Wednesday, July 15, 2015

"The Wine-Sipping Butchers of Planned Parenthood"

That's Michelle Malkin's reaction to the video released yesterday of a Planned Parenthood representative casually (or, more accurately, callously) discussing how babies can be crushed in the womb in different ways in order to 'salvage' their internal organs for later use.  Here's an excerpt.

Hollywood couldn't conjure monsters this chillingly, banally evil.

. . .

This master of murderous euphemism repeatedly referred to an unborn baby's head as a "calvarium" and casually described the tricks and techniques she and her fellow abortionists use to "increase your chance of success." Rotating the babies so they are delivered breech before being mutilated and slaughtered by the practitioners of Planned Butcherhood works fabulously, in case you were wondering.

Pausing only to swig more luxury libations from her jumbo wine glass, the loquacious death doc explained to investigators posing as fetal tissue company executives how her "providers" use "ultrasound guidance" to target the coveted body parts -- "so they'll know where they're putting their forceps."

In a singsong recitation, this lettuce-chomping Mengele in a silk tank top detailed how the "providers" use ultrasound to become "cognizant of where you put your graspers."

This method is not employed to reduce the pain and suffering of unborn baby and mother, mind you. It's to get "good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that -- so I'm not gonna crush that part. I'm going to basically crush below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

Think about that. Planned Parenthood has officially declared it "torture" for women to see their unborn children through ultrasound before submitting to abortion. The billion-dollar abortion industry has lobbied vociferously against increasing ultrasound access to pregnant women on the fence about abortion.

But when the same imaging technology is used to help Planned Butcherhood's "providers" place their forceps strategically to protect their precious organ commodities, it's invaluable "guidance."

Now you know if you didn't already or if you were in abject denial. Planned Parenthood's fetish for late-term abortion stems not from compassion for mothers, but from the cold-blooded drive to drum up cold, hard cash. The practice has continued for at least 15 years, when Planned Parenthood's human harvesters in Kansas were first uncovered.

. . .

When you've recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to "bless" them?

God help us.

There's more at the link.

Let's be quite clear what this is all about.  It's the deliberate, judicially-sanctioned killing of helpless human beings (and don't tell me babies in the womb aren't human - if you leave them alone, out pops a human being at the end of nine months, which settles all the arguments, thank you very much), and the soul-chilling lack of compassion that sanctions the harvesting of their internal organs in the process.  The whole 'industry' is so vile it's a stench in the nostrils of all that is decent, and must surely cry to God for vengeance.

By sanctioning this . . . by tolerating this . . . we call down Divine justice upon ourselves.  I can't think of any other way to put it.  All the problems of our society, all our economic and social and political woes, in the end can be ascribed, at their root, to our callous inhumanity towards and disregard for each other, particularly the most innocent and most defenseless among us.  Evil begets evil.  Our society is a reflection of that, right now.

God help us, indeed.



Able said...

Remember too that this is an industry run by women, for women. The children (much like in the euphemistically called 'family' courts) count for nothing.

You have Planned Parenthood, we here have the NHS' Womens Health Departments (notice again no even vague mention of children or babies in their priorities).

As a student nurse (a second career after the military) I was required to assist in this department as part of my training. To stand and watch whilst a production line of babies (for they were nothing less than that, premature, often very, but all viable) were unceremoniously dumped into a bucket in the sluice for later [officially] disposal with the medical waste [unofficially] sold to a research company for big bucks by the management of the unit. I refused to continue and … 'I' was viewed and presented as a monster (almost facing dismissal). Remember also, rather than being some last-ditch, emergency procedure, the 'ladies' who use this procedure do so by choice, repeatedly, as an alternative contraceptive method – one woman was there for the fourteenth time, and only 28. (I wont mention that they were stationed in ward beds alternating with mothers undergoing fertility treatment by the same unit as that seems almost unbelievable doesn't it? Even if true).

Like you I have fought and bled for my country. Have seen (and may The Lord forgive me, done) some terrible things, and yet as bad as some were, that still ranks amongst them as an example of just how inhuman people can be.

I've said it before but, I believe some of the most selfish and inhuman of us are women (all no, but a vast majority). Look at dating sites (yes, I know, I was desperate) and see how consistently women describe themselves as “a single mother with x children WHICH live with me” (the men consistently use who live with). To women, the majority(?), children are things, property (often an inconvenience, often used for gain for the mothers benefit, almost always used as weapons against the father) – and we allow them to unilaterally decide the fate of those children too.

There are many aspects of modern culture I despair about, but again like you, I suspect the very worst is the blasé, cavalier, callous and financially lucrative abortion industry.

The one saving grace, if it can be considered that, is that the majority have never known (both intentionally being excluded/misinformed, and wilfully refusing to see, choosing to remain ignorant) of the horrors that occur (the 'mothers' especially insistent that they never learn what the baby they allow to be/conspire to be killed really looks like, or what actually happens to it in case they are made to feel uncomfortable). Maybe this will open the eyes of some – but to be honest I suspect/fear not, most will end up ignoring the uncomfortable truth (especially the women since it would interfere with the current me/mine feminist dogma, requires the acceptance of consequences and responsibility and may interfere with thier career/socila lives).

