By Mark DeVine
Is Brit Hume correct? Has the recent dissemination of the two Planned Parenthood employees “parted the veil of antiseptic tidiness behind which the abortion industry has long operated?” Time will tell. Meanwhile, the abortion industry is working hard to find an effective response to the current uproar. Though shaken by the deep and widespread revulsion the videos have precipitated, the outlines of the initial pro-choice push back are already discernible.
One strategy attempts to supplant shocked consideration of abortion technique with disapproval of the possibly lawless actions of the videographers. A second stratagem proves more subtle and potentially more effective because it allows pro-abortion spokespersons to share in the outrage the videos have triggered.
I mean the repudiation Planned Parenthood leaders and their supporters are expressing at the “tone” of the recorded conversations. Yes, they say, how indelicate, in-artful to converse so casually and matter-of-factly about the harvesting and marketing of fetal body parts over salad and chardonnay. And oh how off putting, indeed, how indefensible to muse on the purchase of a Lamborghini from proceeds gained though sales of the tiny, freshly terminated but thankfully un-crushed livers and hearts. How discomfiting to witness such an emotionless consideration of abortion’s aftermath in body part and fetal tissue commodity markets.
But do the two videos depict an emotionless conversation and event. I think not. Pleasurable emotion abounds. Emotions stirred by the taste of wine, the crunch of salad and the anticipated cruises in a hoped-for Lamborghini. These emotions belong to the regrettable “tone” abortion supporters want us to focus on and then allow them to share with us the abhorrence of.
Fixation on tone, these supporters hope, will leave substance unexamined and thus, un-assailed. The abortion industry wants the conversation to exhaust itself in a shared outrage over tone and leave the substance—the premeditated careful killing by cautious crunching of a living but unwanted human infant? fetus?—alone.
Tone and Substance
But if “substance” nevertheless comes in for scrutiny, recourse seems to be that the harvesting and sale of body parts discussed in the video are, after all, legal. Furthermore, by-products of the procedure provide vital resources to medical researchers. Enough said.
I do not know if such marketing of baby body parts is legal, but, along with Brit Hume, I doubt that the horror and outrage expressed by so many viewers of the videos turn, in the first instance, over the matter of legality. Musings about legality may well arise in the minds of horrified viewers, but not immediately and when they do, its doubtful that such considerations would prove flattering to the abortion industry.
Legal ponderings, if they arise, do not coincide, not exactly at least, with the recoils of horror. The horror is not in the first instance reflective and expansive but, spontaneous, reflexive and visceral. Viewers recoil at what they cannot but experience and judge as morally outrageous. And this recoil involves both the tone and the substance conveyed by the videos. Tone and substance are distinguishable but inseparable dimensions of moral reality.
The substance of the recoil is the specter of a living human being whom doctors and surgical nurses collaborate to kill. The killing requires the crunching. The crunching not of any part of the woman’s body, but of this other living body.
And the killing needs to take place sooner rather than later and preferably in a controlled manner so as to preserve valuable parts and tissues for future sale. Thus, the necessary securing of death is not achieved by say laying the still alive creature on a table and waiting for it to die from exposure and lack of life-nurturing care. Thus, the need to crush and kill carefully now, not later.
The special horror evoked arises, not from some supposed separation of tone and substance, but from a mingling and mutual reinforcing between substance and tone. True, from the perspective of horrified viewers, the casual and happy tone of the conversation is inappropriate to the subject matter discussed. But clearly, to those conversing in the video, the tone fits the subject matter just fine. For the viewers and the viewed ones, tone and substance, while distinguishable, ought to be compatible. They just obviously disagree over the compatibility in this case.
A third group, Planned Parenthood officials not appearing in the videos, attempt to shape the thinking of outraged viewers. Yes, they confirm, the tone of these women is reprehensible. But the subject matter, the abortions themselves and the subsequent sale of body parts and fetal tissue harvest from the abortions is not outrageous. It is in fact salutary, providing precious resources to medical researchers.
But this construal of the matter involves a subtle subterfuge and sleight of hand. The tone that outrages so many actually fits like a glove on the cultural soil inhabited by Planned Parenthood. This tone springs fourth naturally from soil conducive to its seed. The casual happy tone belongs to and flourishes upon the cultural soil that legitimizes the killing of an unborn human life or the killing of a living human creature immediately upon its forcible extraction from the womb of its mother.
So all three groups accept that tone and substance ought to jibe. But judgment of tone/substance compatibility, in this case, turns precisely on recognition or not of the fetus as fully human.
The videos illumine two distinct but associated horrors. First, they shine a bright light on a ghastly step necessary to most abortions—the need to do some crushing of small body in order to end the creature’s life. A creature whose body seems clearly NOT to be part of the mother’s body. Her body and life are to be protected in this procedure. By protected I mean, especially, kept alive!
This stark window into abortion procedure and goals along with the now commonplace viewing of sonograms, make denials that abortion kills a human life increasingly difficult to maintain.
A second light illumines not the once alive but now dead small human creature but the shocking mindset of those who aid and abet and profit from the killings. We are confronted with the blunt and appalling reality of a thriving industry of abortion and of careers built upon meticulous consideration of how most profitably to crush a live but unwanted infant in order to harvest its tiny and marketable body parts and tissues.
No. The tone offers no escape from the substance and no attenuation of the collective horror experienced. The tone reveals, in Brit Hume’s words, how morally “anesthetized,” we become over time when and where such brutal acts become commonplace. Induced, says Charles Krauthammer, is a “psychic numbing.” This numbing, numbing to the substance of abortion, accounts for the outrageous tone on display in the videos. A moral numbing, I will argue in the next post, akin to that reported of numerous functionaries at Dachau and Auschwitz. A numbing also akin to that which accommodated and profited from the slave trade.
This blog argues that working for money and profit belong to the triune God’s saving purposes for human beings in this world and to the human flourishing celebrated in Holy Scripture. But not this work. Not these profits.
If you are able, seek profit and make a living. In fact please do all in your power to provide for yourself and those who depend upon you rather than make choices that increase the likelihood that others will have to provide support you could have should have provided for yourself and for your dependents. But not this way.
We must refuse to aid or abet, whatever the cost, foregoing any and all promised benefits, this industry boasting 55 million careful crunchings and counting. Whatever aids this cruncher to do his work or helps hands pass the forceps to hands that do such work involves work we must work to stop.