Does Planned Parenthood Do More Good Than Harm?

That seems to be the argument by seemingly otherwise pro-life people when discussions such as this come up.  It is irrelevant to me what the rabid abortion lobby thinks about this, since they are apparently unaware of any sort of rational discourse on the subject of abortion.  (E.g., simply scroll through some of the ad hominems and absolutely ridiculous claims by PP supporters on the Susan G. Komen Facebook page–click “Everyone (Most Recent)” at the top right of the Wall–my favorite is that “Planned Parenthood doesn’t preform [sic] abortions”).

The important question is how people who are against abortion can think that Planned Parenthood is not all about abortion?  Do they do some things that are not abortion-related?  Sure.  But who is naive enough to think that money that goes to an organization, even if those specific dollars are not used for abortion, does not allow that organization to do the thing for which it primarily exists: abortions and pro-abortion propaganda?  Say I have some money in an account that I use for microbrew, and I am spending the money in that account only on microbrew; if I run short in my microbrew fund, I might use some money from my book fund instead.  Well, if the federal government decides to subsidize my book fund, but not my microbrew fund, then if I stop using book money for microbrew, then technically I can say that I have not spent any federal money on microbrew.  Now stay with me, this might get complicated: if people give me money and they say use it for either books or microbrew, but the federal government is already subsidizing my book fund, then I can use all of that money on microbrew.  It hardly matters that I haven’t spent earmarked book money on microbrew: I still have more microbrew money.  Really, it’s not that hard to figure out.  So when Susan G. Komen decides not to give money to Planned Parenthood (which, for the fiftieth time, does NOT do mammograms), sure, they can say that the money does not go to abortions, but all that means is that more of their other money can.

Think I’m exaggerating Planned Parenthood’s emphasis on abortion?  Take a look at their webpage.  All you really have to do is plug in “abortion” for the euphemism “reproductive rights” and I think you’ll get a sense of it.  PP is not in favor of a single restriction on abortion.  Not one.  Not parental notification, not a waiting period, not full information, nothing.

Nevertheless, maybe you’re convinced that while abortion is wrong, Planned Parenthood does a lot of good in low-income areas.  Maybe you think they’re primarily there to provide “health care.”  Why, then, are African-Americans and other minorities the ones who have the highest abortion rates?  Why are there more abortions than births among African-Americans in New York City?  How many of those were done by Planned Parenthood affiliates?  I would like at least a few people to verifiably point out a single low-income area in the United States where Planned Parenthood is the only provider of basic women’s health care.

I don’t really care if Planned Parenthood has ever done some good for some people.  That sort of argument is like saying that Hitler was pro-family (which he was, as long as you were “Aryan”–not to be confused with “Arians”).  And maybe the similarities don’t end there.

You can decide for yourself if PP’s good outweighs its bad, but you actually have to examine the evidence, not just accept their talking-points and hysterics.  And you should watch this movie.


2 thoughts on “Does Planned Parenthood Do More Good Than Harm?

  1. Depends on one’s priorities. To the pro-abortionists the overall benefit to the collective of society is more important than the benefit to the individual. Hence individual sacrifice for the benefit of society is expected. There is a parallel here with the Biblical perspective of individual sacrifice, but the overall priorities are different. Difference is whether or not sacrificing human life is acceptable in achieving collective benefit.

    Pro-abortionists believe it is acceptable, if not actually honorable, to sacrifice not only your own life in support of the collective, but to also sacrifice the lives of people you judge as non-beneficial to the collective. In this, ending the life of a child prior to birth is deemed acceptable when they are judged to become a potential burden on the collective. Same argument is made in justifying the termination of the elderly when they are judge to become a burden on the collective.

    Anti-abortionists believe that individual life is of higher value than an arbitrary perspectives regarding collective benefit of society. And in that the collective benefits the most when we make the value of human life our primary priority.

    In the liberal versus conservative debate, the pro-abortionist view is embraced by liberals seeking to create a global Utopia by careful engineering and control of society and of individual lives.

    While anti-abortionists tend to be those embracing a religious point of view of society, wherein religion (especially Christianity) contradicts the Utopian ideologies of this mortal world. Christians and like-minded people view the entropic chaos of the world as inevitable, and seek to achieve a sends of order within the chaos, rather than try to defeat the chaos.

    Jesus was very clear on these points. He values human life above the cause of the collective, as well as values the death of the Faithful. Jesus spoke against the efforts of the Jewish leaders to achieve a mortal Utopia via their own works and personal efforts, instead reminding us of the failed chaotic nature of our sinful world. The very chaotic nature we expressed in terms such as entropy.

    Jesus is clear that mortal entropy and chaos can only be reversed by God Himself, and will indeed happen at some point. The consequence will be the end of this world and a re-born existence, rather than the achievement of a global Utopia in the world we now know.

    If we step back a minute and take a wider perspective, we see why the agenda of Liberalism in achieving global Utopia embraces a pro-abortion stance. While those who embrace a Conservative agenda of achieving a semblance of order among the chaos embrace a pro-life stance.

    Liberals view often view life as an obstacle if that life doesn’t properly support their idea of collective benefit.

    Conservatives generally view life as the priority for which the collective is responsible to support.

    And if there is any further observation it is that Jesus was/is clearly a Conservative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s