A Moral Convergence

This past week two stories in the news have converged in an interesting way.

One story which has received much press coverage, has been the killing of a lion in Africa by an American hunter. Not that big game in Africa aren't hunted and killed all the time, (legally), but here are some of the unusual points about this story.

This particular lion, known as Cecil, was protected and followed for several years for research purposes by Wildlife Conservation. The hunter, with his African guides, had lured Cecil out of the protected park (illegal) and shot him with a crossbow, watching him for 40 hours until he was shot dead. This made the killing more brutal than necessary. Additionally he was decapitated and skinned to become the trophy this hunter was after. Supposedly, this hunter was unaware of the protected nature of this lion. Because of the method in which he handled this animal, this particular hunt seemed egregious.

The reaction to the killing of this lion was no less than international hysteria. So much so, that the American hunter had to go into hiding, as his own life had been threatened. Warranted? I think not. However, it does call into question some issues to ponder:  Should big game trophy hunting be legal? Are there benefits to the local villages by taking the life of an animal, especially a predatory one?

The other story to come to our attention was in the way of video exposes on Planned Parenthood (PP), in which executives from the company were caught discussing the sale of fetal parts to a fictional research company.

While PP maintains that they have not done anything illegal by receiving money to cover the cost of the procedure and to transport the tissue/organs, the videos tell a different story.

They show executives negotiating the price of tissue/organ procurement and 'then some', (illegal profiting) and in the latest video, there is discussion as to how to procure a fully intact fetus for the said research company. In one of the videos, it is revealed that PP does change the method of abortion (illegal) to fulfill the request of the research company, while claiming to reassure the mother that the procedure will follow protocol and not do anything different in their care for her.

To add insult to injury, the cavalier attitudes of the PP executives shown on camera was truly offensive. Casual and incidental, they discussed the dismemberment of the fetus, the crushing of some body parts, and the subsequent extraction of the fetus. All this without an iota of humanity, gravity or respect. Whether one agrees with fetal tissue donation or not, one should not treat a prenatal life with such brutality as illustrated here.

Again, some other questions arise:
What is PP's primary focus - giving the woman the best care she can get, or doing whatever needs to be done to sell tissue/organs to a business?

What is the ethical nature of fetal tissue procurement even if done for supposedly noble purposes?

Should taxpayers fund an organization whose practices are morally questionable at best?

While one may have outrage over both stories, it was the contrast in the press coverage that was troubling.  The lion story was covered way more in the media, while the PP story got little coverage (other than Fox News, which covered the PP story extensively). Something seems wrong with this picture. Clearly the politics of protecting PP by not giving this horrific story the proper attention was evident.

Finally, if one has outrage over an animal getting killed in a hunt, then shouldn't one have outrage over thousands of human fetuses whose lives are reduced to spare parts? If not, and that appears to be the case with many expressing anger over the lion, but not the fetuses....it begs the question: if it were animal fetuses that were being extracted in ways so as to sell its parts, would then these people get angry?