Thursday, March 19, 2009

A simple explanation

(Before I get into today's little missive, I wish to mention that Natasha Richardson died yesterday. She was the wife of Liam Neeson, a man who played the mentor to two of my heroes - Obi-Wan Kenobi and Bruce Wayne - and who was also, I learned yesterday, a Catholic raising his children in the faith. I really don't know how much of a Catholic any of the Neeson family is, but if everyone who reads this can say a prayer for Natasha's soul and for the poor family left behind, I would be grateful).

Alright, on with the expose!

Today I learned news which is much less surprising than the death of Natasha Richardson; the United Way has now removed a policy relating to providing money to pro-abortion groups. To wit, the United Way now allows money to go to groups which provide abortions, but that money may not be used for abortions.

Check out the article concerning this matter here.

There isn't much to be said here, basically, this is a charitable group folding and collapsing when faced with a loss of donor money. It shows a lack of spine, of guts, of a couple of other parts of the human anatomy. The United Way have, it seems, rolled over and played dead.

So, the United Way is now providing funding to Planned Parenthood for services other than abortions. I want to make that very clear - because I am certain the UW is; they are not giving money which will be used for abortions, and they will only be giving money for services such as education, information etc. etc.

Sounds alright, doesn't it? I mean - okay, they are giving money to someone who is providing abortions, but they aren't paying for the abortions, right?

Right ... and it's still wrong.

Let me break this down to you by means of an example. Consider two people - Alice and Bob. Bob is person addicted to some kind of vile and illegal drug - and Alice knows this. And Bob is begging, he is begging for money. Now, Alice is wise and clever - she doesn't want to give him money and have him spend it on drugs. So, instead, she gives him money and makes him promise that he won't spend it on drugs.

And, you know what? Bob is very honest. Bob puts Alice $10 in his pocket and swears he won't spend it on drugs.

Clive comes along. Bob begs Clive for money, and because Clive doesn't care about people using drugs he gives him $10. Now Bob has $20. Clive never said Bob shouldn't spend the money on drugs, and so Bob goes and buys $10 worth of food using Alice's donation, and spends Clive's donation on drugs.

Do we understand my little ABC morality play here?

Donating money to provide for additional services which are not abortion simply frees up funds FOR abortions! And precisely WHAT is an "abortion related cost"? PP is silent on this, I note. If they pay for an office, is that abortion related because abortions go on there? Or not because other things do to? What about advertising - advertising doesn't kill anyone, right? What about "education" - precisely what are you educating people about?

Giving money to someone who murders, even if that money will never be spent on a knife, is immoral and wrong and should absolutely be stopped. United Way - shame on you for allowing a desire for money to get the better of you. Shame on you, shame on the horse you rode in on, and shame on the little girl who feeds it apples!

No comments:

Post a Comment