A Mass Murderer Goes On Trial, and Nobody Notices

Daniel Doherty has Everything You Need to Know So Far about the Gosnell Trial over at Townhall.com today. If you haven't heard of the Gosnell trial, then you have been too dependent on the lamestream media, or as Rush Limbaugh likes to call them, the drive by media. Go read the linked site. I vomited a little in my mouth, so don't want to go back and rehash what has already been written. To its credit, the Washington Post has decided to send a reporter to cover the trial, after being shamed.  Had this murderer committed his crimes with a gun, we surely would have been hearing all about it.  But because he used a pair a medical scissors, we have not.  Perhaps it is also that the media feel shame precisely because calling out Gosnell would have been politically incorrect. 

Putting aside for now the filthy conditions and unsanitary medical malpractices the Gosnell clinic maintained, can we now discuss the horror, and the immorality of aborting our children?  Even from a purely legalistic point of view, the Constitution requires that a person can not be deprived of life or liberty without due process.  But these children are routinely killed by their own mothers without any sort of warrant being issued, or trial held.  And using semantics as the Left is so fond of doesn't really change the facts.  You can call him or her a "fetus" if you want, and there may be good medical reasons for designating a growing child still in the womb by a different name, but the fact is that the growing child in the womb will become a person if the pregnancy is not deliberately terminated.  The rights of the mother to terminate her pregnancy for convenience can not be greater than the right to life of the child.  For if the mother's convenience is greater than the child's right to life, then what prevents a mother from killing her child at any age up to 18, when the child reaches legal majority?  If it is simply outrage, we have seen how the public can be manipulated and desensitized to where no outrage is expressed.

"Medical ethicist" have argued that what they call "after birth abortions" should be legal because the child can not yet appreciate his or her life. But since when has one's appreciation of one's life been a determinate for personhood? And notice once again the use of semantics to mask the fact that if this procedure were sanctioned, people would be allowed to murder their own children. Is this really any different than the ancient practice of sacrificing the first born son? The Bible condemns that practice (witness Abraham being stopped from sacrificing Issac.) So should we. Also notice that the ethicist don't venture an age where the child becomes a person, leaving open the option at any point in the child's development where a parent can murder his or her children without a by your leave from society.   According to the National Catholic Register:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

The Gosnell trial features gruesome partial birth abortions and afterbirth abortions in which the child was screaming.  Nobody knows how many such abortions were performed, but it could be 100 or more.  How the people who worked there could calmly go home at the end of a shift, only to return the next day speaks to the desensitisation these workers must have gone through.  It is not unlike the death camp murderers in Nazi Germany.  It was a horrifying death cult, and the  "medical ethicist" want to expand that death cult.  Such a death cult results from man substituting his own notion of morality for God's firm laws. Every civilization that has tried to do that came to ruin. But even you don't believe there is a God, surely you can see that no good thing can come from ignoring the experience of history.