Matt Walsh:
The latest Planned Parenthood video is out. This time, it’s revealed that living babies with beating hearts are being sold and dissected.
One might think this is big news. One might think this is the biggest news going on right now. One might think the whole country should stop in its tracks and focus intently on this story. One might think that any decent human being would be overcome by a bitter, violent, passionate anger at these Planned Parenthood revelations. One might think we’d all be moved to do something. Do something, damn it. Do something.
But one is clearly not familiar with how this country works. Indeed, the first couple of Planned Parenthood videos garnered some interest, but the large collection of bored, emasculated narcissists in our culture have responded with an increasingly loud yawn with each successive installment.
If polls are to be believed, Planned Parenthood is actually still a pretty popular organization, and out of the people who saw the videos, less than half now have a more negative opinion of the child butchers.
Less than half.
Dear God, forgive us.
Of course, the media hasn’t helped matters. If you rely on mainstream “journalists” for your information, you probably didn’t hear a single word about the most recent footage, even though it contains blockbuster, earth-shattering news. You’ve likely been inundated with stories about Donald Trump and maybe Hillary Clinton, but not the continued wholesale slaughter and sale of infants.
Social media hasn’t been any better. Yesterday, several hours after the video was released, here were the top trending headlines on Twitter:
- “Jared Fogle to plead guilty to underage sex, child porn”
- “Did Shaun King mislead Oprah about his race?”
- “Deez Nuts joins 2016 presidential race”
- “50 crazy things photographers do to get the perfect shot”
- “Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green split after 11 years together”
- “Dolphins safety carted off field with ACL injury”
Conspicuously, out of the top 20 hot topics, none of them had anything to do with a billion dollar conglomerate ripping the brains out of children’s heads.
(Incidentally, it’s interesting that Jared Fogle is being arrested for child porn at all. It’s legal to execute children and use their bodies for medical research, so why exactly is it illegal to use their bodies as sex objects? When it comes to vile, wretched, despicable creatures, child pornographers and Planned Parenthood employees are clearly in the same subspecies. What’s the moral reasoning behind funding one and locking the other in prison?)
That’s our society for you. Infatuated with personalities, obsessed with politics and celebrity, but bored with the little details like life and death and genocide. We are, collectively, a terminally ill cancer patient worrying about a pimple on her forehead, or a man complaining about the scratch on his fender while the mangled pedestrian he just hit dies bleeding on the pavement.
I just can’t take this anymore. This preoccupation with irrelevant minutiae. This insane self-centeredness. This absolute disregard for human life. It’s not just strange or curious or unfortunate anymore; it’s downright sociopathic.
Is that the problem — mass sociopathy? Or are we just callous? Selfish? Afraid? Stupid?
I don’t know. I imagine the truth is a mix of these things. I imagine when some historian writes the definitive book about us, it might actually be titled, “Callous, Selfish, Afraid, and Stupid: The Story of Western Civilization in the 21st Century.”
There are some exceptions, of course. Plenty of pro-life warriors are out there, fighting for life and liberty with all they’ve got, but they are not the majority. They are exceptions to the rule, and the rule is something entirely unconscionable and shameful.
So if you missed the last offering in the Center for Medical Progress’ ongoing “HELLO, BABIES ARE BEING MURDERED AND SOLD FOR PROFIT AND NOW MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO START GIVING A CRAP” series (not the official title), I’ll give you the rundown. It’s horrific and terrible, obviously, but its fatal flaw is that it doesn’t involve Kim Kardashian or fast food spokesmen, therefore it has little hope of gaining the sort of attention it warrants.
The video opens with Deborah Nucatola, the lovely Planned Parenthood executive we met in previous episodes, explaining how she “huddles” with her team each morning to determine which babies will yield the best harvest.
We go to Holly O’Donnell, a former “tissue procurement specialist” with StemExpress, who reveals that “fully intact fetuses” are often cultivated for parts.
Cut to a procurement manager discussing how sometimes women go in for abortions and “are out in three minutes” because, by the time they’re ready for the procedure, the baby is “already in the vaginal canal” and it “just falls out.” In other words, it’s alive and in the process of being born.
In the following clip, a director for Planned Parenthood tells an undercover investigator that if they “alter their process” (a direct admission of a felony) they can “obtain intact fetal cadavers,” which are then cut up and sold in different shipments. The dismembered baby, she brags, is “just a line item.”
Back to Deborah Nucatola describing how the child’s “presentation” can be changed in order to preserve the brain.
O’Donnell then relays a story about a time when she witnessed the “procurement” of a developed baby with a beating heart. Her coworker reportedly squealed that it was “kinda neat.”
Cut to a succession of officials at Planned Parenthood and procurement firms detailing how babies can be aborted without destroying the bodies or poisoning the organs. There is really only one way to do this: deliver the baby alive, then dissect it. This is plainly stated by one official, who reports that sometimes the hearts are still working after the abortion.
