"Would You Care if Planned Parenthood desecrated The Violinist’s body?", Timothy Brahm Asks
WARNING: THE VIDEO IS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN THE TEXT, BOTH CAN BE GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING."What We Learned in CMP’s Fifth and Worst Video Yet" by Timothy Brahm at Clear Pro-life Thinking blog, is perhaps the best, clear-headed, rational analysis I've seen yet, and Timothy also examines "The Violinist Argument" that is often cited by pro-choice folks, in "Why Even Thomson’s Violinist Condemns Planned Parenthood’s Selling Baby Parts".
In the first discussion, Timothy states then uses the evidence to prove that "It is the most visually graphic and disturbing yet, and it is also the most damning to Planned Parenthood":
In the second article, Brahm states that "The silence from pro-choice people in response to the recent Planned Parenthood videos is deafening. In this post I explain why they should be furious with Planned Parenthood too." Read the synopsis in that post of The Violinist argument, if you're not familiar with it, or Google it or go to the original source, if you prefer.
- Evidence of Planned Parenthood Changing Abortion Procedures to Harvest Baby Parts
- Financial Benefit, NOT Just Compensation for the Costs of Donating
- Selling “Intact” Babies
- and more evidence with All Three Problems Combined…
In conclusion, I would like to pose a question to anyone that is still defending Planned Parenthood: There are at least half a dozen videos still coming. Is there hypothetically ANYTHING that could be in these videos that could persuade you that you shouldn’t support Planned Parenthood anymore? Is there anything a Planned Parenthood executive could say that would persuade you that the organization is corrupt? Is there any evidence that could convince you that they are financially profiting from selling baby parts, or doing something else illegal?
If the answer is yes, I’d be really interested to know what would do it for you.
If the answer is no, then it should disturb you that you are that closed-minded. Blind support for any organization is unconscionable.
Then read the post in its entirety. It's nothing if not rational and exactly using The Violinist Argument:
Suppose the nurse then shows you a consent form she wants you to sign. The form gives the hospital permission to donate the violinist’s body for research, and assures you they won’t change the “unplugging procedure” at all. You protest that you aren’t the violinist’s next of kin so you can’t sign any such form. She tells you that the violinist has no family, that you are the closest thing he has to family. Legally, your consent would be enough. She reminds you how much good could come from the research. Diseases could be cured. People’s lives could be saved. “Everyone wins if we do this…well, everyone except the vegetable there. And it has no right to your body. Why not make the best of the situation? Why let its body go to waste?”
Suppose then you discovered that they weren’t hoping to donate the violinist’s body, they were hoping to sell it, and, contrary to what they promised you, they would adjust the “unplugging procedure” to make it more likely they would get sellable parts.
Try to be intellectually honest enough to not get hung up on a single detail. If you’re unconvinced that Planned Parenthood profits off selling baby parts, ask yourself how comfortable you would be with the violinist being treated the same way.
[I]f you’re going to justify the research, you need to use a different argument than merely, “we don’t want them to go to waste.” We don’t harvest the organs of death row inmates without their consent, even though that’s letting them “go to waste.”
If my dad wants to donate his body to science so they can better understand cancer, that is his call to make and no one else’s. If we’re going to do research on dead bodies, we need the consent of the deceased, and we need to do that research in a way that honors the person’s wishes and the life they lived.
“But the fetus’ mother gave consent. Can’t parents give consent for their child’s body to be used for research?”
Yes, parents of born children that die tragically have the right to give that kind of consent on behalf of their child. But you don’t get to have those kinds of parental rights without corresponding parental obligations. The parent has the right to make a decision about how to use her child’s remains only if she is a parent with the responsibility to protect her child. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot justify abortion if you concede that the mother is a parent with the responsibility to protect her unborn child.
The only way for any decent human being to feel comfortable with how Planned Parenthood sells the bodies of the babies they kill is to deny the humanity of those babies. You have to say they are not moral subjects, that they are morally valueless flesh that you can put through a shredder without any moral recourse. You can say that you can unplug from the violinist, but you cannot then turn around and treat the violinist like he doesn’t have serious moral value or treat him as a means to an end.
Would you care if someone [like Nazi doctor Julius Hallervorden] desecrated a murdered Jew’s body by doing research on it?
Would you care if Planned Parenthood desecrated the violinist’s body?