Today, I was approached on the street in Cambridge by a man who was wearing a Planned Parenthood (PP) shirt and carrying a clipboard. Now normally, I'm used to being approached on the street by straight-forward, honest to God charities and a few "save the planet" eco-freaks. So you can imagine being solicited in public by the biggest abortion mill in the country for more funds in addition to the some 30 million a year they already get from the federal government.
The first thing I thought of was, apart from figuring that they had picked the wrong guy from which to solicit funds, how would they respond to the accusation that their organization murder over 300,000 unborn babies every year. The response came that they were a non-profit interested in the care of women and that only 3 % of their customers actually get abortions. But this distortion is a variant of the 3 % services provision pie chart (see below). I told him that, labeling both an abortion and the handing out a flyer a "service", renders the terms meaningless, just as meaningless the language of 'choice' covers up the fact that one side of the argument happens to choose murder. So he conceded that it was really the case that, based on revenue, about 50 % of their business was abortion, which I'd imagine was quite visible to him as a manager. But he retorted that, while PP are more interested in providing those women with information and resources and that he himself goes to PP for diabetic needles and supplies (although one would wonder why he does not go to Planned Insulin for that). That addition sounded like some strange and desperate lurch to legitimize a nefarious operation, like a mafia racketeering operation that sells flowers on the side. His language began to more clearly reflect what PP really is - a cover up operation. He told me that PP offers a place to have abortions performed safely, at which point I confronted him with the fact that several thousands of illegal abortions were performed before the 1973 Roe V. Wade decision, but that that number rose to 1.5 million afterwards.
I pressed the matter further - murdering children does not protect anyone, and that the women who go there are misled and even coerced into have these abortions. Why for example, do the PP abortionists not show the ultrasound of the baby they are about to destroy to the mother (or the father ?)
When I asked him this, he responded that it was not appropriate (this is a word that is used by so-called 'liberals' to hide from terms like 'wrong' or 'evil' and other words which don't comport well with a world view of moral relativism). Inappropriate ? Why is it "inappropriate" ? It was at this point that I got no answer, except the most nauseating and unsatisfying modern cliche "this conversation is over". Just like in the case of the ultrasounds, PP's instinct is to cover up and stifle the quest for getting to the truth of the matter. They don't show the ultrasounds because they know deep down, just as everyone else does, that a baby is a baby and that if everyone who darkens their door was able to see that, they would go out of business.
