The president has talked up abortion as a safe choice. Kermit Gosnell has just been indited for 1st degree murder of 3 aborted babies that were killed after they were born alive. He was indited for performing late term abortions.(24 weeks +) There were 200 charges. Whew.! Is He the only one who has operate clinics like this? .
Abortion IS a safe choice. He wasn't performing abortions. He was killing children. BIG difference.
Nope, he's not the only one. I've seen news about others also. And it's really nothing new! It's always been this way, ever since America was stupid and wicked enough to legalize abortion. The clinic where the woman worked whose case actually instigated legalized abortion was similar!; the doctor who ran that clinic was similar to Gosnell. She tells the story in her books "I Am Roe" and "Won By Love". Her name is Norma McCorvey (she was called "Jane Roe" in the Court case) and she later realized that abortion (at ANY age) is wrong, and she now speaks out for the unborn children's right to Life.
Abortion was installed into our American legal system for political reasons/power (by corrupt liberal advocate lawyers, one in particular) in a time of liberal push that cared nothing about the actual subjects of the Court case----------unborn babies! And it has continued since then, because people refuse to even listen to anyone including the one person (Norma McCorvey) who has since repented and tried to guide America toward seeing that we need to correct the laws regarding killing unborn babies.
I find it crazy and ironic that American law has convicted Gosnell of kiling babies born alive (which he needed to be convicted of!) but yet refuse to see that even if they hadn't been born yet, they were still children.
America is a Nation that does try to correct the wrongs it does. We (it) ended slavery, etc., though it took a while; too long, but still we do hold ourselves accountable eventually. Yet in the case of abortion, American society had been blinded by the onslaught of the liberal agenda. So it keeps on killin' babies inside the womb.
There is no "big difference" between what Gosnell did and what any abortionist does. It's murder, period. Abortion is not safe. Never safe for the victim (the baby), and not always even physically safe for the confused Mother-to-be who thinks she has a moral right to have her baby killed; and never psychologically safe for her.
I tell everyone to read Norma's books. The first one is an example of the typical liberal-minded girl who's confused and victimized;
the second is the story of her wake-up (you might say) as she grows older and realized that abortion is murder and how she was used as a guinea pig in a legal battle, and how that has led to people claiming that abortion is okay. That's how people have been led to the false ironic assumption that abortion clinics are okay as long as they're sterile. Pshaw! There's no such thing as a "good" or "sterile" place nor way to commit murder!
And it's a damning statement about our Supreme Court, which, at the hands of ignorant or else wicked people like Sandra Day O'Connor, legalized baby-killing 40 years ago. If that's the mentality of Supreme Court Justices, I could do a better job than that any day. Corruption is in the highest Court in our land.
And while I do still have "faith" in the system, I have NONE in the people in those positions at this time.
And you're right----the President (Obama) has indeed "talked up" abortion as a safe choice. And he's immensely full of carp.
I'm not a Liberal, and I accept abortion. You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you get into stupid arguments like "Is sperm a child? It certainly has potential to grow into a human being. It needs help, sure, but so does the fetus until it reaches a certain age.
How about the eggs of women. They can't be reproduced. Women don't manufacture more of them, so does the government have the right to tell her what to do with each and every one? Of course not, but that is the the rationale to take the "right to life" all the way back to conception. A child that has just been conceived looks no different than an unfertilized egg. It can't live outside the body and the unfertilized egg has just as much potential as the fertilized one. It's just further along by a few minutes. This is what you want to give rights to? Where is your justification and how is it different than telling me I can't masturbate because I would be killing potential children or that a woman who decides not to have children is "aborting" all those eggs she destroyed with negligence?
Or are we only protecting things that LOOK like children? Is that where you're coming from? A fetus looks like a child and it has rights. It looks like a lizard and it has none. Never mind the fact that most of the time there is very little clinical difference except the time spent growing.
So exactly what do you mean when you say that Abortion shouldn't be legal? Who gets to draw the line? and why?
You said it yourself above, if you'd just follow your own train of thought! lol.
