The Ugly Truth

"Fetus porn"

“Fetus porn”

These undercover Planned Parenthood videos may be a game-changer. Even Hillary admits to being disturbed by them. Planned Parenthood and their allies are trying desperately to lie, deny and change the subject. That’s because they don’t want people to see the ugly truth.

Ed Morrissey:

The vise is tightening, but the debate focuses too narrowly on the legality of tissue transfers for compensation. Planned Parenthood wants that debate, because they can then argue that this benefits humanity through research — even though that ignores the fact that they could just donate the organs, rather than maximize their revenue stream by charging on the “per-item thing,” as yesterday’s video showed a Planned Parenthood official explaining.

No, the real problem for Planned Parenthood is that this organ trade has exposed the core lie at the heart of the abortion industry. In my column today for The Week, I advise people to remain focused on that fundamental hypocrisy demonstrated in these videos:

Planned Parenthood wants to keep the debate on these points to deflect from the real debate — the nature of abortion itself, and the deliberate minimization in language that has allowed it. Abortion defenders claim that the procedure does not terminate life, and that it has no more moral meaning than excising a tumor or a cyst, a “clump of cells” in the most common construction. On Twitter, a young actor in Hollywood offered a more crude assessment this week. “A pile of goop should not have more rights than a human being,” Lucas Neff tweeted, “period.”

Now, though, we see that the same abortion clinics that argue for the “pile of goop” status see things very, very differently when it comes time to benefit from the results of their services. They adjust their techniques to extract and market human organs for buyers to meet demand, with the clear value attached on the basis of both their humanity and specificity. Clinic executives like Dr. Ginde want to negotiate those markets on a per-item basis because of the value that humanity and specificity provides to both parties, “just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

The true danger to Planned Parenthood and the entire industry is the exposure of their hypocrisy. The two positions of “clumps of cells” and negotiating over human organs from abortions are mutually exclusive. One cannot extract human organs from “a pile of goop,” or from tumors or undifferentiated “clumps of cells.” Human organs come from human beings, and the only way to harvest them from unborn human beings is to kill them first. The videos cut through all of the misdirection, all of the antiseptic generalities used in defense of abortion, to expose its true nature — and that’s what has Planned Parenthood panicked over the videos.

I have always considered myself pro-choice. I still am, I guess. But I am sickened by what I am seeing right now. It is quite literally an example of the banality of evil.

According to science there is no doubt – human life begins at conception. The sperm and egg are alive too, but they are not human until they unite and transform.

The old legal rule was that a baby was not alive until it drew breath outside the womb, but now some argue that “viability” is when life begins. That’s bullshit. Someday in the not too distant future medical science will reduce the time from conception to “viability” to zero. We already can remove eggs from a woman and fertilize them in a test tube and implant the result in a host mother’s womb.

A newborn child is not “viable” in the sense of self-sufficiency. Babies need years of love and care to become fully independent of their parents or substitute caregivers.

I have seen abortion defenders calling babies “parasites”. That’s even worse than the usual “fetus”, “zygote”, and “tissue” and “clump of cells” that are used to describe an unwanted child. I have never in my life seen a woman with a wanted pregnancy call the thing inside of her anything but a “baby”.

The term is “dehumanization”. Babies are human. Killing humans is generally considered to be a bad thing. So we call babies something else to make it easier to kill them without feeling guilty about it.

But we live in the real world. Despite the availability of contraception unwanted pregnancies happen. Sometimes they are the result of rape and/or incest. Abortions will take place whether they are legal or not. “Back alley” abortions were an ugly fact of life prior to 1973.

So legal abortion is a lesser evil. But the lesser of two evils is still evil. If women want to avail themselves of that alternative they should do so promptly. But let’s not pretend it’s not a big deal.

Abortion kills a human being.

Abortion needs to be treated with the same gravity as pulling the plug on someone in a permanent vegetative state. We don’t euthanize senior citizens just because they are unwanted.

