Two days ago, the abortionist Kermit Gosnell was found guilty on three counts of first degree murder and several other lesser charges. He will spend the rest of his days in jail, having agreed to not appeal in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table. Gosnell severed the spines of three (most likely many more) babies who had survived failed abortion attempts (from him). The babies were out of the womb, breathing and viable, yet he decided to finish the job anyway. The sickening, chilling, appalling actions of this person are too graphic to be retold here. One thing we opponents of abortion should not do is regard this as a victory: it isn't.
All that has happened is that society actually agrees (for now anyway) that murdering someone outside of the womb is reprehensible and that justice needs to be served. This verdict in no way has moved the needle, morally or legally, on whether society deems murder inside the womb as something that needs to be addressed within a legal and/or moral context. Abortions are still occurring every year, reaching over 1,000,000 every single year. Every anti-abortion law or notification law is either struck down or held up in the courts pending appeal or review or injunction. Third trimester abortions are still condoned by pro-abortion groups. Nothing has changed.
Even NARAL, the bona fide pro-abortion group, even lauded the decision, but with a noticeable caveat. They say that Kermit Gosnell is what happens when anti-abortionists create laws against abortion or make it less accessible. You can read their talking points propaganda here. I can refute the claims of NARAL one by one (here's one: NARAL's argument that opposing abortion drives people to Gosnell is akin
to saying that criminalizing rapists and putting them behind bars will
amount to more horrible rapes.), but it's interesting that NARAL refuses to consider Kermit Gosnell as one of their own. They've distanced themselves from him saying that he goes beyond their stated objectives. Gosnell killed babies only minutes old out of the womb and NARAL sanctions it as long as the baby is inside the womb. What's a few minutes of time when it comes down to human life when you think about it? Enough to make Gosnell a monster, an aberration while NARAL is represented as moderate and having common sense.
Still, in this country, abortion is legal for all times, all circumstances. There may be delays, but the end result is the same. Even though certain polls over the last few years have indicated that the majority of Americans will allow for abortion for life-saving instances only and a plurality favors outlawing it for all cases, there has been little to change the amount of abortions that happen in this country. That 1,000,000 mark is as consistent now as it was in 1973. This will continue to be the case as long as Roe v. Wade, a decision which even some of the most fierce pro-abortionist leftists condemn as bad constitutional law (cf. Michael Kinsley).
There is nothing to celebrate here. Yes, we should be grateful that this person can no longer murder babies who survived his abortions. But as far as a game changer in the whole abortion debate and its legal status in this country, nothing has changed and the so-called "common ground" that pro and anti-abortionists share is still only that killing persons outside of the womb is reprehensible and should be punished.
One more thing on a side note: The proponents of gay marriage tell us that gay marriage should be allowed because of the advances in science with regards to sexuality. Science should be our guide, not some old religious objection. Well, science has also opened the door very wide to know that children in the womb feel pain, they respond to stimuli and even smile and laugh. They have heartbeats, they have fingernails. But apparently, that science is not to be considered.
So very inappropriate. . .
15 hours ago
