The Trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell

[Rhode Irish]

I will say off the top that I haven't read any comments in this thread beyond the OP, so I'm only responding to that.

I will posit a theory for why this hasn't gotten major attention: there is no way to report on this story in any meaningful way without totally disgusting your audience. I am pretty far towards the pro-choice end of the spectrum, and it is hard for me to read that without throwing up. I strongly believe most "liberals," including those in the media, feel the same way. To me, this really isn't any more connected to the abortion debate than an abortion clinic bombing would be. To most pro-choice people, the woman's health is at the forefront of our minds. The women's health aspect of this story is nausea-inducing.

This is a horror film come to life, and tremendously unpleasant to think about. But its usefulness in the ongoing political debate is nonexistent.

 

[Grahambo]

Holy crap from top to bottom. I can't believe there's discussion about the morality behind killing a baby. Surviving an abortion should not matter.

 

[IrishLax]

I will say off the top that I haven't read any comments in this thread beyond the OP, so I'm only responding to that.

I will posit a theory for why this hasn't gotten major attention: there is no way to report on this story in any meaningful way without orally disgusting your audience. I am pretty far towards the pro-choice end of the spectrum, and it as hard for me to read that without throwing up. I strongly believe most "liberals," including those in the media, feel the same way. To me, this really isn't in any way connected to the abortion debate than an abortion clinic bombing would be.

This is a horror film come to life, and tremendously unpleasant to think about. But its usefulness in the ongoing political debate is nonexistent.

But the most shocking and disturbing stories (e.g. Sandy Hook) always get the most attention... so I doubt that anyone is just intentionally not reporting because of how gruesome it is.

It really is quite odd and I don't have an explanation.

 

[peoriairish]

This really is disgusting. Hadn't heard anything about it here.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I will posit a theory for why this hasn't gotten major attention: there is no way to report on this story in any meaningful way without totally disgusting your audience. I am pretty far towards the pro-choice end of the spectrum, and it is hard for me to read that without throwing up. I strongly believe most "liberals," including those in the media, feel the same way. To me, this really isn't any more connected to the abortion debate than an abortion clinic bombing would be. To most pro-choice people, the woman's health is at the forefront of our minds. The women's health aspect of this story is nausea-inducing.

As I mentioned in my OP, I'm naturally very skeptical of claimed media bias, because it usually boils down to partisan efforts to create a false sense of victimhood. But the lack of coverage in this case is hard to describe in any other way. Most media outlets had no qualms about covering other similarly shocking tragedies (Sandy Hook, etc.)

This is a horror film come to life, and tremendously unpleasant to think about. But its usefulness in the ongoing political debate is nonexistent.

Not so sure about that. In light of Planned Parenthood's recent defense of infanticide (which also went completely uncovered), and the use of the Gosnell case to argue for further deregulation of abortion, the phrase "slippery slope" comes to mind.

And the grand jury report suggests that the series of political decisions which allowed this place to keep operating, despite countless red flags, were motivated by the belief that any regulation of abortion constitutes an infringement of a woman's "right to choose".

I certainly don't want this thread to devolve into a typical political argument over abortion. Instead of insisting on banning abortion outright (which will likely never happen), opponents of abortion ought to focus on offering alternative policies that consider: (1) the burdens that carrying to term place on the mother; (2) the usually terrible prospects the child will face after birth; and (3) the fact that desperate women are going to find other (and much more dangerous) ways to abort anyhow. I've yet to see anything of the sort from the Right, which lends credence to the idea that abortion is little more than a political football that partisans use to fire up their respective bases. The trenches on this issue haven't moved significantly in decades, and those in power seem content to leave it that way.

Conversely, proponents ought to approach this issue with an awful lot of humility. In order to advocate for abortion rights, one has to be comfortable designating some criteria for when a fetus stops being just a cluster of cells and starts being an infant. Given how little we know about how the human brain works, it strikes me as staggeringly arrogant to advocate for such a standard with anything approaching confidence. Because, if you're wrong, you're complicit in the destruction of innocent human life. That factor alone militates strongly in favor of restricting abortion, but without some alternative policies in place to mitigate the factors discussed above, we're left arguing over which is the lesser of two evils.

In any case, proclaiming this tragedy as politically irrelevant smacks of willful blindness. Sounds just like the NRA claiming that Sandy Hook should be irrelevant to the gun control debate.

 

[Rhode Irish]

It seems to me that most pro-life people view an abortion as a medical procedure, much like any other surgery. As far as I know, the medical industry and medical procedures are generally pretty regulated. I think the argument about regulation has more to do with who, where and when, rather than how.

By the way, with respect to the "when does life start" debate, my viewpoint is pretty simple and, I think, practical. If the fetus is viable, it is a baby (i.e., a person) and no longer a fetus. If it isn't viable, then it is not a person. Obviously it is almost impossible to define exactly when a fetus crosses that line, but doctors can get reasonably close. The judgment should be made erring on the extreme end of the "caution" side of the continuum. If it is medically impossible for the baby to be born alive and stay alive, it is still a medical decision that belongs to the mother.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

By the way, with respect to the "when does life start" debate, my viewpoint is pretty simple and, I think, practical. If the fetus is viable, it is a baby (i.e., a person) and no longer a fetus. If it isn't viable, then it is not a person. Obviously it is almost impossible to define exactly when a fetus crosses that line, but doctors can get reasonably close. The judgment should be made erring on the extreme end of the "caution" side of the continuum. If it is medically impossible for the baby to be born alive and stay alive, it is still a medical decision that belongs to the mother.

That's a moving target, since the progress of medical science continues to make the age of viability earlier and earlier. So, from a philosophical standpoint, it doesn't hold up. Any definition of personhood that fluctuates with technological advancement is pretty flimsy.

Which brings me to my earlier point about humility. How can you be confident in that criterion? The current limit of viability is roughly 24 weeks old. Could you and your significant other confidently terminate a fetus at 23 weeks? What changes in the following week that suddenly invests that fetus with legal rights?

Every criterion generates a specific point in time, whereby an allegedly worthless clump of cells is imbued with personhood and suddenly becomes worthy of protection. Test yourself by moving back and forth over that threshold and try to put that magic moment into words. I suspect you can't.

Everyone, regardless of ideology, is instinctively horrified by the infanticide of the Gosnell case. Opponents of abortion perform the same exercise, moving back from that point incrementally, and try to identify the same magic moment. Outside of conception, it's not possible to identify one in a philosophically consistent manner; certainly not with enough certainty that would allow for the moral termination of a fetus.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I disagree that it is a moving target. I think, on a case-by-case basis, it is a usable criteria. Anyways, I don't think I would ever be comfortable with an abortion where I am the father. I'd also advise against it if anyone were to seek my counsel. But as far as legal rights are concerned, I don't believe in enforcing my morality on others. I am not the arbiter of morality. I see it as a medical issue, and my belief is that people should be left to make their own medical decisions.

 

[Redbar]

Politics aside, this is an extremely tragic story, very poor reflection on our society in general.

 

[alohagoirish]

A few points on this depressing event and perplexing dilemma.

On the media coverage--i think looking for an agenda driven reason for the lack of coverage is misplaced. The unfortunate truth is, in the totally RATINGS driven news business of the 21st century this event falls in the "Black on Black" crime side of the ledger. Despite the seemingly topical nature & the sensational horror that would seem to encourage coverage this is sadly TRUMPED by a lack of institutional interest in black on black murder & death in most any form. The young Pendelton girl killed recently in chicago is the exception that proves the rule--it took anational focus on gun violence, a presidential interest, and a high achieving youngster all wrapped into one shooting death to get even the modest coverage this did. Caylee Anthony & Trever Martin are the stories we want and draw soap opera interest---if you can't get the repeat audience ( a difficult task in minority stories) the stories simply don't make it.

On the topic--The evidence is fairly well developed that you can drop the abortion rate precipitously with sex education and contraception within social mores and open societies that see same as the solution not an encouragment to evil sex. The netherlands, the germans, belgium and the swiss all have seen low abortion rates in comparison to other countries who take a different tack. Technology and social maturity would seem clearly to be the fastest and most effective way to get to the safe & rare goals that this horrific case stands in driect opposition to.

The alternative of FORCED BIRTH by government decree simply cannot be a workable or even the desirable goal of anyone who wants to see the need for abortion to disappear.

Remember women make up nearly half of the global labor force yet control only 1% of the worlds wealth according to world bank stats. The situation with social mobility--social oppression--mortality --and sexual exploitation around the world make a bad situation stunning in its depth and lack of modernity.

The greater the social status of women and the freedom & control over their reproductive rights in a society are-- will correlate directly with the level of opression or level of freedom women possess within the society.

Despite the difficulty opposing needs often present us when dealing with women and their reproductive freedom---its nonethless clear to me that FORCED BIRTHS decreed by state power is never going to lead the vanguard of social evolution. The answer must lie in giving women more and better control over their reproductive health not in making them slaves to it.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I can't ****ing believe this!

What kind of anti-abortionist would want to label this an example of a pro-rights situation? The only answer I can come up with is someone who is in need of mental health support. No wonder why this is so divisive of an issue! It ain't the immorality of the issue; it is the people on either side of the argument!

I would never support abortion, ever. But I must say the politicization of this thread, and the lying false labeling of the issue, (I haven't ever seen the ends justifying the means, in reality), is almost as bad as I have seen.

I am really mourning for these victims, yes, the children and the mothers were victims, and I see the same tired faded moves being put on this story. Most of you have no background on this case. If you did, you would see that Kermit and pro-life or Kermit and pro-choice have nothing in common. Pro-life and pro-choice have much more in common with each other.

This guy is no different than the Khmer Rouge; you know how they killed the kids? Picked them up like baseball bats by their ankles and swung them against trees. The didn't want to waste the ammunition. And I am sure they found their way more entertaining. Anybody up for labeling them pro-abortionist?

I don't consider this criminal enterprise any different that theirs was. When you see the true inhumanity at times like this and you can take time to label it for political gain, you are just a little too much for me.

 

[yankeehater]

Whether you agree with Sean Hannity or not, he had a female representative from Planned Parenthood on his show and asked her if the baby survives the abortion and is a viable living person outside the womb what do you do? She said that is up to the mother and the doctor. How is that then not murder?

 

[alohagoirish]

To be fair---this "DR" is being charged with seven counts of first degree murder and most of his staff has either pled guilty to or been charged with third degree murder--all this happened without any input from sean hannity and i would expect a conviction to be the most likely result. He will get a defense from his attorney but not from other quarters in the society irrespective of their positions on womens rights.

 

[BobD]

Sad, disgusting and deplorable .

 

[gkautz10]

Just kill the mfer and be done with it. Why waste tax dollars giving this man a "due process".