Planned Parenthood, Starbucks, & ‘No Apologies’

By | March 14, 2011

From the editors

The video below is gaining steam on YouTube. [Be aware: it includes some censored language.]

.

[tube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6d4OmLnLGc[/tube]

.

It’s footage from the “Walk for Choice,” held in Chicago on February 27th, 2011; and it offers some key insights on the meaning, extent, and ideals of the pro-choice movement in America today.

We want to hear what you think about this video. A couple of key points worth discussing:

  1. What’s the set of values endorsed by “Walk for Choice” participants (at least those interviewed in the video)?
  2. Is it natural that medical students would be eager to perform abortions?
  3. What do you make of the comparison between Planned Parenthood and Starbucks? Is it meaningful?
  4. Is abortion “healthcare”?

Follow the Center for Morality in Public Life on Facebook and Twitter.

Print Friendly
 
  • pjmerc

    I don’t know if what is expressed can be described as values, considering that there doesn’t seem to be any values in the traditional sense of the word. The overwhelming sense of self-entitlement constantly shrieks out of this video. “I want what I want, without consequences that might interfere with my life.” This is what secular feminism has brought us to.

    The idea of medical students thinking that they look forward to performing abortions is only the result of decades of teaching the same idea listed above. “My body. My choice,” is the mantra shouted from the bullhorns. But it’s not your body’s life that is getting taken. The “my body” idea has implications that go much further than the act of abortion. It points to the idea that one doesn’t have to take responsibility for one’s actions. This shows up throughout our culture where the name of the game is blame. The thinking goes that if a lie is shouted long and loud enough, people will accept it as the truth; truth which in itself has become relative. It also means that if one points the finger at someone else enough times, then no blame will stick to the one involved in the action.

    Babies aren’t babies anymore, they’re fetuses, which doesn’t have a cuddly sweet and helpless connotation. Just the sound of the word itself is cold.

    If Starbucks means having coffee anyway and anytime you want it, then yes, the two ideas are similar. It also has the cache of being a designer item. There is talk of people being able to “order” the kind of child they want. If that idea doesn’t come straight out of a marketing guru’s mouth, I don’t know what does.

    Abortion is a surgical procedure that ends the life of one human being, 98% of the time for convenience. It is not health care because it directly results in death. That is it’s main function.

  • Andrew Haines

    For those interested, I have a new article up discussing this video on CNA, here.

    In short, I think it bespeaks a fundamental shift in the tactics of pro-choicers: namely, “choice” simply no longer means a protection of rights, but is now invoked openly and plainly as an icon for the proliferation and endorsement of abortion services and nothing less. In other words, it betrays a shift from focusing on the medical ambiguity of fetal value to the moral ambiguity; and the latter is much more dangerous than the former.

  • Pingback: Abortion Clinics Should Be Modeled After Drive-Thru Starbucks? « Aspire To Virtue