In a sane world Sangar and all her followers would be reviled as worse than Mengele (how many millions have they murdered, tortured and experimented on?). Malkin and her ilk would be hunted and hanged from a lamppost (no not a threat, nice Mr NSA). It is a shame so immense on our culture I'm surprised that God doesn't wipe us out as lost cause (Sodom and Gomorrah were bastions of morality in comparison to the modern west).

But what do I know, I’m only a man, so I'm not allowed an opinion.

Bob said...

You know, we used to take monsters like this woman out and hung them to the nearest tree or lamppost.

I suspect her "friends" will not long miss her when she's gone.

m4 said...

Actually Peter, it's entirely possible for the thing to come out at the end of a pregnancy to be a corpse and a death sentence for the mother.

My personal view on this... I consider abortion to be an unfortunate necessity, which should not be taken lightly and all involved parties should have, and be treated with, a little respect. Despite what abortion supporters will usually tell you, it is a lot like killing people. Killing people in itself is not evil (though it is contrary to The 10 Commandments is my memory serves, but then a lot of killing has been done in the name of God, let alone by men of God). Killing for pleasure (whether for pleasure of killing, or pleasure of profit from killing) should be frowned upon in civilised society (and yet revenge is glorified at every turn). Thus my personal objection to this is not what they do, but their attitude towards it: No respect for the parents, and no respect for the unborn child. No respect for the law either, it seems, but that's a matter for the courts and not for me to judge.

So yes, there should be some outrage here. An abortion should be a solemn affair, not a business transaction.

As for the practice of using the remains after termination... I think I'd be more ok with it if it was a transparent process, didn't involve the commercial trade of human parts and human remains, and was being used to save the lives of unborn, early, or very young babies. My reasons for this are thus: Maintaining the aforementioned respect for all parties (and in that I do include the unborn), ensuring that actions in the process (be it the choice being made or the abortion being performed) are not driven by greed. Maybe one day we'd be able to save mothers and their children from the unpleasant choice of abortion or a near-guaranteed death for both.

I'm probably going to catch some flak for holding this view, but my view is more of a practical one than a spiritual or religious one. And you know what? I think that anyone who views or treats children (born or otherwise) primarily as a resource, or an inconvenience, has something seriously wrong with them. On the plus side, because I see untimely death as a necessity instead of an evil, I get to wish these people dead without being a hypocrite.

Pascal Fervor said...

I appreciate you position on this Peter. Certainly your verdict on our societal condition right now has a good deal to do with us no longer hearing the phrase "the sanctity of human life."

Once was, law was written well centered on that phrase. Today it should be clear that there can be no official recognition of the sanctity of human life where God has been outlawed. It does not matter that His proscription hasn’t officially been recorded yet. It’s being accomplished, incrementally, in bits and pieces, as in the delivery of aborted baby body parts.

Anonymous said...

I couldn't watch the video, I'm trying to keep my blood pressure down.

I would put the noose around these people's necks and pull the lever and sleep the sleep of the just that night. The majority of abortions are carried out not because of a threat to the mother's health but because the baby would be inconvenient to her and/or the father. The parent(s) would be embarrassed, diverted off a desired career path, face marital strife and have to be responsible for their actions. None of those reasons are morally justified to end the life of another human being.

To compound the evil, the 'healers' who are performing the executions are then selling the remains of the innocent.


STxAR said...

In the Old Testament, God allowed Israel's enemies to defeat them, He kept rain off the crops, allowed pestilence, famine and fear to prevail for the same practices.

Where is the difference in abortion and child sacrifice (Molech in the OT)? Should we expect Him to treat us differently than OT Israel?

Sin is a reproach to any people. California drought, debt, morons in authority, the upside down legal system in the US: I figure is His way of saying, "If that's what you want, okay. Consequences come with that."

If the people who are called by His name would humble themselves and pray...... IF.

Able said...


I ... respectfully … disagree with one point of your belief.

As a nurse and a midwife, whilst your statement that “ … it's entirely possible for the thing to come out at the end of a pregnancy to be a corpse and a death sentence for the mother” is essentially true, it is in fact so rare an occurrence that to be used as a rationale for the mass killing of babies borders on obscene. (The vast majority of pregnancies proceed without any incident, can, should and away from The US [and especially Hollywood fantasies] are managed by a midwife, most hospital admissions related to pregnancy are entirely for the litigation fearing medical establishment only [ditto C-sections, inductions in spades]. Whilst miscarriages and stillbirths do occur, the former usually occurs in the first trimester and the latter is so rare as in 10 years I have never witnessed or even heard of one in my county. Premature births do occur, rarely [when not induced for often spurious 'medical' reasons] but babies from 20 weeks regularly survive [in a piddly little rural hospital, not some high-tech city marvel full of elite experts] with care. Facts!).

