have been conditioned to believe a number of preposterous things about what makes something moral, or ethical.
When someone tells you, with a straight face, that a 17 week old baby is a “clump of cells” – they haven’t watched these videos. They haven’t looked at any previous pictures of aborted – or living babies of that age. They haven’t studied even the most rudimentary embryology. They haven’t studied the most basic ontology. Or they are inveterate liars – or so self-deceived that it beggars the imagination. They are telling you, at that very moment, that they are 1) Lying through their teeth about the subject or 2) Utterly self-deceived, and suppressing that knowledge 3) Utterly pig-ignorant of any relevant field of study. In a word, they are liars, self-contradictory, or ignorant.
Know how to reply to each sort. For a liar, cite the medical journals. Make it abundantly clear that they are only in this conversation to justify themselves, and have no interest in the truth. This conversation, on your part, is likely for the sake of the person watching you both. Push them to inconsistency until they break. For the inconsistent, push them until they won’t hear any more, or admit that they need to be consistent. Then teach. For the ignorant – teach. The ignorant can be just as nasty – sometimes more so – and sometimes you have to rap their knuckles to get their attention – but once you do, and they are listening, teach.
All of the remaining three issues, at base, are really about subjectivism. They most likely won’t know that they are – but you should. Are rights objective – or are they subjective? (At this point, you will likely have to correct misapprehensions about what “objective means” – because nobody reads anymore.) Do they realize that Exo 21:22-23 are about the rights of the unborn? If you don’t, you should! So should they. You aren’t saying anything we have always said. This new “right” to murder children is nothing new – remember Molech, or Rome – but it is certainly not something our society has considered a right. Where do “rights” come from, anyway? Push that back.
Are words objective, or subjective? What “makes” the phrase “product of conception” superior to “baby”? To “fetus”? To “clump of cells”? To “tissue”? Do they even know? Probably not. Should you? You betcha. Subjectivity in language is something that none of them actually believe, however. They expect you to understand them, don’t they? It isn’t about the “facts” – as some neutral, depends on how you think about it subjective gobbledygook. It is about the meaning of the facts. They say that “the facts” mean one thing. We say they mean another. Why? Because they adhere to a particular subjective standard. They will say that it is objective – but people say a lot of things. Appealing to science, when it doesn’t agree with you in the slightest, and then turning around and appealing to personal experience – or someone else’s – when that doesn’t work, is nothing but a cadge. An evasion. It is a shell game. The euphemisms are intended to sound medical – but as soon as they are pushed to absurdity, the conversation turns to their subjective understanding. Push those, and unmask the contradiction.
Lastly, who determines what is right? What is moral about killing babies? If they object, ask them why it’s wrong to say babies, or killing? Pay attention to their web of appeals – because that will give you the strings to pull to get down to the next level of their worldview – and pull those strings again, and see where they go. For many, they were simply told that this was how things are. Unborn babies are clumps of cells, who feel no pain, who aren’t really human, can’t be a person, and whom (note how language works – properly, you have to use a personal pronoun there – interesting, isn’t it?) are not really alive unless and, until, they deem it so. Notice the staggering amount of claims involved, and how many things they are simply assuming – with no reason whatsoever to do so. Push that. Hard. Every time they appeal to science says, remind them that science is not a monolith – which scientist says? Counter the claim. Fact, meaning of the fact. Be relentless – in love, and in patience, but do not relent. This article is prohibitively long – and I hope to do some more specific responses in the near future – but this is at least a comprehensive overview of the current apologetics issues. Don’t be afraid to dig in. Also don’t be afraid to ask us, or any other knowledgeable Christian on this issue. For many of us, we’ve waited for decades for an opportunity like this, If you want to be engaged, we will do all we can to help.
Look at all the good we do, and those horrible people over there want to take that away!
Item the first – like what? Yes, yes, they are going to shoot us all their little factoids. Cozy little sound bytes about “healthcare for women!”. The problem is, they provide almost nothing in the way of “healthcare” that any other medical professional would consider as such.
