Over at First Things I ponder why there seems to be much more emotional intensity over the hunting of Cecil the lion than Planned Parenthood’s dismembering fetuses. First, our moral sensibilities have changed about hunting. From, “Reflections on Planned Parenthood and Cecil the Lion:”
Trophy hunts were once the subjects of lore. But moral views have changed significantly since Theodor Roosevelt and Earnest Hemingway were considered valorous for hunting exotic animals. Today, there is, in general, greater empathy for animals, and most recoil at the thought of causing them pain. Thus, while a few may be able to justify turning animals like Cecil into trophies, most people (including me) are disgusted.
Meanwhile, abortion is considered not only acceptable by many, but a positive good by some.
Second, are the visuals:
Why, precisely, were so many people so outraged at his killing? Humans respond very powerfully to visual imagery. Cecil was a magnificent specimen of a majestic animal—the mature male lion, king of the beasts. Had the now-despised trophy-seeking dentist hunted a wart hog instead, fewer would have cared.
The same impetus is, at least to some degree, responsible for the depth of outrage at the recent Planned Parenthood scandal. Consider how many anti–Planned Parenthood stories and social media posts were accompanied by sweet pictures of babies.
But others are being killed and reaped for their organs–particularly in China where Falun Gong and others are tissue typed, murdered, and harvested for a price in a $billion industry.
Yet, we haven’t seen the intensity of protest among pro lifers against those predations as against PP. Why? These victims are anonymous with few vivid or lurid visuals to represent the victims.
Consequently:
Based on the raw emotions expressed, one might conclude that killing Cecil was worse than harvesting fetuses, and both far more odious than killing born people for their organs. That is why we can’t rely solely on emotions for judging right and wrong.
PP’s defenders have been mounting a utilitarian defense, that is, the fetal parts provide scientific benefit. Then why not experiment on living fetuses.
Think that would never happen? It already has in the late 60s. When the gruesome truth came to light, the Kennedy family led the charge to stop it!
Would there be such universal condemnation today? I doubt it.
The experiments mostly took place before Roe v. Wade, when most people still believed that unborn life had significant moral meaning. Forty-two years and more than 50 million abortions have since withered our moral sensibilities; the Kennedys’ political party doesn’t seem to care that Planned Parenthood abortionists chirpily discussed facilitating organ harvests by “crushing” fetuses in a “less crunchy” manner.
How all of this plays out will say a tremendous amount about our culture. If the PP death ship sails on blithely, I don’t see how living fetal experiments won’t be far behind–particularly after artificial wombs are developed that would open the door to what is sometimes called “fetal farming.”