Abortion defenders object to any measure that might cause a woman considering abortion to change her mind and keep the child, such as showing her an ultrasound picture of her baby. They call such a procedure “invasive” and akin to rape.

But guess what? When they want to harvest a baby’s organs they use the very same ultrasound.

First trimester abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE.


About Deplorable Myiq2xu™

I'm a basket case.
This entry was posted in Abortion. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to The Ugly Truth

  1. Myiq2xu says:

    They don’t like “fetus porn” because it makes them feel bad.

  2. Myiq2xu says:

    Before they were born I carried around ultrasound pictures of my kids to show people.

  3. Myiq2xu says:

    “These babies are being strategically maneuvered, crushed, and dismembered under ultrasound guidance – while still alive.”

  4. Myiq2xu says:
  5. Myiq2xu says:

    If you don’t like the picture at the top of this post be grateful I didn’t use the really gory ones.

  6. Myiq2xu says:
  7. Myiq2xu says:
  8. Myiq2xu says:
    • 1539days says:

      A nut (you’ll see why) called into Hannity’s show to complain about the lion. She said the dentist was a murderer and he had no right to kill that animal. Hannity pointed out that he had a hunting license and relied on local guides to take him to hunting grounds.

      It got good when he asked the woman if she eats meat, fish, or uses any animal product (i.e. leather). Turns out she doesn’t. She tried to say she personally doesn’t but that what this guy did was worse than eating meat because it was a deliberate murder. But Hannity pointed out that chickens and cows are deliberately murdered for meat.

      The best part was when he asked about the murder of the unborn and harvesting by Planned Parenthood. She got defensive, claiming that young people don’t want to hear about this and the Republican party better not make a big deal out of it. Those are the calls I love. She called in as a “Republican” and Hannity teased out her leftist world view.

  9. DeniseVB says:

    Meanwhile, our crack media (or media on crack) takes up oxygen at a WH press briefing ……

  10. Myiq2xu says:
  11. Myiq2xu says:
  12. Myiq2xu says:
    • 1539days says:

      Ugh. They don’t even try to use scientific methodology in these “studies.” First, police are trained to use guns differently than civilians. In a police simulator, they will always have the superior training.

      2. Always hide first. Police are obligated to announce their presence. A civilian is not, and it’s a quick way to become a target.

      3. Statistics of guns “used” (fired) for self-defense are useless. Personal assaults are lower everywhere citizens are allowed to own guns, however, property crimes tend to go up. Concealed and open carry laws alert muggers that anyone could be packing and makes them think twice. In those cases, the guns don’t “do” anything. The gun owning environment is the catalyst.

      4. Nearly every significant spree kill in the last 5 years has been somewhere guns are known to be banned or where there is signage that guns are not allowed. Schools, “gun free zone” movie theaters and military recruiters who must be unarmed on the job. Get rid of the location gun bans and see #3 replicated around the country.

  13. Myiq2xu says:
  14. Myiq2xu says:

    Camille Paglia (via Ace)

    You’re an atheist, and yet I don’t ever see you sneer at religion in the way that the very aggressive atheist class right now often will. What do you make of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and the religion critics who seem not to have respect for religions for faith?

    I regard them as adolescents. I say in the introduction to my last book, “Glittering Images”, that “Sneering at religion is juvenile, symptomatic of a stunted imagination.” It exposes a state of perpetual adolescence that has something to do with their parents– they’re still sneering at dad in some way….

    I’m speaking here as an atheist. I don’t believe there is a God, but I respect every religion deeply. All the great world religions contain a complex system of beliefs regarding the nature of the universe and human life that is far more profound than anything that liberalism has produced. We have a whole generation of young people who are clinging to politics and to politicized visions of sexuality for their belief system. They see nothing but politics, but politics is tiny….

