unlockedJosh Whedon is a writer for the famous Avengers movies. He recently put his movie-making skills to Youtube, developing a brief emotional video titled “Unlocked.” The video is propaganda which supports the death-loving, blood-gluttonous organization falsely known as Planned Parenthood (PP). The video can be seen here.

The video dramatically showcases three women, and by working in reverse, we see how awful and hard their lives would be without Planned Parenthood murdering 300,000 babies every year, and then in normal temporal order, compares that to how much better their lives are since Planned Parenthood is allowed to murder millions of babies.

The video, without using any words, essentially makes the same 3 tired, smoke-screen arguments that PP advocates use regularly, and it is this:

Without Planned Parenthood, women would not have availability to breast cancer screenings, S.T.I. education/medication, or to birth control.

Breast Cancer

The first woman in the video is a woman seen collapsing and dying in a hospital bed. A quick glimpse of her Mammogram results in the video showed she had breast cancer, and her family cries at her death bed.

The problem is Planned Parenthood does not even provide mammograms by their own admission. They do provide breast exams, and then refer women to places where they can receive proper care.

However, breast exams and the places where women actually receive mammograms and treatment would obviously be around without PP.

S.T.I. Education

The next woman in the video was a young girl who watched her friend run off in fornication at a party, and it was insinuated her friend picked up an STI and was angrily showing her hook-up partner her medication and pamphlet on STI’s.

Her guilt-ridden friend was later seen with a large group of other beautiful and happy youngsters being educated about S.T.I. prevention by a PP employee.

Yet again, this is a straw-man argument garbed in an inappropriate appeal to pathos.

Free S.T.I. testing and education are available all over the country. In fact, women’s health organizations who often offer these services free to the women (as the one in my town does) are far more available  than Planned Parenthood “health” clinics are.

On top of that, even while PP exists, they are still not helping women at a higher rate than other health clinics already are.

The idea implied in this video, that without the baby-murder factories, women all over the country would not receive care and would be dying of breast cancer is simply not close to true.

Poor Economics

The video, and the arguments alike, also demonstrate a very pessimistic view of good ol’ fashion American economy. If Planned Parenthood was shut down due to the well over 300,000 children they torture to death every single year, who is to say other places would not come about to offer these non-abortive services?

Even if one grants that there would be a gap (which there likely would not be), this gap would just be blood in the water for a new healthy entrepreneurial group. If birth control, breast exams, and S.T.I. treatment are in high demand, and people are willing to pay for them, someone will offer them, that’s how markets work.

The False Dichotomy

Planned Parenthood could be that someone above, provided they cease murdering innocent children immediately.  The video, and these arguments alike, establish a false dichotomy. The argument is that PP, in order to exist, must offer all of these services as well as child-sacrifice, or nothing at all.

If they wanted they could simply stop killing little babies, and offer these other services. Why is that option not presented? The reason is because these arguments are smoke screens hiding us from the true reason people want PP around: they want a place to murder their children without consequence, and for a relatively affordable price.

Besides, if the lie that PP and its supporters constantly peddle that abortion is only 3% of their annual services then certainly this would hardly effect their profit and business.

The Abortion Cover-Up

The last woman in the video was by far the most disturbing and the most important in demonstrating the main point we all need to see about Whedon’s disgraceful video.

A clearly pregnant young girl is found holding a letter informing her she received a full scholarship to a University. Her Mom was also shown as being devastated and angry with her as she held her pregnancy test in her hands crying.

The first thought on my mind was that this clearly pregnant young girl was going to go get that little nuisance floating around in her uterus, which we call a living human child, murdered. I mean, after all, there is simply no way to go to college and be a single mom! And obviously, no one should ever have to deal with the consequences of their free sexual actions, therefore the only reasonable option is to go get that baby killed.

I know the baby didn’t ask to be born, and I know the baby should not have to be sacrificed so she can pursue her dreams, and I know the baby is innocent, and I know the baby didn’t make her have sex, but obviously, the baby should die before she loses out on opportunities she wants. Sacrifice the child’s freedom in order to ensure her own!

The irony behind my sarcasm is that we call this barbaric, selfish, animalistic thought the product of a worldview called secular “humanism.” There is nothing human about abortion. It is pure evil, the kind hardly even seen among wild animals.

But, when the video ran, it did not show the young girl doing what I had anticipated. It showed her preventing that pregnancy by receiving birth control, not terminating it.

There are two primary issues with this. First, as has been stated, Planned Parenthood does not need to exist in order for young girls to receive birth control.

