Unless you’ve been on the dark side of the moon for the past few weeks you’ve probably heard about the explosive videos (the first video can be seen here and the most recent here) that have come to light exposing the morally reprehensible (among other things) and possibly illegal activities of Planned Parenthood in regards to their purposeful harvesting of organs for profit from the abortions that they perform.
Ryan T. Anderson, research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, in this article at The Daily Signal, draws some stark connections from that exposure to the recent Obergfell decision (which I commented on here).
Last week many of us were disgusted to learn Planned Parenthood is harvesting and selling body parts from aborted children. As the largest provider of abortion in America, Planned Parenthood is part of the problem, on the “supply” side. But as we all learned in Econ 101, there’s both supply and demand. What’s behind the demand for abortion? A major factor is the breakdown of the family. And the Supreme Court’s ruling to redefine marriage is only taking us further down that road, putting even more unborn children at risk. After all, redefining marriage redefines parenthood. (Emphasis added)
The last part is definitely true because we can see this problem playing out in states where same-sex “mirage” has taken root where the biological connection between a father or mother of a child is subverted by the non-biological non-parent being written in as “parent” or “progenitor”. The redefinition of marriage has far reaching effects.
The best protectors of unborn children are a strong marriage culture and people who take the virtue of chastity seriously. But the new consent-based view of marriage reduces marriage to a mere contract and it makes a culture of chastity harder to foster.
Why is it that strong, life-long, monogamous heterosexual unions the best for the unborn? It is in those relationships that the consequences (in the positive sense) of a sexual relationship can be considered and prosper.
Later, Anderson points out the inherent danger that has yet to be considered,
Adults must have what they want, including children. If those children cannot be conceived through a natural act of love, they must be manufactured. Far more children will be destroyed than will be born, of course, but we have decided that adult desires come first.
This has never been about “the children”, it’s been about what selfish, immature people desire, and the question that has to be asked, that is failed to be asked is what will happen when the new wears off. We seem to be setting up for a new form of slavery.
One last statement from Anderson,
From the contraception mandate, we are moving on to a conception mandate, with California leading the way. All healthcare plans in that state must cover reproductive technologies for all people, married or unmarried, gay, lesbian, or straight. “Reproductive medicine is for everybody’s benefit,” asserts the author of that law. “To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. I wrote this bill to correct that.” The law makes no allowance for a health care plan sponsor’s conscientious beliefs about life, marriage, or parenting.
Just as homosexuals pushed for a “right to marry”, they will push for a “right to have children”. Reality is rejected by these people, namely the reality of the situation that the people who choose to engage in this behavior has limitations and prohibitive aspects. One thing does not necessarily lead to the other.
Truly, it is a demonstration of the suppression of the knowledge of God. Go check out Anderson’s article.