I commented yesterday on Barbara O'Brien's cheers for Dr. Kermit Gosnell. And now coming back to it, it turns out the line on the progressive left is that the Philadelphia case is an argument for more abortions, that is, more support for purportedly legal and safe abortion, rather than legislation to further restrict access. I don't make a case either way. Perhaps there are some extreme medical circumstances in which obtaining an abortion is absolutely necessary. But over the past few years it's been clear that the right to an abortion has become the equivalent to a license for death. And while it's impossible to imagine a more heinous case, the Philadelphia horror is the direct result of the left's destruction of the sanctity of life. One thing leads to another. God help the poor women who come into the wrong circle of people, who direct them to the clutches of the likes of Dr. Gosnell.
Of course, progressives couldn't care less about God, so it's pretty easy for them to choose up sides. Notorious atheist PZ Myers sums up progressive thinking on the case:
No one endorses bad medicine and unrestricted, unregulated, cowboy surgery like Gosnell practiced — what he represents is the kind of back-alley deadly hackery that the anti-choice movement would have as the only possible recourse, if they had their way. If anything, the Gosnell case is an argument for legal abortion.The statement's false, if not an outright lie. Gosnell was practicing for thirty years, and clinics like that are sustained by huge networks of pro-choice activists. This is the logical outcome of the left's culture of death. Unrestricted access is exactly what progressives want, screw the quality, obviously. Myers simply drills the point home by suggesting this is the case for legal abortion.
And go read Scotty Lemieux at Lawyers, Gays and Marriage. He's a clinical monstrosity himself, not only stupid but completely unoriginal. And I've responded to dim bulb Malaclypse at the post.
2 comments:
Just another graduate of the Joseph Mengele School of Medicine that deserves to undergo a post-natal abortion.
I couldn't help but notice that the thread over at NB on this subject is devoid of our usual abortion defending trolls.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/01/20/network-morning-shows-ignore-philadelphia-abortionists-murder-arrest
Perhaps they are beginning to catch on?
-Dave
There is no real difference between Gosnell and any other abortionist.
Some kill kids at a different age. Doesn’t matter. Just as dead.
Some kill kids in a different location. In the womb or just outside the womb. Doesn’t matter. Child is just as dead.
Regardless of age and regardless of location abortion is equally immoral and barbaric. Anyone who defends any of them is defending all of them and are complicit in that evil.
Post a Comment