Here in the UK, the 'excuse' used is that abortion must be allowed for all so as to prevent the unwanted children as a result of rape and/or incest. So, yet again, literally millions of babies are killed because of a spurious claimed event that is so rare as to be statistically irrelevant (the proponents here have been asked repeatedly for a single example of their 'excuse', with over forty years of data, they have yet to find/cite a single one). Their fall-back claim that women are left destitute and suicidal by an unwanted pregnancy (a la C18 street waifs) is wholly untrue since women are, many times, better off with all the housing, welfare and support they access with a child (often the self-same women who previously had multiple abortions here are those who then line up for free housing/benefits rather than work by 'becoming' pregnant at will).

The fact remains that essentially since the seventies 'no woman [other than the vanishingly rare rape/incest victims] has become pregnant except by ignorance, laziness or deliberate choice'. The universal, cheap (or here free) availability of a myriad of contraceptive options has made that so.

I, giving the benefit of the doubt, question your use of the word “things”. I'd suggest attending, or at least viewing the many videos available to see what these “things” actually look like. I'd bet you'd then agree (or at least the vast majority would) that the word is … inappropriate at the very least.

Remember, whilst all this is going on, there are literally billions being spent on ivf and fertility programs to aid those who desperately want a child. That whilst some teenage children face difficulty in adoption there is a staggering, constant and unrelieved 'demand' for the adoption of newborns and younger children, ….

Do I think, in extremis, abortions should occur? Yes, for the very very rare rape/incest victim, when a 'true' medical reasons exists (a real threat to the mothers health, and not her made-up at the moment mental health either, or the child is so 'damaged' that its life will either be non-viable or nothing but suffering). That would mean, despite the claims, they were so rare as to be notable. It is not, as you say “an unfortunate necessity” it is almost always a convenient choice, and remember all those millions of abortions are not the clean, sterile 'couple of cells' they have always claimed (and most imagined), but a a baby crushed, stabbed or lobotomised for someones profit. 'This' is the reality of the for profit 'industry'.

Anonymous said...

I agree with m4, to some degree. But the real question in my mind is: Are we finally going to take contraception seriously? Really seriously, as in, Safe, Effective, and, as opposed to ending a life, a morally superior choice? Will (or maybe CAN is the real question) the Catholic Church decide that the one is far less a sin than the other? Are we finally going to shed the idea that pregnancy is a justifiable punishment for female promiscuity? Are we going to rid ourselves of the term and idea of "promiscuity"?

Until those changes happen, Peter, abortion on demand will not disappear.


Anonymous said...

When someone says this "the commercial trade of human parts and human remains, and was being used to save the lives of unborn, early, or very young babies.",
My question is "What about this baby that has been brutally dismembered, What about his/her life? Does not their life matter before God who made them and gave them a everlasting soul?

m4 said...

@Able: I do not claim that the rare possibility of both mother and unborn child dying as a result of complications in pregnancy is an excuse to allow all abortions. Nor do I claim that abortions take place under that flag. However it is my reason (along with, as you mentioned, rape victims) for not allowing abortions to be banned.

I agree entirely that the current state of abortions is abhorrent, with people who do use it instead of contraception. I disagree however with you claim that accidental unwanted pregnancies do not happen - I do not believe that any form of contraception is 100% effective, and as a result accidents can happen. However, your point stands, and I do agree. I don't know the numbers, and in truth I don't want to know the numbers, but the number of frivolous abortions is too high, and were it my call then those would not be allowed (at the very least not on repeat visits)... As I said earlier, abortion should be done with respect for and by all parties involved. The would-be mother should have some respect for herself and her unborn child, as well as for the medical professional who has to perform the procedure, who in turn should have some respect for both of them.

As for my use of the word "thing", I apologise for any offence caused or taken from that as it was not my intention. I used the word as a deliberate nonspecific, not as a derogatory term. You'll note that I've been careful throughout about the words I've used; the last thing I want to do is upset a grieving mother or the medical personnel that have to witness it.

Your point about abortions and fertility treatment is valid. Though I add that the adoption take-up should happen before a reduction in abortions can occur. Your point about these people having children to milk the government is unfortunately true, but a symptom of the broken system. Personally I would use the point in reverse - these people should be allowed to have an abortion so that the taxpayer doesn't have to pick up the bill. Fix the benefits system and we can negate the point entirely and get away from at least one terrible practice.

In summary, you're right as it is now it is too often a convenient choice; and that's not ok by me either.

My consideration for what happens after the abortion is purely a practical one - what difference does it make if the final destination is under a knife or in a furnace; if lives might be saved then the mother should have the option of donating. The argument of abortion itself is a separate matter, discussed above.

Ken said...

Anonymous asked above, "Are we finally going to shed the idea that pregnancy is a justifiable punishment for female promiscuity?"

That's a pure evil viewpoint totally divorced from any sense of personal responsibility and basic morality.