Here’s an email I received last night. I’ll just give you the first three sentences, as they preclude the possibility of taking any of the subsequent sentences seriously:
“Hi Matt, I’ll start by telling you I’m a feminist so I’m obviously already going to disagree with your sexist anti-abortion views. But what I want to do is clear up a few misconceptions and lies you stated today when discussing the Obamacare money that’s going to Planned Parenthood. First off, Planned Parenthood is not an “abortion business,”… only three percent of what they do is abortion … the rest is essential services like conducting mammograms. Planned Parenthood officials are trying to help women, they aren’t interested in “enriching themselves” as you claimed…”
Alright, that’s all you need to see of that.
I mean, whoa. Holy hell. That paragraph is so dense with inanities and nonsense that I’m afraid I might have a psychotic episode if I stare at it for too long. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered that much wrongness in such a small space. Well, not since the last time I got an angry email from an abortion enthusiast, anyway. But this is how it goes when you get into a debate with an infanticide advocate. I’ve always said that trying to converse with these people is like smoking crack, stumbling into a dark room and falling into a vat of cow manure. It’s bizarre, confusing, disturbing, gross, and a really poor way to spend your free time. You always come out of it with a horrible head ache and the lingering stench of bull sh*t in your nostrils.
In other words, I slightly disagree with the emailer’s assertions.
So let’s start at the end and work our way through this fanciful tale of fiction.
“Planned Parenthood officials aren’t interested in enriching themselves…”
Well they sure are good at doing things that don’t interest them. Is this similar to how liberal feminists say they aren’t “for abortion,” they’re just “for choice,” but then the only choice they’re ever interested in talking about is the one they said they aren’t for? The CEO of the “nonprofit” Planned Parenthood makes 400 thousand dollars a year. This makes her wealthy by Obama’s own definition of the term. In fact, more than 22 of Planned Parenthood’s CEOs make over 200 grand a year. That’s over 200 grand a year working for a nonprofit that rakes in half a billion a year in tax money. So, enriching themselves? Clearly. But, sure, that’s totally not something that interests them. I’m sure they barely even notice when they write those enormous checks to themselves.
“… The rest is essential services like conducting mammograms.”
Really? Planned Parenthood does mammograms? Cool, call your local Planned Parenthood clinic and try to schedule one. I’ll wait.
… Back? So what time is your appointment? Oh, they gave you a different number to call or told you to Google it? Yeah, that’s Planned Parenthood’s version of “doing mammograms.” They simply refer you to a legitimate medical facility with the proper personnel and equipment. Good for them, I guess, but the fact is they don’t actually conduct mammograms. Sorry. Facts are pesky things, aren’t they?
“… Only three percent of what they do is abortion…”
Johnny works at a jewelry store that also happens to have a gum ball machine. Yesterday, Johnny sold four expensive gold watches while the gum ball machine was visited ten times. Now, Johnny is self destructive and insane, so when his manager called at the end of his shift he proudly reported to his boss that he had “spent most of the day selling gum balls.”
Johnny doesn’t work at the jewelry store anymore.
Did that story make sense to you? It should if you like to repeat that “three percent” statistic. It might have been technically accurate that Johnny sold more gum than gold, but it’s of course absurd for him to weigh both of them equally when describing his work related activities. Similarly, Planned Parenthood clinics might do more than perform abortions, but abortion is still 40 percent of their revenue. How could they claim that 40 percent of their revenue is only 3 percent of their business? Well, because they’re scheming fraudsters. See, if a particular clinic performs 3 abortions in a day, but hands out 100 free condoms in the process, they chalk that up to a nice “three percent” abortion average. It’s essentially like your bank placing a bowl of free lollipops at the counter and then claiming that “half of their business is lollipop dispensing.” Same logic. Do me a favor and find me one legitimate business owner who would describe their biggest single revenue source as “only three percent of their business.” That’s the sort of math that only makes sense to tax subsidized abortion mills.
“… I’m a feminist so I’m obviously already going to disagree with your sexist anti-abortion views.”
What is this feminism of which you speak? I find the term quite confusing. The word “feminine” would seem to be at the root of “feminist,” yet the movement stands opposed to anything and everything that is uniquely feminine. If I didn’t know any better, and I had to draw my own conclusions without any frame of reference, I’d probably assume that a “feminist” is someone who celebrates the beauty and natural power of womanhood and fights for life, liberty and justice for all members of the female gender. Then, armed with nothing but my logic and naivety, I’d naturally expect that these “feminists” would be concentrating their efforts almost exclusively on two things: 1) Eradicating the scourge of abortion and 2) Opposing militant Islam in the Middle East.
Imagine how surprised Imaginary Me will be when he finds out that, contrary to his rational assumptions, “feminists” actually spend all of their time defending wealthy abortionists (most of whom are male) and ignoring the persecution of women in Muslim nations. Think of how my head will swim when I further discover that feminists claim to believe in “Reproductive Rights,” yet they stay silent about places where the right to reproduce is actually under attack, like in China, for instance. That’s because, as I’d discover, when they say “Reproductive Rights” what they mean is the right to NOT reproduce.
Ah, I’d think, well I guess there are people in this country who believe women should be forced to procreate, and so these feminists are heroically standing in bold opposition to them. Wait, what? Literally nobody in this country has ever suggested that legislation be passed requiring females to reproduce? So these liberal feminists are arguing against a position that nobody holds? Huh? Pro-lifers aren’t insisting that women be required to conceive children, but instead believe that the new life should be protected once it has been already been created? Well, surely nobody could oppose that. After all, society has always expected mothers and fathers to care for their children, and no civilization has ever viewed murder as an acceptable escape hatch for parents who aren’t interested in making the sacrifices necessary to raise their own offspring. Surely no decent human being could oppose the basic “don’t kill your children” standard, could they? Certainly no feminist could defend something so cruel, unjust and unfeminine, particularly considering the epidemic of gender selective abortions worldwide. Right?
Imaginary Me is in for a rude awakening. Speaking of which, I think a lot of people could use an awakening these days. Here’s a good rule of thumb: If you can’t manage to muster even one honest, moral, consistent, logical or rational statement when defending your opinion, perhaps it’s time to consider changing it entirely.