    But this sneering thing! I despise snark. Snark is a disease that started with David Letterman and jumped to Jon Stewart and has proliferated since. I think it’s horrible for young people! And this kind of snark atheism–let’s just invent that term right now–is stupid, and people who act like that are stupid….

    I think Stewart’s show demonstrated the decline and vacuity of contemporary comedy. I cannot stand that smug, snarky, superior tone. I hated the fact that young people were getting their news through that filter of sophomoric snark…..

    As for his influence, if he helped produce the hackneyed polarization of moral liberals versus evil conservatives, then he’s partly at fault for the political stalemate in the United States….

    The resistance of liberals in the media to new ideas was enormous. Liberals think of themselves as very open-minded, but that’s simply not true! Liberalism has sadly become a knee-jerk ideology, with people barricaded in their comfortable little cells. They think that their views are the only rational ones, and everyone else is not only evil but financed by the Koch brothers. It’s so simplistic!

    Now let me give you a recent example of the persisting insularity of liberal thought in the media. When the first secret Planned Parenthood video was released in mid-July, anyone who looks only at liberal media was kept totally in the dark about it, even after the second video was released. But the videos were being run nonstop all over conservative talk shows on radio and television. It was a huge and disturbing story, but there was total silence in the liberal media. That kind of censorship was shockingly unprofessional.

  15. helenk3 says:


    this is one of the best and most heartfelt posts you have written since I have been here. That is saying alot because almost every day you post some terrific stuff

  16. elliesmom says:

    I’ve only been tepidly pro-choice from day one. I’ve believed human life begins at conception since 9th grade biology class. I’ve recognized that natural causes often prevent that tiny beginning of a life from making its way to birth. I don’t equate a miscarriage with abortion. One happens to a woman and her child, often a child wanted very much, and the other happens to the child because her mother doesn’t want her. I recognize some women cannot, for whatever reason, offer their womb to a baby to grow until birth although in my lifetime adoption has always been an option, and and parents have been on waiting lists to adopt babies. No woman has had to commit to raising a child to adulthood. From my perch at 64 years old, nine months is but a fleeting time, and it doesn’t seem like such a hardship to give yourself to a baby for that long, but I do understand it’s more than some women can willingly give up. There’s a lot of posturing about “checking your privilege” these days. Women need to check the privilege they’ve been given. The privilege of making the decision about whether their unborn baby lives or dies. Nine months of a woman’s life being more valuable than a whole lifetime for her baby seems to me to be ultimate abuse of privilege without significant cause.

  17. Myiq2xu says:
  18. AFVet says:

    I am Pro-Life, except in the case of incest or rape.
    If women don’t want to have a baby, or the chance of having a baby, keep your pants on.
    One moment of sexual pleasure is not fair to a baby that has no chance at life.
    And you are the one that is taking it from them.
    You have no right to do that just because you got horny one night.
    That is the ultimate example of selfishness.

    The women that have had numerous abortions knowing that the life inside them has quality, are monsters, if not fools.
    So is this abomination called Planned Parenthood.

    Some folks here might disagree, feel free to express your opinion.

    • piper says:

      Although I’m pro-choice I believe that it should be rare, legal and safe and most definitely carried out in the first trimester. I don’t believe that S.C.Justice, Harry Blackmun, best known as the author of the Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade meant for abortion to be used for birth control.

  19. Myiq2xu says:

  20. helenk3 says:

    why is this not a surprise?

  21. DandyTIger says:

    Randomly off topic… danger will robinson:

  22. piper says:

    Thanks for the gamer gate correction which I knew nothing about but was trying to be helpful – found when I googled gamer gate. (Have done my penance sitting in the corner for 5 seconds)

    • DandyTIger says:

      The social justice warriors on the left are very effective at destroying any who oppose them or discover their crimes. It’s rough out there. What you found is what most everyone finds when looking through the MSM or related blogs, sadly.

  23. piper says:

    Agree that these monstrous acts committed by PP needs to be shouted from every news tree until the public clearly understands about these heinous acts – it definitely shocked me when you posted that tweet.

