Gosnell “Officially” Guilty of Murdering Innocents

Serial infant killer Kermit Gosnell is guilty of murder, at least officially guilty of ending the lives of three of the thousands of infants he has butchered over his three-decade, lucrative – $1.8 million annually, “career”. He may face the death penalty for his role in the holocaust that our nation has undergone Kermit Gosnellin the past 40 years. According to the Associated Press:

Prosecution experts said one [baby] was nearly 30 weeks along when it was aborted, and it was so big that Gosnell allegedly joked it could “walk to the bus.” A second fetus was said to be alive for some 20 minutes before a clinic worker snipped its neck. A third was born in a toilet and was moving before another clinic employee grabbed it and severed its spinal cord, according to testimony. Baby E let out a soft whimper before Gosnell cut its neck, the jury was told; Gosnell was acquitted in that baby’s death.

It will be interesting to watch the impact, if any, that this will have on abortion “doctors” across the country. While many abortion advocates have condemned Gosnell’s actions, it hasn’t necessarily been because he murdered children.

Vicki Saporta, president and CEO of the National Abortion Federation, had this to say about the Gosnell case:

The fact that he wasn’t providing care later and wasn’t ensuring fetal demise and not operating under any established standards of care and outside of the law is the problem in this case…

In Saporta’s eyes, the problem wasn’t that Gosnell was killing newborns.  The problem was that he didn’t kill them soon enough.

Now that Gosnell has been found guilty of killing infants, will our national conscience awaken to the truth that children have inalienable rights from the moment of birth?   The right to their own life is certainly chief among these.  Do they have other natural rights as well?  Such as being known and loved by both of their parents? And will we begin to ask ourselves if we are dehumanizing the most helpless among us, the pre-born, so that we can be free of inconvenient lives?

And for those of us who are pro-life, are we willing to take radical steps to encourage and genuinely support those women who find themselves in the unenviable position of taking on a two-person job (parenting) alone?

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” -Mother Theresa

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Gosnell “Officially” Guilty of Murdering Innocents

  1. I find it interesting that the NAF is condemning Gosnell, since one of their own inspectors visited his clinic while it was still in business, described it later as “one of the worst” she’d ever seen – but failed to report his abuses to anyone. Would really like to know whether the NAF has taken any disciplinary/corrective action within their own organization. And when legislation is proposed requiring more oversight of abortion clinics (even just to bring them up to the level of care generally required of medical facilities, such as informed consent and routine inspections), will the abortion lobby continue to fight those efforts as they have in the past?

    And yes, the bit about “ensuring fetal demise” is repugnant, because of course what she is referring to is those abortions that occur after viability, thus requiring the baby to be killed by lethal injection so that he/she is not born alive – in lieu of partial birth abortion, the puncturing and suctioning of the baby’s skull in the birth canal, which is now illegal (and neither of which would EVER be performed to save the mother’s life, contrary to the spin folks liked to put on it)… Kinda muddies the waters of “my body, my choice”, doesn’t it, since in the case of a viable fetus one could choose not to be pregnant anymore but the baby could be delivered and saved? Were it not for the inconvenience of that little life…

  2. Pingback: Moral Police vs. Mercy | asktheBigot

    • “At the time, the Northern Territory coroner said similar deaths had occurred elsewhere in Australia and that his counterpart in NSW had disclosed that “many terminated foetus live after they are expelled from the mother”.

      This apparently ho-hum fact was dealt with last year by Australia’s medico-ethical establishment when two Victorian academics published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics advocating “after-birth abortion”.

      They claimed “the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn”.

      This is really the only logical end game to a culture of normalised abortion.”

      I remember posting that Austrian piece on “after-birth abortion” on my FB page. I asked “If a baby isn’t a human while in the womb, what magically transforms it into a human upon delivery?” There is no congruent response. Pro abortionists simply must admit that there is no difference, and that whether or not the child is “wanted” determines life or death.

Comments are closed.