The Gosnell conspiracy and twenty questions for abortionists

gosnell and abortion
Recent events have unraveled a horrendous tale. A “Dr”(I refuse to call this murderer a doctor, that is an insult to medical doctors everywhere) has been actively involved in unsafe, unsanitary, racist practices the most horrific of which is the act of murdering babies in what were considered “late abortions.” Under his direct supervision is a plethora of ugly, filthy, and vile procedures, from the administration of narcotics by untrained personnel, to inducing premature birth over toilets. Kermit Gosnell, the “dr” in question, and his staff would then snip the necks of these babies to murder them, collecting their body parts into a large assortment of containers from jars to water jugs. What’s worse is that this “murder clinic” is fully licensed by numerous government agencies, all of which have failed to properly investigate or deal with the numerous reports and complaints accumulated over many years.

And to top off this grotesquely cavorted horror story is the fact that the majority of the media has instigated a news blackout of the current trial, neglecting to cover this issue. If you visit CNN, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, or ABC, you will find headlines about the gun debates, taxes, the Kardashan pregnancy, and even a headline story about cat loves that put on a gps unit to discover their cats “secret life.” Yet the trial of a madman who killed babies by cutting off their heads is largely uncovered.  The best coverage found in the news media is this story at The Atlantic, and that properly stats off with “Why Dr. Kermit Gosnells Trial Should Be a Front Page Story.” I do recommend you read and share this article.

So in light of this horrific story, here are some questions I would ask abortionists and their supporters. I firmly believe the reason the media is hiding this story is because it’s a very realistic view that exposes what abortion really is.

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT GOSNELL DID

1. Is Gosnell committing murder on a living being or in his own words “inducing fetal demise”?

2. When Gosnell takes a premature baby (what you call a fetus) out of the mother’s womb, and slices through its neck to kill it, is he doing something to the baby or to the mother?

3. Did Gosnell destroy a personal living being who has its own unique DNA code or did he remove a mass of impersonal tissue with the mothers DNA?

4. Many of the premature babies that were nearly decapitated by Gosnell’s scissors would have been able to live with proper medical attention. How is Gosnell’s action different cutting off the head of an adult who likewise needs medical attention to survive?

5. If Gosnell walked into a local hospital, into the premature baby unit, and started slicing off the heads of those children would we consider it murder?

6. When Gosnell was cutting the neck of a baby who was so large that Gosnell joked “he could walk me to the bus stop,” was he conducting a medical technique on the mother or on a baby?

7. If Gosnell was found to be taking newly born pet at a vet clinic and cutting their necks, would we consider his actions murder and cruelty?

8. If Gosnell chased down a pregnant woman on the subway, and cut open her belly, ripped out a bay, and sliced off the baby’s head, would he be on trial for murder or for performing an unwanted medical procedure on a mother?

9. When Gosnell assistant cut the spinal cord of a baby who was lying and breathing, all on its own for 20 minutes did the assistant really perform a medical procedure on the mother?

10.  If one of the “fetuses” born in his house of horrors was mistakenly taken to the hospital, survived for many months, and then Gosnell realized his mistake, and “followed up” on this baby  by lacerating its neck like he originally intended, would that be murder or “fetal demise”?

If the facts and testimonies of this case are true, and they are nearly undeniable, even while Gosnell destroyed many of the files, almost everyone can agree that Kermit Gosnell was a mass murderer who committed countless acts of infanticide. He is a murderer who committed acts of murder. Herein is the problem and the reason why some are afraid to report this. It brings up hard questions to the abortionist movement. Here are ten such questions.

QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT OTHERS DO

11. Abortion is illegal after 24 weeks because that is when the baby can survive apart from the mother’s womb. What about a premature baby that is especially strong, and could survive even at 23 weeks, would it still be legal to kill it? In any event, if the deciding factor that allows the murder of a living being is its inability to survive on its own? Then all infants could be killed, for they cannot survive truly without a mothers nourishment (whether natural or a hospitalized version), could they not?

12. If abortion is illegal after 24 weeks, what makes it legal at 23 weeks and 6 days? What if it is only one day away from being illegal to kill this premature baby, what makes it legal at that time? Does the baby obtain personhood overnight? Is personhood obtained by being able to survive without dependence on another person? Then do those on life support lose personhood for they would die without depending on another.

13. We are easily appalled because Gosnell took the babies out of the womb, and then ripped open their necks. What makes it more allowable for that same procedure, or worse, to happen within the womb? Is it the placement inside the womb that allows murder? What if a normal baby could be surgically implanted into a womb, would that allow its murder?

14. We are shocked by learning that Gosnell had tons of body parts, and baby corpses in jars all over his clinic, and we should be, for how would we reach towards someone who has adult body parts in jars? Yet, abortion clinics often practice this, and even more so often have a lucrative donation based business of giving away baby organs and parts to research. Why are we not horrorstruck by that?

15. If an abortionist kills a premature baby based on the mothers choice, it’s often seen a safe medical procedure done to the mother, yet when this happens on a baby against the mothers consent, we would legally view it as a crime and murder, why? Does the mothers choice to end the life of the baby moralize it?

16. The term “pro-choice” implies that the mothers freedom of choice is taken away by an abortion. What about those babies Gosnell killed? Did they have the freedom of choice? No, the mothers choice violates the babies choice, there is no way around this. How far does this choice extend anyway? If a mother does not want to breastfeed a baby, because that has to do with her body, can she dump the baby into the trash?

17. The idea of “woman’s reproductive rights” also implies that bigoted men are attempting to control the life and choices of a woman regarding her sexuality. Does not a woman already have every freedom of choice with sexuality, including birth control, sterilization, and even the morning after pill (which science now agrees does not abort but prevents pregnancy from happening). Does a premature baby girl have any claim to “women’s rights”?

18. Part of the reason this story is so scandalous is because of the terrifying descriptions of blood soaked floors, and babies birthed into toilets to have their necks lacerated. Yet this same end result of termination of life happens to the same types of premature babies who weigh a pound or two less, and we are ok with it? So is it the cleanliness and sterility of the “procedure” that makes it acceptable?

19. When a pregnant woman loses a child she wants to keep, why do we mourn with her instead of telling her it was only a clump of fetal tissue? Why are women told by their doctors after an ultrasound that “it’s a girl” or “it’s a boy”? Why are they not told “it’s only fetal tissue”? Can fetal tissue have a gender? Is not gender indicative of individuality? Your heart doesn’t have a gender, so it’s a tissue not a creature, but your cat has a gender therefore being its own living being. Why do people name this “fetal tissue” with the name of a person?

20. Gosnell’s case powerfully illustrates that the killing of these premature babies is not a medical procedure on the mother, but a termination of life procedure on a separate individual or living entity. It is not about the women’s body. Why is it acceptable that more sterile and early term abortions take place without the same conclusions? How can a woman have a “clump of tissue” within her that is a different gender than her? How can a female mother say “it’s my body” when killing a male baby? How can male DNA be a part of her female DNA body? Why does our culture obsess over this as a mother’s body issue when there are clearly two separate heartbeats, two separate necks, to separate brains, two separate DNA sequences?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *