Ethics & Morality

Planned Parenthood aborts babies in a "less crunchy" way. What's wrong with harvesting baby body parts?


“A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they’re looking for specific nodes,” explains Dr Deborah Nucatola, Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood, the largest provider and promoter of abortion in the United States. “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part,” she adds, as she crunches on her green-leaf salad and swills it down with a nice Chianti. “Some people want lower extremities, too, which, that’s simple. I mean that’s easy.”

There has been something of a furore over the past month about the revelations that Planned Parenthood is harvesting unborn-baby body parts (or, if you prefer, foetal tissue) and selling them for between $30-$100 per specimen, “depending on the facility and what’s involved”. Dr Mary Gatter is President of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Council, and along with her Senior Director of Medical Services she ensures that there is sufficient “dialogue with the person who’s actually doing the procedure, so they understand what the end-game is (because) there are little things, changes they can make in their technique to increase your success”.

The videos of their gruesome discussions and callous haggling over price have been shown around the free world. But in a country which routinely aborts babies as a matter of gender liberty, and which permits vaguely-defined partial-birth abortion as a matter of legal latitude, the price of foetal parts is a matter for the market, surely? Why is the liberal media in a ‘quandary’?

Is it because employees of Planned Parenthood declare rather ruthlessly that babies can be killed in a “less crunchy” way in order to extract unbroken and unblemished organs? Is it the lighthearted banter that they’d like to make enough money from the sales of these body parts to buy a Lamborghini?

On average, Planned Parenthood perform an abortion every 94 seconds, amounting to almost 400,000 a year, for which they are paid $542.4 million in the form of ‘Government Health Services Grants and Reimbursements’. With an annual turnover of $1.2 billion, you might think their thriving business was adequately profitable, but where there’s Molech there’s Mammon, and the love of that is the root of all evil.

It is curious that as we in the United Kingdom are content to send our aborted babies to the gas ovens as part of the final solution, that we should object so strongly to a bit of Mengele-like genetic research and human experimentation. If we may ethically shovel buckets full of foetal tissue into furnaces to heat our hospitals as part of a ‘waste-to-energy’ policy, why may we not sell unborn-baby body parts for profitable and beneficial research?

The Department of Health was so appalled by the rise in foetal-central-heating that they issued an instant ban on the “totally unacceptable” practice. And now Planned Parenthood is being threatened with all manner of illiberal menace as the liberal media turn against them.

Why, exactly?

If, as we are consistently and incessantly told, a fertilised embryo becomes a foetus but it is not a human baby until 24 weeks (or 40 weeks if it happens to be disabled), why not treat it simply as refuse and incinerate it along with the rest of the waste? If it is nothing but a “bunch of cells” to be sliced and diced and the mush sucked out with vacuum device, why not recycle their unformed livers and hearts it to derive a modicum of human benefit?

We are not talking here about the mortal remains of miscarried babies, for to dismember them would be grossly insensitive to the grieving parents.

And yet the only difference between a miscarried baby and an aborted foetus is that the former was usually wanted and the latter invariably not, so they are categorised differently: some women “lose children in early pregnancy”; others “abort a foetus in early pregnancy” (or mid or late pregnanacy if it happens to be disabled). The miscarried baby is mourned and deemed worthy of Christian burial or cremation; the aborted foetus is just waste, and the best way of dealing with waste is to incinerate it.

But that is such a terrible waste.

Parliament has determined that a baby in the womb up to 24 weeks (or 40, if disabled) is not a human being with a right to life. They have no identity, no destiny and no humanity: they are like Jews in Nazi Germany, and their mass incineration in NHS ovens is a Shoah of equal horror. But the outpouring of disgust by the liberal-left media at this body-part research and experimentation is a bizarre hypocrisy. If it is ethical to harvest the stem cells of a growing embryo for medical research, why not the body parts of a developing foetus?

If stem cells may inhibit the onset of dementia or Parkinson’s disease, may we not learn more from the partially-formed brain of a foetus? Instead of elective abortion being tarnished by the shadows of Auschwitz, does the procedure not offer so much potential for major discoveries in human health and well-being? After all, the 1954 Nobel Prize for Medicine was awarded to scientists who developed the polio vaccine using cultures from foetal kidney cells. The research is nothing new: it has long been considered ethical to obtain liver/kidney/heart/brain cells from legally-procured abortions in order to advance medical knowledge and save lives.

Is the concern that a market in foetal tissue will lead to more abortions? Is it that the women may desire commission by way of remuneration? Might that lead to abortion as supplementary income? Or is it that the increased demand for unbroken and unblemished body parts will change the way abortions are performed?

Surely, if abortion is deemed to be a moral foundation for female autonomy and sexual liberty, an abortion clinic ought to be free to generate as much income as it desires from the process? Or is it that by shifting the focus away from the righteous ‘left-wing’ themes of sexual autonomy and women’s rights to the unjust and corrupt ‘right-wing’ obsession with the free market, the left-liberal media draw the line? The contradictory assertion becomes that abortion is not wrong, and nor is competition among service providers, but a derivative market in the spin-offs and by-products is ethically dubious.

Why, exactly?

One can understand the argument that research on foetal tissue is wrong because abortion is wrong. But if abortion is right, it cannot be immoral to seek the best use of the produce. The harvest is plentiful. We reap what we sow.