Secondly, why would this girl need birth control? Why was abortion not an option? Why was she and her mother so upset? If abortion is not immoral, why should it be rare? Why should it not, in and of itself, be considered a form of birth control?

What was demonstrated by Whedon, and by all those who make these arguments is that they are red-herrings. Whedon must hide the fact that Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country because he knows it is wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong. That is why it did not make its way into this video.

The Double Standard

What amazes me is that this video, which represents the psyche of abortion fanatics everywhere, could beg the question so badly.

In order to praise PP for all the other “good” they do is to completely beg the question: is abortion moral?

These arguments, even if granted in toto, are completely irrelevant to whether or not PP ought to exist.

If you’re an abortion advocate reading this, please follow this thought expirement with me:

What “good” could Hitler have done, apart from murdering millions of Jews, that could convince you going to war to end his regime was immoral?

How much money could he donate? How many children could he adopt? How many scholarships could he give a young person? What good could he do to allow you to put up with slaughtering Jews?

Allow me to make it more personal: May I rape 10 women next year if I vow to donate $100,000 to breast cancer research?

I desperately hope those questions were rhetorical.

Now, suppose abortion is wrong. Suppose for a moment that Christians and conservatives and everyone else who believe it to be immoral are right.

Suppose that those over 300,000 abortions which PP recorded last year were actual people. Suppose they were actual children. Suppose they were real, innocent, living babies. Suppose PP committed over 300,000 murders last year.

How many birth control pills could justify that? What could they possibly do on the side to make up for that?

What World Do I Want?

You see, this video misses the point entirely. These arguments miss the point entirely. No matter how many women they are helping, if those 300,000 abortions are real people, real children, and they are being murdered, none of their charity work matters.

So I can answer the question posed at the end of the video very easily. Whedon asks, “What world do you want?”

I want ta world where a nation actually protects babies.

I want a world where mothers do not sacrifice their children for their own pleasures.

I want a world where the womb is not the most dangerous place for a human being to be.

I want a world where other human beings do not get to decide the “humanness” of others.

I want a world where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are actually granted to everyone.

I want a world where fornication and teen-sex are not socially acceptable.

I want a world which acts the way our righteous God and eternal King designed and requires us to.

I want a world where murder is wrong.

I want a world in which Planned Parenthood does not exist.

Fighting Fire With Fire

apologiaUnfortunately, in my experience, few abortion supporters are interested in  actual reasoning about the issues of who the unborn are and what rights they have. I experience far more emotionalism than rationality. Empty platitudes not relevant to the discussion are screamed, and very dialogue happens. They prefer dramatic Youtube videos of women dying and crying, rather than reasoned discourse and honest debate.

Thankfully, Apologia Church responded to this video on the video’s terms. It provided a different version of Whedon’s emotional video, and beat him at his own game. The response is artistic and brilliant. Please, watch the video here and please share it on your social media accounts.

4 thoughts on “The World I Want Is a World Without Planned Parenthood: A Response to “Unlocked”

  1. The world’s youngest mother was five years old at the time that she gave birth to her son. Such a pregnancy was extremely risky, it would have been easy for both the mother and infant to have died. Which child deserves life more? The mother or the infant?

    Like

    • Jamie,

      1) This is a common pro-abortion tactic. It ought to be very unsettling that your position requires you to often utilize the logic which writes general laws based on rare exceptions. I wonder if you would apply that standard to all laws, or is abortion the arbitrary exception to all other laws?

      2) I do not think you really care all that much about this wildly rare scenario. Here is how I can prove it:

      Would you be willing to outlaw ALL abortions for women over the age of 5 years old? If we allowed abortions for the five year olds, but no one else, would you support that? I suspect the answer is no. Which again serves to prove the point that you are trying to use the circumstances of one to justify entirely different situations. It is a red-herring, as I stated in the blog.

      3) None of the women in Whedon’s video were 5 year old girls. Do you have the statistics on how often Planned Parenthood treats 5 year old girls?

      4) To answer your question, unlike the pro-death gluttons, I say they BOTH have a right to live. The doctors and the families should do everything they can to save both lives. It is very likely that the approach they take to ensuring the mother lives and trying to birth the baby will be unorthodox and dangerous, and will likely lead to the child’s death. But that is not the same thing as putting the child to death. I disagree with your dichotomy that either they both die or we must kill one. I agree it is likely the child will die, but that can happen within moral efforts.

      To get back to the point of the blog, why do you support the 99% of abortions in America, those that do not threaten the mother’s life? Why are you comfortable killing those children?

      Let’s say America granted your hypothetical, and legalized abortion only when the mother’s life is not in immediate jeopardy. Would you be happy, or do you want abortion to be legal even for those who are in no danger?