An egg and a blob of sperm are just that----individual body secretions.
When the two join, however, there is LIFE.
I personally don't care if, nor how often, anyone masturbates! That's their business! Just keep it to themselves!
But as soon as conception occurs from joining egg and sperm together, there is LIFE that has the right to be nurtured and given the opportunity to see the light of day upon maturity.
It's the same with contraception. Contraception prevents........what?...........conception! So there is no baby yet.
But abortion at any stage is intended to kill a fetus that's already been conceived.
So what does conception do to the fetus to make it a child?
Prior to conception you have two separate components, both with the potential of being combined to create life, but that if left alone, will not result in life. Once combined in conception we have life, which if left alone, grows up just like you or me. So, before conception, inaction means no life. At conception the life has been initiated, which barring some natural biological failure, will progress for around 80 more years. Unless someone intentionally kills them.
Incorrect. The only difference between conception and before conception is development. The current state of the fetus doesn't change. It is still susceptible to all the same dangers that an unfertilized egg is. Let alone, it will die. It still need the mother to survive, just as it did in it's unfertilized state. What you're thinking about is potential only, and potential is no basis for making laws about something, or as I said... exactly the same rationale can be used to tell you or I what to do with unfertilized eggs or sperm. There is NO difference.
Having said all that, I don't think that abortion should be anything except a last resort, but I absolutely do NOT believe that the government or the church or you or I has ANY business telling people what is MORAL when it comes to this issue. They must decide for themselves, and then live with the decision.
The only difference between you and you before conception is development.
Fetus is a term applied at 9 weeks gestation...not that it matters...it is a developing human from conception regardless of what anyone calls it. The difference between an unfertilized and fertilized egg is one is an actively developing human.
Yes, it will need it's natural habitat to develop and grow. It need's it's mother to survive. It will need assistance until it is at least in early childhood, (many until they are 30 these days). I have a child with multiple disabilities who is in their 20s and still totally dependent on us for survival. I am not being flippant, it is just a lame argument to say we are not human until we can fend for ourselves. It is just a matter of if the child is wanted as to whether it is legally considered human in our current environment. The kidnapper in the news recently will face murder charges for inducing abortions through beatings. Babies who are viable outside the womb are not granted the same status, if not wanted.
If killed in an auto accident, a wage earner's family can appeal to the law for remedy regarding the potential to provide of the lost loved one. If injured in such a way as to limit my abilities, the law may offer a remedy to pursue compensation for my lost potential. Even those examples belittle the subject of the conversation. What is important is that if you don't take actions to stop the developing human, they will likely live a long life. If you stop that life prematurely, be it before birth, at 1, 5, 20, 50 or 70 years, you have still simply limited it's potential.
Without intervention, that egg or sperm will not become a developing human. Something must change to initiate that process...conception. Therefore, again, it is not equivalent to an actively developing human which if left alone, rather than becoming nothing, as the sperm or egg would if left alone, will continue to live and grow.
If it truly is as you describe it, your moral apprehension makes no sense.
At least I admit I don't know when human life begins. You seem to have decided it, and decided it rather arbitrarily. Life begins at conception; you say, yet the only evidence of this is the assertion that a DEVELOPING organism is somehow more precious than one that isn't developing, and not just slightly more precious. It doesn't matter at all what happens to unfertilized eggs. Never mind that each has the potential for an individual, and unique identity. You kill one egg, and you've destroyed something that is irreplacable (at least with current technology). Whatever it's innate value to you, that specific combination of DNA is gone, yet you can destroy them in droves and no one would bat an eye.
However, you introduce other genetic material and begin a chain reaction that makes the egg begin to divide (it's still a single cell at this point) and it suddenly becomes a human that requires the government to step in and in part claim ownership of it and force it to come to term if at all possible.
This, to you is a rational argument?