Let’s be very clear here. What Planned Parenthood, and those like them, are primarily engaged in is genocide on a massive scale; and where 94% of their pregnancy-related contacts end up with abortions. As a recent ACLJ article noted;
According to Planned Parenthood’s own reporting, we know that they perform 327,653 abortions per year. We can also estimate that they provide services to roughly 4,000 prenatal clients and make only 1,880 adoption referrals per year. When approximately 327,000 of 333,000 pregnant mothers are funneled into abortions, it’s not difficult to determine the business model of Planned Parenthood.
Look, we know that they have a sideline, to make them look like something other than mass-market butchers. We also know that they pad those numbers artificially in order to make it seem like their sideline is the bottom line. The problem is, they ARE mass-market butchers – and as long as they are, hiding behind their sideline to cover over the genuine bottom line doesn’t work. Without the 500 pound gorilla in their business model, they are a peanuts clinic chain that offers very little. Something that any other clinic chain can replace – and one that any other clinic chain should replace, with non-murderous options. In fact, if I may be so bold? That needs to be in our top 5 priorities in this discussion.
What is dishonest is all the smokescreens being thrown up about “denying healthcare to women” – as if the ripple in genuine healthcare would be even noticed. As an article that Planned Parenthood so conveniently (in our opinion) RTd today reveals, 8 of 10 visits to Planned Parenthood involved contraceptives (including abortifacients, of course, given their perverse stance on the topic) – not “healthcare” in any meaningful sense.
Anyone who thinks defunding #PlannedParenthood would change abortion stats is right: the rate would go up: http://t.co/I0cKC1DRoi
— The Economist (@TheEconomist) July 30, 2015
However, let’s pull their fangs. Offer an alternative they can’t deny – genuine women’s health clinics that actually… minister to women’s health, exactly the thing they are screaming about the potential loss of. They already exist in many, if not most, of the areas they imply that they are the sole healthcare provider to. Let’s work on getting that word out, doing healthcare the right way – the real way – and doing it better than they do, as anyone must be able to. Support local clinics, ones who won’t kill babies, will provide healthcare to women, and will connect them to help and services for themselves and their children.
Oh, and if you still aren’t convinced? Here are a bevy of alternative options. Another. Another. Another.
CPCs have one thing in common that Planned Parenthood lacks: a choice architecture that really gives women options, good choices, and doesn’t use our tax dollars to ensure that 94 percent of pregnancy-related contact results in an abortion, as it currently does under the direction of Cecile Richards.
Don’t let these claims fool you. Push back on them. Don’t let them get away with the “big lie” routine. Planned Parenthood knows it is lying. You should inform their supporters, too. Show the alternatives. Take apart their infographics. They don’t have anything that will stand up under scrutiny. Push that right back at them and show how utterly incredulous they have been to believe such a bunch of nonsense.
Planned Parenthood, and their supporters, have precisely nothing in their defense right now. Nothing whatsoever. They have a whole lot of experience at making things look the way they want them to look – but the mask was ripped off. Keep them running, keep them on the defensive, and show their pack of lies to be precisely what it is. This is something we all have to keep at, have to keep momentum going on. The Big Lie only works if there is nobody to oppose it vigorously and comprehensively. We must understand that we are dealing with an entire nation of self-deceived people. An entire nation of people illiterate about the most basic fundamentals of the human condition. We must teach as much as we refute. We must strongly condemn this atrocity, while speaking that truth of condemnation in love. His grace is sufficient for us. He will give us the words to say, when the time comes. In the meantime, get ready, and always be ready to give a defense for the faith – and a defense for the defenseless.
3 responses to “Refuting The Priests of Molech”
[…] help in refuting defenses of Planned Parenthood and critiques of the videos, go here. It addresses the four categories of allegations: (1) it’s a hoax; (2) the videos are edited; (3) […]
[…] themselves before going on an all-out selective information onslaught (treatments of that here and here), demeaning the source of the revelations without approaching the root of the issue. So […]
[…] Hats (an apologetics site) has a lengthy article pointing out the fallacies of four common arguments given in support of Planned Parenthood and some […]