Gosnell’s human abattoir is the logical endpoint of our morally fraudulent national approach to abortion, the proponents of which maintain that they wish the procedure to remain “safe, legal, and rare,” in Bill Clinton’s cynically triangulating formulation, while at the same time resisting any and all restrictions upon the procedure. Gosnell’s murders are not an aberrant abuse of the abortion license but an inevitable result of it...
His crimes differed from the usual practice of abortion in that his practices made them more visible. That we recoil in horror from the images of Gosnell’s crimes is evidence that the casual practice of abortion, and all of the political rhetoric deployed on its behalf, have not yet entirely extinguished the moral sense of those who are confronted with these bloody scenes.This is a fundemental misunderstanding of what the abortion decisions really mean. It isn't about the right to kill an unborn child, but the right to gain medical care. Abortion is, at the core, a medical procedure.
If I take a saw and chop off your arm I have clearly committed a crime. If I am a doctor and I do it within an operating room then it isn't. Do you think that the National Review will start complaining about how the fact that we allow amputation in a hospital setting is the cause of people cutting off others limbs? Of course not. But the National Review wants you the believe that is abortion was illegal then Gosnell could not exist.
In reality, Gosnell's exist not because abortion is legal but because it is hard to obtain. If abortion was easily available to women early in pregnancy (with no waiting periods and covered by federal funds) then they wouldn't go to a Gosnell. In the same way you wouldn't choose Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons if you can get Dr. Hibbert.
Look, abortion was outlawed for many years. And Gosnell's existed in back allys. The illegality didn't stop the practice, it just made it unsafe. It created places like Gosnell's.
No comments:
Post a Comment