The murder trial of the abortionist Kermit Gosnell is a nightmare for pro-aborts. In one case it combines the following elements:
1. It displays the fact that the abortion industry is about money and little else.
2. It demonstrates the grotesque conditions in which abortions are often carried out, giving the lie to “safe”, legal abortions.
3. It shows that the practitioners of abortion tend to be quacks of marginal competence.
4. The racism and classism of the abortion industry is on full display as poor black women are treated like cattle while white women with money receive much better treatment.
5. The callous indifference of abortionists to their “patients”. Kill unborn kids for a living and the callousness necessary to do that will usually not be limited to humans within a womb.
6. The unwillingness of government to do anything to protect women undergoing abortions.
7. The inhumanity of the radical pro-aborts is revealed as we see what their determination to have abortion legal for all nine months means in practice.
8. The “glob of cells” mantra so beloved of the pro-aborts completely goes out the window as the gruesome aspects of the abortionist trade, and the humanity of the victims, are presented for the world to see.
9. All the stats about partial birth abortion are revealed to be junk as people realize how common were Gosnell’s murders of late term babies.
10. The humanity of the unborn is demonstrated as we read in horror of fully developed unborn kids having their spinal columns severed with scissors while Gosnell makes jokes about their murders.
The Gosnell trial has the potential to change minds, and that is the greatest nightmare of all for the pro-aborts as James Taranto notes in a lengthy column in The Wall Street Journal:
What accounts for the media’s lack of interest in a trial that not only is sensational but implicates the most divisive social and political issue in America? PJMedia.com’s Roger L. Simon has the answer: “The trial of Dr. Gosnell is a potential time bomb exploding in the conventional liberal narrative on abortion itself.” He demonstrates via self-reflection:
Both lifelong “pro-choice” people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view. (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception? What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a “pro-choice” advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations. How could we be?
Yes, Dr. Gosnell was exceptional (thank God for that!), but a dead fetus was a dead fetus, even if incinerated in some supposedly humane fashion rather than left crying out in blind agony on the operating room floor, as was reportedly the case with one of Gosnell’s victims. I say blind because this second-trimester fetus did not yet have fully formed eyes. (Think about that one.)
So I don’t think I’m “pro-choice” anymore, but I’m not really “pro-life” either. I would feel like a hypocrite. I don’t want to pretend to ideals I have serious doubts I would be able to uphold in a real-world situation. If a woman in my family, or a close friend, were (Heaven forbid) impregnated through rape, I would undoubtedly support her right to abortion. I might even advocate it. I also have no idea how I would react if confronted by having to make a choice between the life of a fetus and his/her mother. Just the thought makes my head spin.
Welcome to the mushy middle, Roger. This columnist has been here for quite some time, as you can see from this 1999 piece. But we too, when we were very young, were a “pro-choice” libertarian. We came to question, and ultimately rejected, that position, although fully accepting the “pro-life” side of the argument remains a bridge too far for us.
Our path was more cerebral and less visceral. It started with our education in constitutional law. Although we thought abortion on demand was a good policy, we knew how to read, and the Constitution had nothing to say about the matter. We came to view Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that declared otherwise, as a gross abuse of power by the Supreme Court, notwithstanding that it was in the service of a cause we agreed with.
A funny thing happens when you dissent from Roe v. Wade: You come to see that there’s not much else by way of intellectual content to the case for abortion on demand. Roe predates our own political consciousness, so we have to assume there were once stronger arguments. But these days the appeal to the authority of Roe is pretty much all there is apart from sloganeering, name-calling, appeals to self-interest and an emphasis on difficult and unusual cases such as pregnancy due to rape.
In this vale of tears we live amidst lies, but nothing is more formidable than a truth whose time is come. In the Gosnell case the truth about abortion stands forth, in all its malignant ugliness, and that is why the pro-aborts in the Mainstream Media vainly attempted to spike this story.