The first breakthrough into the mainstream media came around 4pm at the Washington Post, which did a relatively good job of providing in-depth perspective on the issue. (The Weekly Standard points out some weaknesses in the article though.) The Post (and many other outlets) interviewed Arthur Caplan, director of New York University\u2019s Division of Medical Ethics: \u201cIf you\u2019re starting to play with how it\u2019s done, and when it\u2019s done, other things than women\u2019s health are coming into play. You\u2019re making a huge mountain of conflict of interest.\u201d\u009d<\/p>\n
Most liberal websites defended Planned Parenthood and attack the undercover video. The debate is nothing new, says Vox, though they do pay some attention to objections. Mother Jones says the video is a \u201cnothingburger,\u201d\u009d and New York Magazine stridently refers to pro-lifers as \u201cwacky relatives\u201d\u009d whom you have to \u201cdeal with.\u201d\u009d Ashley Feinberg, for Gawker, writes \u201cIn reality, the donation of fetal tissue is no different than any other situation in which a patient might donate tissue to scientific research.\u201d\u009d Right.<\/p>\n
Amanda Marcotte, for Slate, writes \u201cAbortion is gross, no doubt about it. It becomes grosser the later in a pregnancy it gets. But so is heart surgery. So is childbirth, for that matter.\u201d\u009d But the problem is not that it\u2019s \u201cgross,\u201d\u009d it\u2019s the double evil of killing innocent life and commodifying her body parts. As an article at The Federalist reveals, the human fetal parts trade has a commercial and profitable nature. Incidentally, the group StemExpress\u201d\u201dwhich was implicated in the story\u201d\u201dis undergoing website maintenance and has deleted their Facebook account.<\/p>\n
The sad thing is, the body of a child in the womb can be killed and used for research, but outside the womb, it would result in first-degree murder charges, as seen in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.<\/p>\n