Every cell of everything is amazing. Not every egg or sperm will ever have the opportunity to become a developing human. Impressive as the components may be, unless conception happens, they will not become a person. At conception, that developing human is a go, unless stopped by outside influence. When conception occurs you have a unique human beginning development, not just one parents dna, or a cell from their body, you have an individual. People will kill babies no matter what the law, but for the sake of everyone, make sure they are informed about their decision, what that developing human really is and what the long term psychological ramifications are for them as well. Perhaps you don't know anyone living with the regret of an abortion. Perhaps if not, you might consider reading the books Brenda recommended, because after all, the author has an inside perspective on the issue and the law responsible for much of the controversy. She is the "Roe" of Roe v Wade.
I really like your first sentence. Indeed the only difference is the process what a thrilling thought. Life is a process from start to finish.
The more sophisticated science gets the more specific they have gotten concerning when life begins. Today, the heart beat of a fetus can be heard within weeks of conception. Have you seen a high definition ultra sounds? My grand daughter who will be born in September looks very much like her brother who is 1 ; she hasn't even made 6 months gestation yet; she has quite a little personality. Ask the ultra sound tech who had to do two ultra sounds to get all the information the doctor wanted.
If abortion were illegal he certainly would not be the only one who operated like this without licensing.
He is an anomaly, a psycho... and he was convicted of three counts of murder.
I agree with you too, abortion should be the ultimate last resort. But, it should be allowed to be that last resort. It is not my place to tell others what to do with their bodies.
Abortion is safe, fourteen times safer than giving birth, that doctor was simply murdering babies, which is not abortion and that is why he is now going to jail for a very long time.
Abortion is safe? Really? At least 50% of the humans involved don't survive, and that is if you don't consider complications with many mothers.
Safe for the mother obviously, the point of the operation is to get rid of the zygote/fetus. Which by law are not human beings.
Trying to place that...why does that sound familiar?
If you are referring ti slavery then no, slaves were considered human beings.
No they weren't, not by many. And the impression the slave and even later the freed black man got was that he wasn't considered a human being by those who approved of slavery and/or who disapproved of the right of blacks to vote. I recall seeing pictures of black men who picketed holding signs that said "I AM A MAN".
What a shame that black people were made to feel that way.
What an even more atrocious shame that little babies in the womb don't even get THAT chance! They can't walk, much less hold up a sign that says "I AM A HUMAN".
No, that's not it. Legal definitions may comfort guilty consciences, but in the end it is semantics. If you can convince yourself humans in the earliest stages of development, are something other than human, more power to you. Fail to kill them in the womb though, and at some point, you will have to admit they are human. Is that when they are delivered? When they are two? When they move out of their parent's basement? When they get their AARP card? Whatever line you decide I guess, but don't fool yourself, because unless someone intervenes, all those things are likely to happen with that "thing" you tell yourself is not human.
I'll stick with the legal definition 22 to 24 weeks, when the baby is able to live outside the womb, before that it's part of the mother unable to live without anyone but her.
Okay. I'd advise staying away from ultrasounds though, lest your conscience get the better of your rationalization.
Oh my conscience is just fine, I don;t actually morally approve of abortion btw but that does not make a fetus a person or using government force to make women give birth against their will right.
Please site sources. One is surgery and the other is a natural process.
One is an incredibly safe procedure the other is an incredibly dangerous natural process, fourteen times more likely to kill you.
"the pregnancy-associated mortality rate in the United States from 1998-2005 among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion."
I don't have time to read that entire article right now, but I've seen it before. I think they're talking about early abortions, for one thing.
I admit, the earlier the safer --- FOR THE MOM.
Yet, it's not psychologically safe ever, for the mom. I would refer you to some places on the I'net where woman and men speak and write about the trauma and horrors of abortion. You might say I'm poisoning your mind with "pro-life propaganda" though. So I'll let you find these websites yourself --- if you're really interested in finding facts.
Or, are you just in denial?
Actually it's throughout pregnancy, early abortions are like 40 times safer than birth.
Yeah and the MOM has the right to not want to risk dying.
Sometimes people suffer psychological damage from abortions but is actually very rare, the suicide rate for example for people who have had abortions is significantly lower than that of the general population so this is obviously not too bad.
