I think what Geraldo mean[s] is that it’s nobody’s business what a woman wants to do with her aborted child
writes
Benny Huang.
I don’t think that it’s a
misrepresentation of Geraldo’s views to use the word “child” either, as
several comments he made in the course of the debate seem to imply that
he believes the thing being ripped from a woman’s womb is in fact a
child. So Geraldo concedes that we’re discussing baby corpses here, he’s just not bothered by it.
Like a lot of people, I reeled in disgust at Geraldo’s callous remark but I also found myself wondering why.
We’re now so far down the slippery slope that the peripheral issue of
how to use the byproducts of abortion moves front and center. The rest
has all been decided.
Is it any wonder that Planned Parenthood’s phalanx of defenders have
argued that the CFP videos are much ado about nothing? Its organ
harvesting is always conducted with the woman’s consent, they claim, and
is always done on a not-for-profit basis. Leaving aside for a moment
the fact that neither of these two assertions is even true, that’s still
a pretty shoddy defense. The Nazis didn’t make money on their organ
harvesting either but that didn’t make it right.
But alas, there is a great gulf in this country between what is right
and what is legal. In America you can legally kill an unborn child and
legally sell her liver, brain, and heart; but if you charge one penny
more than the costs of procurement and shipping, that’s a crime! What a
silly point to quibble about—Planned Parenthood says that they don’t
charge more for butchered baby parts than what it costs them, and it’s
on the rest of us to prove they’re lying. (Watch the videos—it’s all
about the money.) Lost in the shouting and cross-talk is the fact that
they kill children.
Which makes Geraldo’s indifference
almost understandable. Who cares what we do with the “products of
conception” once we’re done sucking them out with a shop vac? Now is not
time to get squeamish. We have to do something with our
truckloads of mashed baby, so why not sell it to Alpo? It’s better than
keeping it in jars in Kermit Gosnell’s refrigerator.
But people tend to get themselves in a tizzy when we creatively
repurpose dead baby parts. Here’s a small example that I think
illustrates the public’s unease with using aborted children for the
betterment of humanity—last year, it was reported that Britain’s
National Health Service (NHS) was using fetuses to heat hospitals across
the UK. The 15,000 incinerated fetuses were part of a “Waste-to-Energy”
plan that used medical refuse and ordinary trash as a fuel. And who
could be against that, except perhaps some sadist who delights in people
dying of hypothermia? As it turned out, some people got their knickers
all in a bunch and the NHS quickly put a stop to the practice—not the
killing of babies, mind you, but the burning of their corpses for heat.
The NHS’s Chief Inspector of Hospitals,
Sir Mike Richards, seemed oddly fixated on the wrong issue, namely that
no one asked the mothers for permission. Said Sir Richards, “I am
disappointed trusts may not be informing or consulting women and their
families. This breaches our standard on respecting and involving people
who use services…”
So there’s the real scandal—women didn’t consent to burning their
children like firewood. But why should anyone ask them? To even pose the
question implies that dead babies are somehow different from other
kinds of medical waste.
… Like the NHS, [the Covanta
Waste-to-Energy facility in Oregon] also acted swiftly to halt the burning of
unborn children, though I don’t understand why. Who are they to deprive
us of an abundant renewable resource? We could even construct a baby
sludge pipeline from Canada directly to trash-burning reactors here in
the States. Think of it like Keystone XL, only Obama wouldn’t veto it.
Energy independence is national security!
… A society that kills the unborn has already conceded the moral
argument against abortion. If killing the unborn is not immoral, then
who can find fault with feeding their corpses to dogs? Certainly not us.
