Gosnell infanticide trial raises moral concerns for pro-choicers

Just over two years ago, a doctor in Philadelphia was arrested on eight counts of murder: one for a woman who died under his care and seven for newborns whose spinal cords he allegedly severed with a pair of scissors.

Abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s trial for these murders started last month, and the details of the trial have been harrowing. Testimonies from former employees claim that over the thirty years Gosnell’s clinic was in operation, the scissor procedure had been used on more than 100 newborns.

Gosnell also specifically targeted poor and minority women for his abortions, and made millions of dollars doing it.

Health inspectors largely looked the other way when walking past the blood-stained walls and numerous dismembered fetal body parts preserved in jars.

There have already been countless stories and opinions written about the lack of outrage in the media about this story, and as appalling as that is, the more interesting aspect of this story is the justification and desensitization that the employees and nurses in the Gosnell clinic had to go through to rationalize the murders being committed.

Workers called the fetal corpses “specimens,” and described the neck snipping as necessary to ensure “fetal demise.” The aborted babies were dehumanized; one worker described the cries of one child as “alien.”

To try to paint the entire pro-abortion rights movement with the brush of one clearly sick and homicidal individual would be irresponsible, but the moral contortion necessary to justify Gosnell’s horrific acts is the same moral contortion necessary to justify the pro-abortion rights position generally. The penchant for Orwellian euphemisms to describe the often horrific process of abortion is a common thread throughout the movement. (Source)

 

Crack. She’s about to go, folks.  She’s about to go.

You know, folks, liberals have been masters at using “guilt by association” against conservatives for their sick political ends.   Now that tactic is going to be used against them, big time.

So, uh, just how close do you want to get to Kermit, Ms. Pro-Abort? Here’s the problem that you face:  the closer you are to him, the more you might feel a little queezy at supporting an “official” soon-to-be mass murderer. On the other hand, the further away you get from Kermit, the harder it is going to be for you to uphold your position, since there is nothing in substance that he is doing that the rest of the industry is not.

Tough pickle for you, I must say.

One thought on “Gosnell infanticide trial raises moral concerns for pro-choicers

  1. The very indefensibility of this horror is why the complicit mass media is silent on coverage of this “trial of the century’. “Let’s not talk about it.”; this elephant in the room!!, they say, and just maybe if we are really lucky, it will go unnoticed by most of the world because we are not putting it in their faces the way we covered the massacre of those schoolchildren in connecticut.” Oh, the hypocrisy of the liberal media!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
8 + 3 =