Pro-lifers have not yet won the argument over the sale of babies’ organs
The latest undercover video released by the Center for Medical Progress is the most visually grisly – the footage shows the dissection of an 11-week-old aborted baby at a Colorado Planned Parenthood clinic while the abortion doctor Dr Savita Ginde explains that the best way of receiving financial return for the organs would be to sell them individually.
Dr Ginde incriminates herself by saying: “I think a per-item thing works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.” Dr Ginde presents herself as less doctor and more hard-nosed businesswoman.
There is a very chilling logic here: the dismembered baby can be disposed like clinic waste, but if the abortion procedure is adapted and the unborn child is killed and taken apart in a careful way, their organs become commodities for sale. This exposé is causing a credibility crisis for the pro-choice side: over 40 years of the “it’s only a blob of tissue” propaganda is being revealed as a lie. But pro-lifers must not become complacent and think that the battle is about to be won.
The abortion lobby are not going to waste this crisis – “waste” being a word we may hear a lot in the coming months. I predict that the abortion industry spin-doctors will soon argue that it is to humanity’s benefit that the body parts of unborn babies are used for research. Their argument will be that instead of the aborted baby being dumped as human garbage, is it not for the good of humankind that their organs and skeletons go for medical research which will in turn benefit sick people?
In 2012, when I interviewed Catholic med students for the Catholic Herald, one student worked closely alongside doctors who harvest the organs from unborn babies for research. The pregnant mother is asked beforehand if she would like the baby’s body to go for medical research, and I was told by the med student that in nearly every case the mother says: “Thank heavens, some good will come out of this dreadful situation”.
The pregnant mothers themselves say that the idea that their baby’s body can be used for something like drug testing (and the idea that lives will be saved on the strength of this research) is “something good”.
We need to be ready for the trite propaganda that will follow: that the baby will die in an abortion anyway, and that their body can either become a useless waste product or be used in research. The soft-soak way of manipulating the public could involve presenting pro-lifers as mean to the sick and disabled because we are against testing on aborted children’s organs, even though, they will argue, that could mean medical advancement helping the sick and disabled.
For pro-lifers, the ending of a baby’s life so that a body may be experimented upon will always be revolting and intrinsically wrong. To agree with such experimentation is to approve the abortion which was the means of ransacking the child’s body for their organs.