The most disturbing part comes next. We see footage of a baby in a dish moving its limbs, as O’Donnell tells us how she was instructed to take the baby with the beating heart, cut open its face, and extract its brain.
This isn’t just the sale of aborted children we’re dealing with; this is the dissection of living babies. Babies are being born alive and murdered for their organs. Meanwhile, the sole counter to this claim is that the children are actually murdered moments before birth. That’s obviously not a viable moral defense to begin with, and it isn’t true, either.
This is what we’re facing: a situation where the best case scenario is that babies are being brutally murdered while still in the uterus and then disassembled in petri dishes minutes later. Essentially, Planned Parenthood is caught with a bloody knife, standing over a dead body, and their whole excuse is that they didn’t just kill the victim — they killed him seven minutes ago. But even that, it turns out, is too high an ethical bar for Planned Parenthood to reliably jump over.
Instead, they take babies with beating hearts and dismember them.
Do I need to repeat that a hundred times for it to matter to our culture?
Babies with beating hearts are being dismembered and sold or parts.
Babies with beating hearts are being dismembered and sold for parts.
Babies with beating hearts are being dismembered and sold for parts.
I could write 50,000 sentences elaborating on that theme, but I’m not sure any of it can do any good if “babies with beating hearts are being dismembered and sold for parts” isn’t already enough to fill you with an urgent, holy rage.
The indefensibility of the butchers of Sanger’s racist eugenics baby organ harvesting organization is so obvious that the pro-abortionists are simply ignoring these videos rather than trying to defend against the evidence.
The ease with which such assertions can be accepted as absolute truth helps explain how political cults can quickly be transformed into nation-destroying juggernauts.
@Greg:
Sure…like the Bolsheviks in Russia…
Like the Nazis (National Socialists) in Germany…
Like the Khymer Rouge in Cambodia…
Gee, what do these leftist totalitarian regimes all have in common?
The Nazi State in Germany criminalized abortion. In 1943, performing an abortion for an Aryan woman became a capital offense.
Like the Nazis, some people have no room for differing opinions about much of anything.
@Greg:
What selective history you put forth. Are you really unaware that the nazis only had this prohibition against abortions for “Aryan” women, while supporting abortion for all non-Aryan women? Your choice of wording suggests that you are, which clearly demonstrates your attempt at deception.
@Pete: Beyond aborting non-Aryan women’s babies, the Nazis separated children from their parents at the train cattle cars and immediately murdered all those children.
Interestingly, some blond, blue-eyed Jewesses in some concentration camps were were kept pregnant by Nazi men through the war.
Their newborns were given to childless Nazi couples to raise as their own.
@Pete, #5:
Perhaps those who would deprive people of choices regarding their own bodies should stop claiming the moral high ground, when the particular territory they’ve staked out puts them in the company of people such as the Nazis.
Taking the side of choice is a position arrived at by way of moral deliberation. It’s a difficult deliberation, given that most of us have the same human emotional responses to factors that must be considered while finding our way to a position. Being true to one’s highest values doesn’t always lead to emotional comfort. Personally, I dislike the choice of abortion as an outcome. My highest values revolve around personal freedom and the right exercise sovereign control over one’s own mind and body, however. The mind and body are a person’s castle and last refuge in a societal setting that necessarily involves many other concessions in the name of the greater common good. What goes on within the boundaries of one’s own skin or within one’s own mind IS NOT for the State or for anyone else to dictate.
@Greg:
Deciding to keep a baby, and allow for its birth instead of killing it, is also a choice, you dimwit. And most of those choices to end the life of an unborn child is not made out of moral deliberation, but out of either selfishness or desperation. No matter how you want to parse it, killing a child is not moral.
How about this: we create a law that next to every abortion facility must be a facility that will aid women make the choice to give birth? Facilities that will not only guide them through their pregnancy, help them with well baby care, and provide emotional support for them? RIGHT NEXT DOOR IN A FACILITY JUST AS LARGE, JUST AS IMPOSING AS PLANNED PARENTHOOD.
So if a person is into self mutilation, we have no responsibility to stop them from that?
Geeze, what an idiot you are.
@Greg:
Yet you give no choice to the human in the gestational phase of the human life cycle, with a different set of DNA than the woman carrying the baby.
Your continuing skewed portrayal of who has more in common with nazis is no surprise, as the manner of dehumanizing the fetus to excuse the barbarity of abortion is more nazi-like than your out of context portrayal of the nazi stance on prohibition of “Aryan” fetii.
You still do not have an answer to the question of providing an exame of a single human who ever came into being without starting as a fertilized ovum and progressing through the fetal stage of development to infancy, childhood, adolescence and finally adulthood.
@retire05, #8:
Whether freedom to make a personal moral choice should be allowed or denied by a nation ostensibly established to protect personal rights and freedoms against the intrusions of an overbearing government or a meddlesome church is the issue under discussion, not the decision that is made. Your opinions concerning a person’s motives for arriving at one decision or another are totally irrelevant in that context.
