Can You Find Them?
In a media release on June 4th, 2015, Planned Parenthood launched its strategy to attack the Pro-Life legislation going through the State of Wisconsin house and senate. The legislation would ban all abortions after 20 weeks. A good step, one I heartily applaud, but it's still 20 weeks too much. But given the current climate, we'll take what we can get.
Planned Parenthood's press release states, "...Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin (PPAWI) launched a statewide digital and radio ad campaign to raise awareness and urge legislators to oppose a dangerous new abortion ban."
New? Pro-life advocates have been trying for abortion bans sins Row v Wade. Dangerous? TO WHO? When nearly 100% of abortions result in the death of one of the participants, yet terminating a pregnancy naturally (birth) results in far less causalities.
Planned Parenthood is using a personal, emotional appeal. They are telling the story of Ginger Thew who had an abortion at 26 weeks "when she learned of severe fetal anomalies that would not allow the baby to survive and posed a great risk to her own health."
According to the press release, "“My husband and I [Thew], with our faith in God, made our decision. It wasn’t anyone else’s place to decide." Really? The child doesn't get a say?
But the counter will be that the "fetus" (a word that means 'little one') isn't conscious and therefore isn't a person deserving of protection. But people in coma's aren't conscious nor are people who are asleep. Plus, according to a professor emeritus of Human Biology / Brain Functions, University of Wisconsin, Dr. Richard J. Stevens, a child being aborted knows more about what is happening to it then a bag full of born kittens being drown by a farmer who can no longer afford to feed them.
But the most false statement in the media release is the following: "The ban would prevent physicians from providing counsel and care for women during medically and ethically complex pregnancies – including those that pose a risk to a woman’s health."
This doesn't just "imply" but states strait out that the Pro-Life bill will not allow doctors to help women in pregnancies that "pose a risk to a woman's health." This is ridiculously false. Doctors will certainly be able to help save women's lives. They just won't be able to directly attack an innocent person to save the woman's life.
What's the difference? Imagine you're a life guard. One day, on duty, you notice two people, far out in the lake, flailing. Seeing that they're in trouble, you grab your life ring and start swimming out there. When you get there, you notice that both are drowning but you only have the capability to save one of them. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE between saving one (the other person drowns) and saving one and SHOVING THE OTHER UNDER THE WATER?
Back to the issue: If a woman is pregnant and develops cancer, no one is saying that we cannot treat the woman in a way that would, most likely, result in the death of the child. That death is unwanted, but a secondary side effect to treating what is killing the mother.
What the legislation WON'T allow, is the direct, intended killing of the innocent child in the process of healing the mother.
Notice, after the emotional appeal where the mother's life is at risk, Planned Parenthood slips that they are also against abortions that "involve severe fetal anomalies or a serious risk to the woman’s health..." OR? OR? So a child that is not perfect is a candidate for death. This is Nazi Eugenics - both Hitler and Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) started their perspective organizations to eliminate weaker races (non-white) and weaker members of their Master Race (white). This is still a motivation for Planned Parenthood today.
This is the evil of Planned Parenthood. They cannot make a truthful argument for why abortion needs to be legal. All they can do is appeal to emotion and false presentations of facts.
Planned Parenthood will no longer debate Pro-Life speakers like Trent Horn. Mr. Horn has stated several times on his "Why Are You Pro-Choice?" radio show that Planned Parenthood will not debate him or any other Pro-Life speakers. If there position is based on lies, misrepresentations and evil... I can see why they don't want to talk.
A quick aside: What would we say to Ginger Thew, Mr. Thew or any of the people who work at Planned Parenthoo? Ginger obviously considers herself religious. She obviously was in a really difficult situation.
We would love her - We DO pray for her - accept her, pray with her and listen to her. We would go with her to seek healing for the abortion she had and help her anyway we can to reconcile her to her child - who, we pray, is praying for her mom (and dad). The same goes for Mr. Thew or any member of Planned Parenthood.
We Need to keep praying for everyone involved!
The Blog will not let me edit. The cite for Dr. Stevens' comments is personal conversations with him.
ReplyDelete