  24. angienc says:

    First trimester abortion should be safe, legal, and RARE.

    Yeah, that’s my position too — and that is what I thought the pro-choice position was. I found out after the 2008 primary — like so much I thought was true of the left — was just a CON. In fact, I had a HUGE falling out with people on RD’s place who were taking “abortion on demand at any time” position that has now been exposed as the REAL “pro-choice” position (i.e., pro-abortion position, because when the only valid choice is abortion, then it’s not really being “pro-choice.”). Seriously, I said that we should be encouraging/educating to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place and I was told (and I quote): “That’s anti-choice propaganda bullshit.” WTF?!?!?!?

    BTW — first trimester is 12 weeks (and that is the legal period for abortions in Europe); 20 weeks is not the first trimester — it’s the second trimester, so the “pro-choice” side arguing against the Texas law is saying that restrictions at 5 FUCKING MONTHS is somehow denying women access to abortion. Rape, incest or just plain old stupidity — if you can’t get yourself to an abortion clinic before you are 5 FUCKING MONTHS pregnant, then touch shit. I have NO sympathy for you.
    Also, the “harming women’s health” trope? Another con — the later the abortion, the MORE risk to the woman. That’s really indisputable. #PartyofScience

    So now I consider myself pro-choice with exceptions or pro-life with exceptions (however you want to look at it): abortion on demand for first trimester ONLY (and that includes rape or incest) and ONLY for life of mother after that. Period.
    Fuck anyone who doesn’t like it.

    • leslie says:

      Amen, angie.

    • DeniseVB says:

      Pretty much my position too, not an anti, just pro with exceptions. Babies are now becoming very viable at 21-22 weeks. Personal responsibility should kick in long before 20 weeks, better yet, before conception.

      • lizzy says:

        Neo natal technology has changed my mind about later abortions. If a baby is viable abortion should not be allowed. It surprises me that women want late term abortions because they are much more dangerous.

    • 1539days says:

      English common law, which the US used to varying degrees, allowed abortion up to the point of the quickening. This was when the baby started to kick, the sign of life in a world without a lot of internal medicine. If I’m not mistaken, that was about 20 weeks.

    • votermom says:

      What angie said.

      • angienc says:

        Our rights come from the Constitution, not from some set of “Judeo-Christian values” selectively defined by right-wing politicians. Leave it to the religious institutions to promote their values as they see fit. After all, that’s their constitutional prerogative.

        That’s the quote from “Adele” (whoever the fuck that half-wit is) that digby ends her idiocy with and that about sums up what is wrong with their entire thought process.
        The Constitution is a LIMITING document — it doesn’t “give” the people rights; it limits what the government can do. Hence a government for the people, by the people.
        And our RIGHTS come from our creator — it’s right there in opening of the Declaration of Independence:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

        digby and “Adele” — perfect examples of the Dunning Kruger effect on display for all to see.

        • leslie says:

          And thanks to Lulu, I know what the Dunning-Kryger effect is.

        • DandyTIger says:

          Holy crap. Stupid should hurt.

        • 1539days says:

          The Constitution itself is a governing document. It details what the government can do in spite of your inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution BECAUSE it didn’t originally secure any rights.

          To say that your rights come from the Constitution says that every time the Constitution changes, or the government changes, or your location changes, your rights change. If human dignity is defined by someone else, then there is no such thing.

          I also enjoy the duplicity of criticizing Bill Clinton after his presidency for the things he said. The things he said are what won elections for Democrats in the 1990’s. It was also the template Obama stole to get elected, not to mention stealing Hillarycare for his campaign speeches on health care.

      • DandyTIger says:

        Ha, safe, legal, and rare. And definitely not past when the fetus is viable. Wonder if she and the crowd there still stands by that.

    • lyn says:

      I agree with angie.