In the absence of some mental incapacity that has deprived a person of their reason, yes, that is correct. A person is free to have tasteless tattoos applied as desired, to have the nose, ears, eyebrows, or any improbable part of the body pierced, or to have the ears modified to look like those of one of Santa’s elves.
@Pete, #9:
In that biological phase of the human life cycle there is no capacity for choice, because there is no independent consciousness yet present to make a choice.
It would probably be better to leave the Nazis out of such discussions altogether. I didn’t bring them up to begin with.
@Greg:
If I decide that I do not want to sell widgets to anyone who is Native American, according to you in the above paragraph, that is my legal right to make that decision without having the “overbearing government” intrude on my choice.
Now you can try to come back and parse those words, but they are your words accurately quoted.
Also, what meddlesome church would you be referring to? Islam, perhaps?
With this sentence above, you confirm that I have the right to choose who I serve or who I provide services to. Choice, Greggie Goebbels, is not limited to the slaughter of unborn babies.
@retire05, #12:
You should be careful about 180 degree subject changes at high speed. Your brain might not withstand the forces involved.
Any meddlesome church. Our Constitutional rights include the freedom from religion, if that is our inclination.
I wish you luck attempting to sell your arguments to anyone capable of independent thought. You certainly have the right to try. Here’s a tip regarding good salesmanship practices: Don’t insult your potential customers.
@Greg:
Someone who offers only convoluted thought, as you do, continues to make only moot responses.
You’re actually serious, aren’t you? You don’t have a clue. The U.S. Constitution provides freedom OF religion, not freedom from religion.
That automatically disqualifies you.
Insulting is an action based on personal choice. You’re the one harking on freedom of choice. I, therefore, have the right to insult any person I wish. And you have the freedom of choice to be insulted. What you can’t do, is act out of reprisal of my choice.
But thanks for proving you’re an idiot. You do that so much better than others can.
@retire05, #14:
Yes, I am.
You are absolutely, totally, completely and spectacularly WRONG AGAIN!
In this country, you ARE NOT required to accept any religion at all. You may, in fact, be assertive about your opposition to religion in general, so long as you do not attempt to deprive those who hold religious views of their own guaranteed rights. (One of which is not a right to compel others to behave as their religious views dictate.) Churches have no legal power or authority over the individual, and government is forbidden from conferring any such power onto them.
The right’s inability to grasp this fundamental implication of the statement made in the First Amendment to our Constitution is quite possibly evidence of some broader problem with their understanding in general, but I have no intention of delving into those murky waters. Perhaps it would help if you prayed for greater insight into the meaning of statements made in the U.S. Constitution. Miracles have been known to happen.
Feel free to have the last word. I’m calling it a night.
@Greg:
Do you even read what you right? Freedom OF religion is, as you say, guaranteed. If you choose to hold no religious views, that is also your right. But thanks for confirming I’m right.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion:
Look up the word “establishment.”
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
plainly written that there is freedom OF religion
Where are the words “freedom from religion” in the U.S. Constitution?
How did you get to be your age and be such an idiot in all things?
I am free OF many of the problems that you seem to have understanding what is being plainly said in the English language.
@Greg:
What you seem to be free of is the ability to understand the words of the U.S. Constitution that can be grasped by any 5th grader.
But please, Little Toady, continue to prove you’re an idiot. You do such a great job of it.
@Greg:
Greg, you keep circling back to the idea that sentience is the point of demarcation for “humanness” deserving of a right to life, yet never explaining the rational of simply escaping the birth canal bequeaths the right to live, despite having no sentience. Taking the pro-abortion mindset to it’s logical conclusion, there should be no medical effort made to save premature infants born prior to term gestation, since there is no neurological/sentience difference between a 24 week premature infant and a 24 week fetus, other than the physical location in relation to the uterus from which each originated.
As far as the nazi issue is concerned, you started with the bizarre point trying to equate pro-life ideology with a penchant towards totalitarianism. I merely gave three very prominent examples of totalitarianism, making the point that all were leftist in political orientation. I didn’t even bring up communist China’s forced abortion policy, yet another leftist totalitarian political system. I am unaware of any right wing government that has a pro-abortion stance.
What I do notice is that leftist policies like abortion, obamacare and homogamy seem to be judicially mandated rather in a totalitarian fashion, rather than via any type of plebescite. Even though obamacare was rammed through by party line chicanery, it has twice been saved by judicial fiat despite a majority of citizens opposing it, and against the clear wording of the law, and promises of its proponents.
Doesn’t it make you uncomfortable, given your posted antipathy towards totalitarianism, that the primary mechanism by which the leftist policies you support get enacted is via totalitarian judicial maneuvers?
@Greg: Yes, there are many who are free of understanding. Many are located in special homes while a large number are confined to prisons. Which are you writing from Greg?