If They Were Baby Seals Instead of Just Babies...

American Thinker ^ | January 23, 2013 | Robert Babcock

[NYer]

Perhaps our pro-abortion friends will better understand why we pro-lifers oppose any tax-funded support for Planned Parenthood if we explain our opposition in a way that engages their sympathy:

Suppose there were a company called Planned Parkas that manufactures very warm winter coats for people who otherwise would have difficulty obtaining them. 

Planned Parkas provides a vital wintertime resource to low-income and homeless people from Bangor to Boise, so the federal government uses taxpayer money to support Planned Parkas -- except, of course, for that part of the operation that clubs baby seals, skins them, tans their hides, and sews their furs onto parka hoods.  (Baby seal fur is a very warm, durable, and practical trim.)

Now, no taxpayer money goes directly to pay the men who club the baby seals, or to transport baby seal furs from the Arctic Circle to Planned Parka factories, or even to pay workers who sew baby seal fur onto hoods.  The law prevents that.

However, taxpayer money does help pay operating expenses of factories where Planned Parka products are manufactured -- including those that feature baby seal fur -- and the warehouses where they are stored.  Taxpayer money helps pay an army of Planned Parka staff to keep track of inventory -- including stock that contains baby seal fur -- and to do accounting that includes sales of baby seal fur products.  Taxpayer money is also a source of funding for the staff who make sure low-income and homeless clientele are provided with parkas -- including parkas that feature baby seal fur.

Planned Parkas says that only 3% of its product line involves the killing of baby seals.  

[NYer]

Yet it is a fact that Planned Parkas gets at least 30% to 40% of its revenue from baby seal fur products, and in 2011 Planned Parkas harvested over 333,000 baby seals.

Ping!

[andyk]

So this baby seal walks into a club.

[353FMG]

“....if we explain our opposition in a way that engages their sympathy....”

.
You started making a wrong assumption when you presumed that people who condone the murder of defenseless children, entertain feelings of sympathy.

Do you think that an abortionist, any abortionist, feels sympathy towards his victims?

[newheart]

Shakespeare had a character named Jaques, in As You Like It, who wept as a hunter brought down a deer (for food of course). Jaques was a whiner, who could love animals but not people.

He swore that we (humans):
"Are mere usurpers, tyrants and what's worse,
To fright the animals and to kill them up
In their assign'd and native dwelling-place."

Today, he would be a member of PETA and campaign for free abortions.

[KittenClaws]

Many years ago I took a new job at a company whose offices were decorated by the owners wife. My office featured pictures of baby seals, all cute and roly-poly, big brown eyes, Pastel colors.

One day, one of the men who worked there came in, and after looking at the paintings remarked to me in a very casual tone “kind of makes you want to club the little b——rd, doesn’t it?

LOL!

[fieldmarshaldj]

[Cronos]

no, it’s showing them their hypocracy

[SuziQ]

Do you think that an abortionist, any abortionist, feels sympathy towards his victims?

No, but the average folks who are 'pro-abortion' are also the folks who demand that baby seals be protected, thus the analogy.

[dalereed]

Need to give out more free seal clubs!