Thanks for clarifying. By this post you have confirmed to me that you have no first hand, (or close second hand), knowledge of what many, if not most, women go through mentally after an abortion.
Most post abortion syndrome occurs 10 to 15 years after the abortion. Frequently PAS strikes very suddenly around the anniversary of the abortion.
I would assume it's significantly less than women who have babies who watch them get beaten, starve, fall through the cracks, become criminals etc.
I would also assume it's significantly less than those who carry around the spawn of their rapist.
I would also assume it's significantly less than those who have a severely disabled child, raise the child into toddler hood, and then watch him die in front of their eyes.
Hope you are not speaking from experience.
On one of the three personal experience, the other two close experience.
I know I should stay away from these threads... I think I might be masochistic.
The pain is evident. I am so sorry.
You're probably right, it probably is a bit too evident (read witchy)
Thank you for your sympathies and I promise I'll try to tone it down.
There's no need to assume. Just get some facts.
So here's a quandary. You've responded to me, and I would be happy to address these, but based on the next few posts, as well as this...
I am guessing you weren't looking for a response. I am trying to be respectful of how personal this is to you. It is to me too, and if you want to question that, please be respectful as well or you may find it embarrassing. If you really did want me to respond to your statements directly, please let me know.
No, it was meant to be a discussion, but not aggressive, I'm just blunt.
I'm fine talking about it in a general way, just squimish when it comes to personal discussion on it... So while I brought it up as a talking point I really wasn't wanting it to be specifically about my situation... just situations like mine...
Does that make any sense?
But, just to point it out, you did say that Josak obviously didn't know what it was like... You don't know what experiences he has had.
Yes, it makes perfect sense.
I threw that out inviting him to challenge me on my assumption, because based on his statements I would be shocked to find I am not correct. These are not issues most want to have experiences with, but having those experiences does emotionally charge the issue, regardless of the side you ultimately come down on.
On a completely psychological mother's side, not taking into account anything else, I think that having the choice, even if a woman chooses not to use it, really is psychologically helpful.
It puts the control back in her hands in a situation where she may feel she has lost it. I think that, in some ways, actually encourages mothers to have the children even when the situation is obviously less than ideal.
For some reason, it is easier to tackle an exceptionally hard situation if you feel you have a choice in it... rather than feeling like you are "stuck" in it. I also think that it lessens the resentment towards the baby.(and that resentment-while not attractive- can be there)
Now as far as which is more psychologically damaging, I think it depends on the woman. In some cases, I do think that abortion would be worse and in other cases I think having a baby that you are secretly resentful or worse yet outright hate would be worse. There also is the chance of growing to love this little being only to watch horrible things happen to him or her.
It's not a choice I feel comfortable making for anyone else on this planet but myself. So, I identify with pro-choice.
I agree with all of this. For clarification though, I believe we owe it to both the mother and child to make sure that is an informed choice. She needs to fully understand what is going on and will go on with her body, and the baby's. It may be unpleasant to be confronted with the facts, but an informed decision would greatly reduce eventual regret. Those who fully understand, and still choose to go ahead with an abortion, are not likely to have major issues about it later. Those who want to know as little as possible so as not to be confronted with the accurate details of the situation are the very ones who later in life, when they eventually do come to know those details, (and they will), are most likely to be devastated by the reality of what they have done.
This is always true, with any parent. If a person realizes that the odds are disproportionately against the child, adoption makes sense. Again, make sure they are fully informed for that decision, between abortion and adoption.
I believe this is a big decision, and a big deal, and should be treated as such. Should the woman get to choose? We should at least have limits, like we have now, and deal harshly with those, like Gosnell, who violate those terms and guidelines. Also, not to be too redundant, but make sure those making the decision absolutely know what they are doing...then yes, let them choose. I believe simply making sure everyone is fully informed on the facts before making a decision, would dramatically reduce abortions.
I think I can see where you're coming from, but I want to ask what you mean by "facts"?
Do you mean the fact that abortion is murder?
And therefore that the mother should have a choice to choose to murder her child?
