The Red Ranger: I am glad to see that Kermit Gosnell was convicted of his atrocious crimes. As you know I am in general against abortion, however, I am accepting of abortion in certain situations. I do not see how anyone could possibly defend his actions. I can’t wait to see someone who does. I guess I will have to watch Rachel Maddow’s show tonight. Oh wait, they probably won’t even cover this story because it doesn’t fit with the progressive, left-wing narrative and talking points.
The flip side of this story is that he may be up for the death penalty. So is it right for those who clamored for him to be convicted of killing these babies to then be clamoring for his execution. Seems a little hypocritical to me.
Nattering Naybob: I too am happy that he was convicted. I would think that anyone who wants to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, would also be glad. For the benefit of any of our readers who may not be completely familiar with this case, Kermit Gosnell was (ostensibly at least) a “doctor” from Philadelphia who performed late-term abortions. The crimes with which he was specifically convicted involve literally murdering three babies that were newly delivered, by killing them with scissors in too grisly a fashion to describe further. According to FOX News (yes, I am taking an excerpt from a FOX News story)…
“Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling ‘house of horrors’ with bags of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.”
Many commentators have asserted that this case demonstrates that Roe v. Wade should be struck down, and all abortion made illegal on a Federal level. However, the Pro-Choice advocate response is that the Gosnell case should be a cautionary tale of what many women would be forced to do if abortion really did become illegal, i.e. patronize an underground, unauthorized “clinic” whose safety and hygienic standards might not be much better than Gosnell’s. Count me as someone who agrees with that rationale.
You mentioned hypocrisy– while I appreciate the nuanced example you gave, my take is a little different, I think the more virulent hypocrisy is anyone who decries abortion, in all cases, and then opposes a law that would require Federal background checks on people who want to buy a gun that might be used to mow down innocent people who have already been born and are contributing members of society. And as I’ve mentioned before, it seems that many politicians and commentators who decry health care reform and want to eliminate the so-called social safety net, care more about a person while they are in the womb, then when they are born.
Regarding Rachel Maddow, I honestly have not seen her reaction to the ongoing story and trial but I seriously doubt that she or any other Pro-Choice people would literally defend Gosnell’s actions because there were the very definition of indefensible.
The Red Ranger: Well, I just heard that Gosnell is not going to get the death penalty so there goes that argument. So now we will have to pay for him to sit in a jail cell for some number of years.
I don’t really see how it is hypocritical to be in favor of supporting constitutional rights. After all just because you are against background checks doesn’t mean you support using your gun to go out and kill someone.
I agree that this example should not be used in an effort to outlaw abortion. Gosnell was clearly outside the lines of acceptable abortion behavior. The pro-choice advocates clearly want abortion to be something that people view as a simple, tidy little procedure that ends a life in the sterile conditions of a compliant abortion clinic without anyone ever having to see the little dead fetuses.
Nattering Naybob: Sarcasm is not very becoming on you, Red Ranger
Second Grade Minds 