  25. DeniseVB says:

    About that stopping more videos being released, if they ain’t doin’ nothin’ wrong, why the coverup? Should be easy to get ahold of a PP release form to see what those patients are signing off on. Probably in the teeny-tiny print.

  26. Dora says:

    Breaking: Los Angeles Superior Court Bars Pro-Life Group From Releasing New Videos About Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Selling….

  27. Myiq2xu says:

    Uh oh!

    He reports some very scandalous stories in the book, including allegations of former President Clinton carrying out liaisons with another women when his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is not around.

    “He has a blonde, busty mistress, and she’s been code named Energizer by agents. This is unofficially, but that is what they call her…She comes in to the Chappaqua [NY] home whenever Hillary leaves. The details coordinate to make sure they don’t cross paths. She, unlike Hillary, is very nice to the agents. She’ll bring cookies.”

    Kessler also contends the Clinton’s relationship is only based on their desire to return to the White House in 2016.

    “Agents say that it’s a business relationship. It’s not a marriage at all. It’s a total fake, like everything else about Hillary. It’s just a big show and a scam.”

    Is there a nuclear explosion emoji?

  28. Myiq2xu says:

    I plan on being too hungover to post tomorrow.

  29. Lulu says:

    The Waller County Jail has released hours of video of Sandra Bland’s intake into the jail and bail hearing. Last week the dash cam sound and video of her being pulled over by a state trooper was released. I watched the long one in which she ran a stop sign from a side street into a major state highway. To say that this is very dangerous goes without saying. This is the highway from Austin to Houston so it is rather busy with pretty fast traffic. I also heard her immediately start switching and diverting from this dangerous illegal driving act by claiming she was pulled over for an illegal lane change when the cop pulled her over. The trooper never said this. She did. I was very impressed by how she could out of the clear blue come up with such a diversion to snow the cop and try to bully him. Anyway it didn’t work and she got hauled off to the pokey after a fight with a short Hispanic cop. He was a complete asshole but he won.

    At the jail she was treated as every other inmate. Probably better because she kept being allowed to use the phone. She used the phone before and after her bail hearing (which was the very next day on a Saturday) after being arrested late afternoon the day earlier. She got a $5000 bail for assaulting a public servant with 10% cash wanted by the bail bondsman. That is low bail for someone with her record I am told. Anyway she was put in a jail cell by herself with a group of women jailed across the way in another cell. She talked to them. She was increasingly upset because her calls were not getting through. Why was she put in a cell by herself? Because she fought a cop and they didn’t want her fighting anyone else would be the practical and sensible guess. Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior. If she beat up an inmate who pissed her off the jail would be liable for that.

    Some in the media are now realizing that her problem was not with the jail. It was with the people and her relationship with those who she expected to bail her out. This article continues the story that she was in jail for a lane change. She wasn’t. In a recorded phone call to a friend in Hempstead (that for some reason she expected to bail her out) she claims it was for a lane change. She was pulled over for running a stop and then arrested for kicking a DPS trooper while resisting arrest. That friend then turned his phone off as reported by the Houston media which he now regrets doing and claims he didn’t do it to stop her calling him. The jail house video: “It shows her alive, first in the long sundress that she was wearing in her car, and then in a jail-issued uniform, and it shows something else: that she made as many as seven calls, some of which were likely aimed at scaring up the money for her release. That video, too, will be hard to forget.” She made many calls from her jail cell, which had a phone, too. Why don’t you ask her family why they wouldn’t talk to her? Her family refused collect calls. The jail staff let her use their personal phones to try to call per the Houston media that you snots in NYC refuse to read so they can just make shit up to fit the narrative. If you can’t make bail don’t get yourself in jail. I’m not going into lit cigarettes, marijuana odors at traffic stops, and autopsies. The media will now try to go after the bail system which is based upon common law and the Eighth amendment. Bail ( before money it was surety, real estate, or hostages) have only been in effect for a few thousands years so let’s change what has worked pretty well because the media can’t understand the legal process.

Comments are closed.