      Like

      • Exceptions and rare circumstances are often the best test of a law or a rule. A good friend of mine had her first abortion at twelve years of age (her father her gave her no choice.) Even at her age, having delivered a baby would still be risky. Had she defied his demand, she would have been on her own and at risk in other ways. Sometimes you can’t save them both – and sometimes God installs in infants fatal birth defects like holes in their hearts and missing brain-stems.
        A mother’s life and a mother’s quality of life can be two different things – a twelve year old can give birth, but she cannot provide the same quality of life as a twenty-four year old whose devoted spouse wants to do right by the infant.
        Have you watched ‘Call the Midwife’? Theirs was a world where women had little choice but to have bigger families than they could support – causing the whole clan to live in poverty, limiting their quality of life. For millenia, women died in childbirth, as did their infants, some died of birth defects. We have technology that saves many from God’s fate. But we lack some things things that haven’t caught up to the possibilities – hate abortion all you want, by why not put money behind technology to create artificial wombs in order to thaw out all those frozen eggs and birth a new generation of people without forcing human incubators to sacrifice their dignity.

        Like

  2. “Exceptions and rare circumstances are often the best test of a law or a rule. ”

    — Hardly true.

    ” A good friend of mine had her first abortion at twelve years of age (her father her gave her no choice.)”

    — Her father is a murderer and I pray he comes to know Christ Jesus as Lord where he can be forgiven of murdering a child.

    “Even at her age, having delivered a baby would still be risky. Had she defied his demand, she would have been on her own and at risk in other ways. Sometimes you can’t save them both – ”

    — You’re right. Sometimes we cannot. But trying and failing is not the same thing as execution.

    “sometimes God installs in infants fatal birth defects like holes in their hearts and missing brain-stems.”

    1) If you’re saying children die naturally, I obviously agree and cannot even begin to think how that is relevant to my concern that women are murdering their babies.

    Sometimes grown men die from heart attacks and lightning strikes. That does not mean I can murder people just because other people die naturally.

    2) Unless you’re implying that a baby who is sick in some way ought to be killed. Then I would ask you this: Would you consider me morally righteous if I want through a children’s hospital executing all the sick children?

    “A mother’s life and a mother’s quality of life can be two different things – a twelve year old can give birth, but she cannot provide the same quality of life as a twenty-four year old whose devoted spouse wants to do right by the infant…Have you watched ‘Call the Midwife’? Theirs was a world where women had little choice but to have bigger families than they could support – causing the whole clan to live in poverty, limiting their quality of life. ”

    1) Notice the flawed logic: the reason the mother’s poor quality of life is an issue to you is because her poor quality of life will cause the infant to also have poor quality of life.

    Why is poor quality of life a bad thing? Is it because it can lead to death? If so, how is killing the child the proper alternative to the child dying? That’s literally as logical as giving people cancer and killing them because medically they are likely to have cancer one day.

    You try to avoid low quality of life and death BY prescribing the lowest quality of life: torture and murder.

    2) Good news for the ill=prepared 12 year old: plenty of willing adoption parents would be happy to provide something murder cannot.

    3) Again, you are obsessed with these young girl rarities and refuse to justify the vast majority of child sacrifice you are covertly supporting.

    “For millenia, women died in childbirth, as did their infants, some died of birth defects.”

    —- You act like innocent people dying is a bad thing, so why are you pro-abortion? Why are women dying in childbirth so tragic to you, but children dying in childbirth is a relief? If death is bad, welcome to the anti-abortion side. We have been trying to say that for years.

    “hate abortion all you want”

    — I do hate abortion. There is nothing about torturing innocent babies to death that any living person should not hate with every aspect of their being.

    “by why not put money behind technology to create artificial wombs in order to thaw out all those frozen eggs and birth a new generation of people ”

    — What a bizarre shifting of the topic. I have said nothing to this point about de-funding artificial wombs. I have said killing children is sinful, and you have yet to tell me how you know murdering children is not wicked.

    ” without forcing human incubators to sacrifice their dignity.”

    The irony is thick enough to choke on. The only one sacrificing human dignity here is you. After all, 500,000 human beings every year are called “clumps of cells” and are then being decapitated, burned, or they have their limbs ripped off. Torturing and murdering a human being a stronger human being with more money decides is no longer human is the most egregious way mankind has ever invented or “sacrificing a person’s dignity”. It is literally more degrading than anything the Nazi’s, and the southern slave owners did the human beings they de-humanized.

    Lastly, you did not answer my question. Why do you support a woman murdering her child when her life is not in danger, and would you be happy with a law which would forbid those abortions?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s