Three Questions I Have Now That the Gosnell Trial is Over
|The Gosnell Trial has ended, with Dr. Gosnell receiving a life sentence for killing three new-born babies (and for some frightening medical malpractice). It’s a horrible ordeal; never before have I actually avoided those links that say “WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT,” but, for once, I decided there were pictures I didn’t want to see.
So, I’m left with a few things on my mind.
When Does a Baby Receive Human Rights?
I realize that my Liberal friends hate this argument, but I can’t shake it: why is it legal to put an infant do death in utero, but not a few minutes after it’s born? Isn’t it the same child? I would prefer that we adopt a policy of believing that all life is precious.
Why Don’t Parents Exercise Other Options?
I’ve never understood this. Gosnell was known for performing abortions for women who were desperate – sometimes doing the operation for free. Some saw this as an act of charity and called him a hero.
It’s true that some people are unable to raise a child, and unplanned pregnancies are extremely difficult, but that doesn’t mean that abortion is the “only choice.” Many children, like me, were adopted as babies due to similar circumstances. When the mother’s life is not in danger, why should we consider ending the baby’s life?
Why Was Gosnell able to do This?
Gosnell had been at this for a long time – since the 90s. He ran a practice that disregarded the health of mothers while claiming he was doing them a favor. Anyone looking at his record would have been horrified to be on his operating table, and he should have been shut down long before his arrest, but he was able to continue his practice because the authorities in Philadelphia did not do their jobs. In 2011, it was discovered that 14 abortion clinics in Philadelphia had not been visited by the health department in fifteen years. Here’s what they found when they resumed those inspections:
And Gosnell’s place was the worst of the bunch.
I’ll be asking myself these questions for a long time. I think all human life is precious, and I don’t understand why we can be so cavalier about doing this.
In response to your first question, it is actually murder in most (if not all?) states if you assault a pregnant woman and the child dies as a result. So you can commit murder against someone still in the womb. The question, then, is why do we create a legal loophole that allows a child to be killed without it being murder as long as the mother voluntarily ends the life? And as far as I know viability (i.e. could the child exist on its own outside the womb) has nothing to do with whether or not it is considered murder in the aforementioned scenario.
On the inspections, politicians don’t want to seem anti-woman so if st all squishy on abortion, then they’d rather not deal with it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/kermit-gosnell-clinic-not-inspected-2013-4
I had a roundup of links I tweeted to another acquaintance. I’d give them to you here, but would trip the spam filter, I’m sure. If interested, find me and I’ll send them to you. @AHLondonTX