Brenda, it is important to be clear of your objective, your opposition and your best chance at overcoming that opposition to achieve that objective.
Let's say you could outlaw abortion completely. What would you really accomplish? So many people disagree with that, you would find prosecution and conviction nearly impossible, even basic enforcement would be unlikely, yet we would spend billions trying, and what would we get for our efforts? Angry people with their heels dug in to oppose you. Further division, fighting, and all the while, babies being killed just the same as it is battled out in our courts. Trying to accomplish this through laws in our current political climate is not going to give the result I am looking for.
I have held and prayed with a child miscarried at 3-4 months. My son. If we could get women to actually see what I saw, even much earlier than the age my son died, things would change. He was fully formed, about 5 or 6 inches long, weighing maybe as many ounces. Fingers, toes, even his face, was complete. I know exactly what he would have looked like growing up. With today's technology, you can see all this with ultrasound and imaging. You can see movements and hear sounds. Any woman who can be made fully aware of all this and still abort, will do so come hell or high water....or even a law against abortion.
If we could get agreement that it is fully reasonable, and in the best interest of the both the mother and child, in the long run, to have the mother fully informed of every aspect, including the baby's development, we would save far more children IMHO, than stoking the fire by outlawing abortion. Outlawing something folks are this passionate about will not be as effective as working to remove the demand. Instead of forcing people with man's laws, let's appeal to the conscience God put in every heart.
Even though we're coming from two different views here, I think it could be possible to find some common ground.
I would also love to reduce the amount of abortions. I don't completely agree with what I THINK you are proposing... but I can get behind the concept of finding a way.
I would prefer more comprehensive birth control education in schools, free contraception and better services for economically disadvantaged expectant mothers. I would like for them to be offered a social worker to explain these programs at the initial visit.
I still, however, stand firm on the availability of the morning after pills at all rape reports. I would also encourage more education to catch the women who might not report immediately for whatever reasons.
The birth defect question is difficult. I'm not sure what could be done about that decision.
I agree much could be done by working together, as I believe most people would like to see less abortions.
I will save the birth defect issue, but it and the right to life are perhaps the topics I am most qualified to address. My daughter, against all odds just turned 21. Her disabilities are severe, yet her life is happy. I guarantee there are many children in this world who would trade places with her to be so loved.
(update) I had not read your comments about birth defects when I wrote this, if the tone seems out of step with the grim presentation you gave. I will say, however, that all the horrible things about the impossible situation, and far more, were given to us as a prognosis. Far too much to cover right now, but I do know this topic first hand, both with our case and those we have met at Children's over the years.
I'm pretty qualified to address the birth defect issue too. In fact it's one of the reasons that I support the right to choose. 3 of 5 of my children are/were special needs. They are indeed deeply loved, however, I could not with a clear conscious ask anyone else to go through some of the things I have nor could I ask them to watch a child go through some of the things my children did/are.
Please see my update above. I can address this further later if you like, although perhaps we should consider another thread as I feel this and much that we have already said may be wasted under the banner of Gosnell.
I'm kind of in a bit of a thing here tonight, but I think I'll start a thread tomorrow on the subject if it's okay with you?
Sounds good. I will probably say much of what I already have on the topics we covered, but perhaps others will weigh in that won't see it in this thread. Who wants to post in the Gosnell thread?
I'm pretty sure everyone is already informed of the facts!
And I see no harm (only good, really) in labeling abortion as murder. Call it what it is. America's laws aren't so strict that mothers-to-be would be lined up and jailed! Consider that there are many many laws that called other actions illegal, but America didn't enforce those laws, only left the responsibility in the hands of the person in question! To continue to call it something it is not, is to force every citizen to condone it and take responsibility for the actions of the mother-to-be.
But hey, I can see your point in a way. For....those people who do have a working conscience. So I wish you all the best in your endeavor.
I have a growing disillusionment with the ability of our government or legal system to accomplish anything positive. You have more faith in them than I, if you think the answer lies with them. You want to hear me say I consider all abortion to be murder? I do and don't think you will find anything from me to indicate otherwise. Do I think pushing that line will be effective at saving babies? Not so much.
