Earlier this week it was reported by the San Diego Union Tribune that a local Planned Parenthood clinic had been vandalized during the night. The vandals, as stated in the piece, had allegedly splattered the front of the clinic with red paint to symbolize blood.
Given Planned Parenthood’s current controversies and the state of political discourse in present day America, this event should come as no real surprise.
Planned Parenthood, unsurprisingly took the “moral high ground”, in a press release saying that they were “disappointed by the recent vandalism to our health center, no attempt at intimidation will stop us from serving our patients.”
They also said, “We’ve been a part of the fabric of this community for 55 years, and we’ll be here for many more to come. You can count on our doors staying open, no matter what.”
Pro-life groups are condemning the actions of the vandalization, as it is certainly a crime.
But, what if the act of vandalism was defended the same way Planned Parenthood defends its practices?
Given some of the often repeated talking points that are often raised in a conversation about Planned Parenthood’s “ethical practices”, I think if we were to apply them to this obviously illegal act, the vandalism, and followed Planned Parenthood’s logic to their conclusion, their arguments ultimately make little sense.
As Gregory Koukl has said, we will “take the roof off” of their arguments.
Using the same logic of the defenders of the organization, I would suggest that the perpetrators use these arguments to get away with crime, Planned Parenthood style:
1. “Planned Parenthood’s supporters should acknowledge this is only a small percentage of what pro-life activists actually do.”
Given that pro-life activists do so much good for men and women in crisis situations (without a single cent of taxpayer funding, even in hostile state legislatures, like California), why won’t Planned Parenthood use their own logic to excuse the vandals?
After all, they hide behind this slogan whenever abortion is the topic at hand, so why not give the vandals the benefit of the doubt, and simply ignore the minority of bad things they do?
I’m sure that if the vandals are found to devote 97% of their activism to helping poor and oppressed members of the community who are in need, Planned Parenthood will not only drop the charges against them, but will also pull out all the stops to ensure that they can also receive federal, state, and local funding for their operations that don’t involve vandalism.
This would include ensuring that they have massive connections to all the parts of society to keep their operation going, including lawyers, judges, politicians, Hollywood celebrities, and even presidential candidates.
Good deeds don’t account for evil ones, especially the intentional killing of innocent human beings.
2. “We Shouldn’t Judge the Vandal’s Decision”.
Intellectual honesty can really be a pain in the behind, especially when one has to attempt to excuse the inexcusable. So, in order to live out their “non-judgemental commitments”, I suggest that Planned Parenthood’s supporters (and legal team) simply admit that it is not their place to judge another’s actions as right or wrong.
The vandals were simply deciding what was right for them, which includes defacing abortion clinics. Who is Planned Parenthood, or their supporters, to judge that what another person decides is right for them?
After all, they can somehow excuse dismemberment and decapitation of unborn human beings the same way, so why not vandalism?
3. “Planned Parenthood should expand their patient base to include pre-born human Beings, alongside their post-birth patients”.
Changing subjects ever so slightly, the spokesperson for the clinic did say in their press release that they were going to continue to serve the members of the community, no matter what had happened. However, this should raise a follow up question: Which members? Does that include the unborn? If not, then why not?
Indeed, there is no fundamental difference between the born and unborn that justifies giving aid to one but killing the other.
I suggest that Planned Parenthood, in order to live up to their slogan, “Care, No Matter What” should start caring for the unborn, as opposed to killing them. If nothing really matters in deciding who counts as deserving Planned Parenthood’s medical treatment, then being born really should not matter either.
As Stephen Schwarz highlights in his book The Moral Question of Abortion, there are only four differences between born and unborn, and not one of these matters in deciding who to kill instead of caring for.
I would contend that Planned Parenthood and their supporters should stop trying to change the subject to their other services whenever Planned Parenthood’s abortion practices are brought up in political discourse or in conversations.
It should be clear by now that it is very much time for the American people to stop playing games with human equality whenever it fails to suit our desires or gets in the way of what we want.
We know that the unborn are human, just like us, who deserve our love and respect. Yet, we try to find new ways to rationalize our killing them when our immediate desires are put at risk.
Slave owners, racists, and sexist men tried to justify themselves with Planned Parenthood’s logic. Those who try to excuse Planned Parenthood’s actions are doing no better.
If we simply follow the very reasoning Planned Parenthood’s defenders have put forth, then we must be ready to live in a society where just about anything can be justified in the same manner.
What do you think? Let us know below!