Est. May 2008

16 May, 2013

‘A Matter Of Geography’

The Kermit Gosnell trial, according to Kate Pickert and Adam Sorensen of Time magazine, was not about abortion: it was about lawbreaking, poor state regulation, and media cowardice.

But their third paragraphs, IMO, turns the remainder of their arguments to just so much drivel.

The ‘take-away’:
This was not a case about the morality of legal, late-term abortion.
 Gosnell’s trial was about illegal abortion and homicide. The methods Gosnell used to end the lives of the babies cited in the case against him—including snipping their necks with scissors after they were outside the womb—are medically indefensible by any measure, in any case. (emphasis mine)
So what Kermit Gosnell did was ‘medically indefensible’, yet * sucking the unborn out of the uterus with a hose (suction aspiration), chopping the unborn to pieces and scraping the remains out of the uterus (dilation and curettage), ripping the unborn to pieces with forceps (dilation and evacuation), drowning and boiling the unborn with salt-water (saline injection), killing the unborn with violent, chemically-induced uterine contractions (prostaglandin chemical abortion) – these are all, apparently, medically defensible.

Why?  Why was what Kermit Gosnell did so much more horrible than any of the above-mentioned methods of abortion?

Kristen powers, writing for USA Today:
Regardless of such quibbles, about whether Gosnell was killing the infants one second after they left the womb instead of partially inside or completely inside the womb — as in a routine late-term abortion — is merely a matter of geography. That one is murder and the other is a legal procedure is morally irreconcilable.
Many people are saying the same thing – that murder inside the womb is acceptable, but murder outside isn’t.

I don’t see it so much as a matter of geography, though; I see it more as a matter of daylight versus darkness.

Why, for instance, are pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood so up in arms about mandating ultrasounds for women who are planning an abortion?  Because it casts daylight onto an otherwise darkness-shrouded reality – that that ‘lump of cells’ inside the woman actually looks and moves like a little bitty human being.  In utero abortions are okay because they’re performed within the darkness of the uterus, where nobody but the doctor (who’s likely using some form of ultrasound or other viewing device) can see; ex-utero abortions are a no-no because they’re exposed to the light of day, where everybody can see it happen.

Of, at least, everybody in the room at the time.

Evil is done most often in the darkness, so other eyes can’t view it; such is the case with abortion.

No comments: