As you all know I\’m rather out of step with the rest of society on the subject of abortion. Up here on my pink clouds it\’s wrong and shouldn\’t happen.
However, I\’m a little confused about this growing furore about Dr. Kermit Gosnell. OK, so it was dirty, messy, incompetent and all that. Bad.
But one of the points that people seem to be getting very upset about is that he induced labour in those in the later stages of pregnancy. And that when the baby was born he then killed it by snipping the spine, just under the back of the head.
I think this is vile right from the very start of it of course. But to others who do in fact support abortion in some manner: what actually is wrong with this? It\’s only very slightly different from a partial birth abortion.
In a partial birth abortion labour is induced. The baby is in the process of being born: at this point it\’s \”alive\” as most of us would think of it but not alive as US law has it. Not taken a breath yet, still mostly inside the vaginal canal.
At which point pierce the back of the skull and suck its brains out.
There, it\’s dead before being alive and thus this is an abortion not murder or infanticide.
Partial birth abortion is a relatively standard procedure in the US. It\’s most certainly legal.
We can all see that there\’s a certain amount of legal cortortioning going on here. Suck the brains out before the first breath, snip the spinal cord after it. Legally, quite different.
But in moral terms the difference is what? And who would, on this point alone, want to condemn Dr. Kermit Gosnell and yet support partial birth abortion?