Nightmares and madness
While police and law enforcement mount a massive effort to bring to justice the perpetrators of the recent Boston marathon bombings murders, others argue over the criminality of murders just as obvious.
The AP reports that Cross “saw the babies’ chests move but was told by Gosnell they were not breathing.” She also claims to have seen three of the babies move their limbs and another let out a “soft whine,” before they were aborted alive.
Even as this Gosnell trial brings more horrendous, murderous facts to the surface, that won’t wake from delusion those who’ve taken the blue pill of the death camp.
But the most interesting response by far has come from voices on the uncompromisingly pro-choice left. These writers have basically made two interlocking arguments: First, that there was no “liberal media” blackout, because feminist bloggers wrote about the story from the beginning, and second, that if there was a breakdown in mainstream coverage, it was the failure to recognize the ways in which the Gosnell story is actually about inequities in access to medical care and the perverse consequences of abortion restrictions, rather than (as the pro-life side would have it) the inherent horror of the procedure itself.
In other words, had Pennsylvania not had the abortion restrictions it does they wouldn’t have had people like Gosnell practicing the “back alley” operations they do. As if murder is humane and proper practiced in a sanctioned clinic or hospital rather but not an ordinary storefront. Last I checked, dead is dead. How it happens is not as important as why or who did it.
What is astounding is the cognitive dissonance is so palpable.
[her essay described] performing an abortion on a woman who was 23 weeks along and then immediately running to deliver a premature baby … of 23 to 24 weeks. “I thought to myself how bizarre it was that I could have legally dismembered this fetus-now-newborn if it were inside its mother’s uterus,” she writes, “but that the same kind of violence against it now would be illegal, and unspeakable.” Later she notes, “Currently, the violence and, frankly, the gruesomeness of abortion is owned only by those who would like to see abortion (at any time in pregnancy) disappear.”
This should be a lesson. Legal and moral aren’t interchangeable terms. Often a legality is completely immoral, as is the case here. Having legal sanction to do something doesn’t mean one should. Nor should having a legal obligation compel anyone to do it if that supposed obligation flies in the face of moral certainty. Abortion is murder, plain and simple. Anything else is just political.
Secondly, this is abortion laid out in all its glory. The conditions Gosnell and his attendants were under to do their work are irrelevant. Did it make a difference to those brought to the gas chambers in Auschwitz what the conditions were like? Gosnell and company murdered the same as any other.
Time is running out. God is not and will not be mocked. Maybe one hope is that abortion supporters will have nightmares over this and awaken from the madness.
UPDATE: The details of this disgusting affair become more gut-wrenching. No less than murder on demand. Purported pro-choice advocates should have a good look to see themselves in this story.
On the last day of testimony before the prosecution rests in the murder trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell, a former worker at Gosnell’s clinic testified that she saw one late-term baby who survived an abortion “swimming” in a toilet and “trying to get out.”
“Did you ever see those babies move?” asked Prosecutor Joanne Pescatore.
“Yes, once in the toilet,” said Cross.
The baby “was like swimming,” she said. “Basically, trying to get out.”
Adrienne Moton, an employee at the clinic, then took the baby and snipped the back of its neck while the mother was still in the room.
Cross told the jury that when Shayquana Abrams came into the clinic in July 2008 she was pregnant, “and she was big.”
“That was the largest baby I ever saw,” Cross said.