I agree to a certain point.
Yes, the opportunity to know all the facts should be available to every woman looking into the possibility of abortion, however she should not be "forced" to be exposed to any information she doesn't want to be exposed to.
In no other area of law do we require that specific information be used to make a decision. In no other area of medicine do we require that the patient be exposed to every detail of an operation in order to make a decision as to whether to have it or not.
For example, there is no need for me to witness pictures of a appendectomy before deciding to have one. It is quite acceptable to decide that I need one based on no other information than need.
Oh yeah, that's it.
Compare a baby to a faulty appendix.
I guess that's supposed to be one step up from "zygote" and "parasite".
In no other medical procedure is a second life at stake. I know you may say it isn't a life yet, and we very much will disagree on that. Nevertheless, is it really too much to ask that the woman be fully aware of the facts about what is taking place? As I mentioned, those who would not be affected by their decision later in life will likely be undaunted by the presentation. Those seeking to avoid confronting the reality of what they are doing will eventually learn the truth later, and they are the most likely to be negatively impacted eventually. Everything about this is an uncomfortable situation already, why is full disclosure too much to ask?
I think in certain situations it is unfair and overly prejudicial to the women.
The biggest two situations are birth defects and rape.
I can easily see a women being put in a situation where she is told that the fetus will either live a horrible painful life until it dies. That it will drain the families resources, take away attention from the other children, and likely destroy the marriage before it dies a horribly painful death OR be forced early from the uterus, sometimes being torn apart in the process. The siblings of that child will also go through extreme trauma, sometimes requiring therapy for years to begin to approach normality.
Do you want to have that conversation? Because for the sake of fairness, some pictures of dead toddlers after autopsy should be included in there too.
This statement is far too vague to be of any value, since I don't know who "their" refers to, or who your sources are. I am guessing you are referencing your earlier statement:
Still vague and questionable. What demographic is being compared? Those who are on the record as having an abortion? Remember, confidentiality is held in high regard among those seeking abortion. Often even their loved ones aren't aware this is in their past. How accurate can your numbers be? Are we talking about all who have had abortions, (pretending anyone knows), or are we talking about the suicide rate among those suffering from PAS? It appears to me you have a dubious and vague demographic on that end of the equation, so now lets look at the other end of it...the "general population". That would include elderly folks, terminal patients, teens, people with mental disorders, drug abusers, veterans with PTSD, etc. You didn't quantify "significantly lower", but if you are saying reasonably young ladies, (those within say 10 years of "child bearing years"), who have had abortions, have suicide rates anywhere close to those of the "general population" as described above, that's horrible!
If you wanted a meaningful comparison, you would have to first have an accurate record of who had an abortion. Once you established the age range for that demographic, you would need to make a comparison between the suicide rate of the women within that age range who had an abortion, verses those who did not. To accurately isolate the effect of abortion on the likelihood of suicide, you would have to consider other mitigating factors even within that demographic, to try and determine if those with other risk factors for suicide, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, clinical depression, etc. suffered from these things due to the impact of the abortion experience or some other reason. Realistically, since suicidal folks are notoriously unreliable for exit interviews or filling out any pre-suicide surveys, the reason for their choice is rarely known with any degree of certainty.
Although it would be nearly impossible to accurately determine the effect of abortion on suicide, for a moment lets polish your proposed point up the best in can be, and pretend for the sake of argument that the suicide rate were the same between women who did or did not have an abortion. What insight would you gain from that regarding the emotional and psychological impact of abortion on young women who very possibly gained a new respect for the value of life from their experience or ordeal? Are you saying "they didn't kill themselves so this is obviously not too bad." Brilliant. Good to know there is no problem there.
There is only one DEFINITION of what a human being is: Twenty three pairs of chromosomes makes a being human. Nobody need go into "opinions" theories or speculation. There is one and only one definition.
Before conception ---- there are two separate sex cells: Sperm cell; Egg cell. Each has twenty-three SINGLE chromosomes. They're not paired up yet.
Any other "definition" can only lead to the unthinkable: One group of humans decides for other humans which may live and which must die.
The problem with the unborn is that Roe v. Wade has decided that one's CIVIL RIGHTS (as in the right to life) do not accrue until after one has been born. However, the Supreme Court did not "decide" when the new being becomes human. Therefore, we have legal abortion.
However, even though the Supreme Court verifies that BIRTH is what gives us the civil right to life --- babies who somehow manage to get born against all odds are still left to die. Sometimes they are even directly killed, as Kermit Gosnell has done. He is guilty of murder of three babies, but perhaps he did that to many more babies? We will never know.
Gosnell is NOT the only one who has done this. There was a medical journal article by two doctors who stated that if a baby does somehow manage to be born despite attempt to abort him or her, the mom and clinicians should "decide" whether or not it will be allowed to live or left to die.
That is the purpose of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act --- to protect the lives of these tiny survivors ---- and heroes.
Our chromosomal data and DNA are nothing more than blue prints they tell our body what to build, saying that is a baby is as daft as saying a blueprint is a house. It is obviously not.
I will just say this. If I were to express my feelings towards these... things... I would be permanently banned from HP.
Due to the unpleasantness of the reality surrounding Gosnell, I can see where it would be convenient to simply dismiss this as a resolved issue that is safely locked away with him. Unfortunately Gosnell's practices are indicative of a bigger issue that should not be ignored or swept under the rug.
Kermit Gosnell is a monster who left a wake of death and destruction behind him, the depths of which we shall never know. Early investigations have indicated he and his practices are not as unique as we wish them to be. Folks who know, need to come forward and expose others, so society can pursue whatever legal remedies are available, and correct the problems moving forward. Abortion is such a sordid affair, most would prefer to ignore it. Societal apathy allows purveyors of evil such as Gosnell, who act beyond the bounds of the law as a fringe element of the industry, to remain below the radar. They do not operate alone, however, and can only continue with the complicity of their support staff and associates.
Gosnell's case, considering the sensational nature of the evil on display, should have by all accounts garnered record setting coverage. Instead, the press played it down and ignored it until near the verdict, and if allowed to, will similarly ignore future cases of other clinics. One can only hope the outrage of those who are driven by compassion and reason will keep the problems within the industry in the public eye, and work to have them corrected. It is a lucrative industry however, which also enjoys major support from certain cultural and political ideologies, who hope the detestable violations such as Gosnell's disappear from the headlines. After all, they could be bad for business. Please don't perpetuate that by dismissing Gosnell as "simply a convicted murderer" and pretending he is an anomaly rather than a glimpse of a bigger issue which should outrage society.
Folks who support currently legal abortion practices should be on the forefront of wanting these issues dealt with, because otherwise extremists such as Gosnell will likely be the undoing of the industry they hold so sacred.
Yes, I think you are quite correct. " . . . glimpse of a bigger issue . . ."
Are you old enough to remember that movie, Judgment at Nuremberg, with Richard Widmark, Max Schell, Spencer Tracey (Tracy?). The German people were shocked when Colonel Lawson showed video tapes of what had been going on right under their noses.
I am aware of the film, but have not seen it. There is a correlation with people being genuinely or willingly ignorant of the facts and details, if not simply choosing to ignore the unpleasantness altogether. The empty press area for the majority of the trial is at least evidence of that, if not a willful avoidance of the case due to a political agenda.
by Jackie Lynnley2 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Phocas Vincent20 months ago
Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
by Brenda Durham3 years ago
After two years, this abortionist is finally on trial for murdering newborns that didn't die during the "proper" abortion procedure, and for providing abortion service to women whose child was past the...
by brittvan223 years ago
There has been rowe v. wade, etc. Is abortion clear cut murder or do you think there are special cases and exceptions?
by mrpopo6 years ago
What are your thoughts on abortion, and why?I really haven't formulated much of an opinion on it, but I'm curious to see what you guys think.This is a touchy subject, so let's try to be mindful of others while in...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.