Whenever the Gosnell trial is brought up on the news, I keep hearing either the reporter him or herself, or the 'expert' commentator they've hauled into to commentate, bellow that this case is "not about abortion, but about infanticide," or "about killing living babies." I presume this is done to draw a bright line between the constitutionally protected, and perfectly respectable, practice of abortion - the version of it that civilized men and women should all agree must be protected - and the barbarically degraded version of it in which Gosnell was engaged.
They should consider redrawing that line, and I want to help. They won't like my help, but I can't help that. Here's the line: an abortion of any kind kills a living baby. It can be done outside the womb, or in the womb; before viability, after viability; by chemical poisoning, scissors to the skull, or a vacuum fitted out with miniature veg-o-matic blades; it can be performed in gleeful cruelty (that is, with utter disregard for the reverence owed to these temples of the Holy Ghost), or with a somber sense of regretful but professional determination accompanied by an upside down smiley face. However it is done, a living baby is killed. Why is this so hard?
No comments:
Post a Comment