The Gosnell Trial is a Sham

I want to apologize to you. I was wrong about something. It’s not the first time, nor will it be the last, but I should still acknowledge my mistakes. It has to do with some of the things I’ve said about the trial of Kermit Gosnell. Early on, I insisted that the president and other pro-choice politicians come out and publicly condemn this man, who murdered hundreds of infants outside of the womb by stabbing them in the neck or drowning them in toilets. I said that these leaders of our nation should make it clear that they abhor the systematic slaughter of babies, and they are repulsed by every aspect of Gosnell’s crimes. The unsterilized equipment, the women whose deaths he directly caused, the dead babies thrown in trash cans, the lethal doses of drugs administered by untrained and underage staff, the serial murder, all of it. In the last few weeks, while Obama has still refused to take a stand on it, some other pro-abortion politicians, although hindering any effort to better monitor abortion clinics, have offered some words of disapproval. Nancy Pelosi even called the charges “disgusting”.

And that’s where I was wrong. It is a lie for an avid “pro-choicer” to pretend they are repulsed by Gosnell’s actions. It’s an offensive and ridiculous lie for politicians who have blocked any and all attempts to limit abortion in any way, or to oversee the practices of abortionists in any way, to come out and act dismayed at actions which they have deliberately protected and defended. In many states, Pennsylvania being one of them, an abortion doctor gets less oversight than a dentist or a dermatologist. There’s a reason for this. Kermit Gosnell is the reason. So I was wrong to ask these people to lie. I was wrong to, albeit unintentionally, perpetuate the myth that there is any significant difference between Gosnell’s “medical practices” and that of any other abortionist. You can not condemn him and support abortion at the same time. Pro-choicers, this man is yours. He is your creation, he is a loyal practitioner of your sacrament. You can not separate yourself from him.

Gosnell simply didn’t dress abortion up in a pretty dress and take it to a banquet with the president. It is death, and he knew it. He is a contract killer, he isn’t paid to be friendly. Abortion is the violent killing of life, who cares if you do it in a clinic with stains on the wall or not? What does it matter if you butcher the child outside the womb or inside it? What difference does it make whether you throw the child’s body in a trash can or in a HAZMAT dumpster out back? The latter may be more palatable, but it does not, by even one iota, change the principle. You can not celebrate one and decry the other. Or you can, but you are lying. And you know it.

Gosnell has been an integral part of the pro-abortion movement from its inception. He was a failure in the medical field and unable to make a living as a real doctor, so instead he started doing abortions. Once he got a taste of the money to be made, he became an “activist”. Forty one years ago, on Mother’s Day, he bussed a bunch of pregnant women in their second trimester from Chicago to his clinic in Philly. There, along with a few other “doctors”, he conducted a mass abortion. The real purpose, which he didn’t tell the women, was to use them as guinea pigs for a new abortion contraption. It was a coil that he inserted into their uterus. Once it heated it would spring open and shred the baby. Of course this also resulted in serious injury to the patients, leaving at least one in need of a hysterectomy. This was human experimentation like something from a Nazi concentration camp, and the man didn’t even lose his license because of it. The point is, Gosnell has been an evil, violent man for over forty years. And up until about four years ago, he was celebrated on the left, the same as any other abortionist.

So let them keep celebrating him. He is theirs. You wouldn’t take a pimp seriously if he condemned adultery, you wouldn’t take a slave owner seriously if he spoke out against kidnapping, so why take a rabid pro-choicer seriously when they arbitrarily distance themselves from one of their own, after forty years of protecting and defending him, and people just like him? I hope Gosnell is convicted and spends the rest of his short, miserable, awful life in a cage. But, the truth is, this trial is a sham. It’s not illegal to kill babies in this country, it’s just the way he did it that makes it unacceptable to us. It’s like when a man kills a pregnant woman and is charged with double murder. Yes, I know he is guilty of killing two people. Except, in our perverted culture and under our despicable laws, a baby isn’t a person. It’s property. The guy should be charged with one count of murder and one count of property damage. Killing an unborn child makes you a vandal, not a murderer.

Maybe if the principle was consistently applied, people might wake up and see the principle for the atrocity that it is.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to The Gosnell Trial is a Sham

  1. Glen says:

    To even compare the abortion of a zygote or foetus to the murder of a living baby is mind bogglingly and astonishingly stupid and ignorant.

    Those who clearly have no idea what the hell abortion actually is and base their views of it on the teachings of an instituitionally corrupt and perverse organisation (the catholic church) really should keep their ill informed mouths shut about it.

    • Trevvor says:

      Glen – please describe for us “what…abortion actually is” so we can expose and debunk the practice even more accurately than Matt did. Additionally, it would be educational if you would expound upon your claims that the comparison of abortion and murder “is mind bogglingly and astonishingly stupid and ignorant.” What, then, are the real, moral differences that separate these two events? Yours is a strong and pointed statement, but I’m certain you possess equally strong support.

      As you gather your thoughts, please also consider the following related inquiries: if a fetus is really not a person, why does a murderer of a pregnant woman get charged with double-homicide, as Matt mentions? Further, why does this article refer to the victim in the case as a baby, but if the same pills had been prescribed by an abortion clinic and led to the same result, the baby would be quietly noted a fetus, another mark would join the millions beneath Roe v. Wade recording the demise of another life, and everything would go on as normal?

      To legitimately contest the crux of Matt’s post, you should come ready to back yourself up with more than brazenly blathered words of derision.

    • Matt says:

      “Those who clearly have no idea what the hell abortion actually is and base their views of it on the teachings of an instituitionally corrupt and perverse organisation (the catholic church) really should keep their ill informed mouths shut about it.”

      So every single person who is against abortion must be a proponent of the Catholic Church? You make these sweeping, powerful statements, Glen, and then never back them up with anything except outrage. Come armed with facts to a battle of wits, not derision. Just makes you look silly.

Comments are closed.