Kermit Gosnell is on trial for many counts of murder, including delivering babies alive, taking a pair of scissors, and snipping their spinal cords. Did you know about that? I’ll bet lots of people who may have heard of it a while ago forgot about it, and didn’t know his trial has begun.
That may be because no one is talking about it in the major media outlets. I mean no one. Check out this screen capture of Google News results for “Gosnell.” LifeNews.com, a couple of local papers, and someone at HuffingtonPost.com covered it, sure. But look at the last link. It says, “It Is Disturbing That Mike Rice Gets More Coverage Than Kermit…” Yes, coverage about the non-coverage gets higher billing than most coverage. So you could be excused for not knowing about this.
I’ll bet you did know about the ABSOLUTE NEED for more restrictive gun laws nationwide because of the massacre of children in Newtown, Connecticut.
Pardon my French, but this is political opportunism by people who want control at its worst.
Anyone. And I mean anyone who does not want to talk about Kermit Gosnell’s actions and our abortion-saturated culture but does want to use Newtown to push gun control because of our gun-saturated culture does not care about saving kids. They care about control.
The difference between the children gunned down by Adam Lanza and the children who had their spines snipped by Kermit Gosnell is nothing more than time.
The socio-economic wherewithal of the family does not lessen the humanity of the child. To say otherwise is to say the Newtown kids were “more human” because their parents had more money than the poor people who went to Gosnell. That is an abhorrent thought that no feeling person could harbor.
The “choice” of the mother (or the mother’s mother, who is forcing her teenage daughter to have an abortion) does not confer humanity upon the child. If it does, why not extend that principle longer and let the family take the kid home, give it some thought, see how the kid grows up, and let them bring the kid back for an “after-birth abortion” some time down the road when the kid becomes inconvenient or fails to make the honor roll. Just reserve the right to “choose” until later in life.
If you disagree and think an “after-birth abortion” is okay within the first few moments after birth, especially for a kid who should have been aborted, tell me what is different about the kid herself between that moment right after birth and the moment the kid arrives home for the first time (should she be so fortunate). Why would it be murder to intentionally kill the kid once home but it is not murder there in the delivery room? If you have a response, challenge yourself: Provide a response without talking about “should have been aborted,” “the mother’s choice,” or “terrible quality of life.” None of those affect the humanness of the new human person that has left the birth canal alive.
The Newtown victims were murdered by a mentally unstable man who had been mercilessly bullied as a youth, who was mesmerized by hundreds of hours of military-style first-person shooter video games, and enabled by a mother mind-numbingly irresponsible with the weapons she lawfully owned in one of the states with the most restrictive gun laws. They were not murdered by a roving band of renegade scary-looking guns with bloodlust or in a yippy-kai-yay shootout in a town as permissive with guns as the Wild West.
Yet the target in the national rush to DO SOMETHING!!11!!!!!11!! in the wake of Newtown is not violent video games. It is not bullying. It is not even making sure families with mentally unstable members are more heavily scrutinized or required to be more responsible with their guns. No, it’s gun ownership, through blanket measures that will restrict the rights of millions of people who are entirely innocent and entirely responsible with their guns.
Anyone who stands on the graves of the Newtown victims (to borrow Ben Shapiro’s excellent charge) to push for gun control but neither raises a peep about the horror of Kermit Gosnell’s work, nor seeks similar governmental action on bullying or military-style first-person shooter video games, simply wants control. They have shown they do not care about protecting children, they just want to use this awful tragedy to harass peaceable, responsible gun owners and restrict their rights.
Do I exaggerate? Am I making too much about the Gosnell case, since it is one of a kind, and ignoring that there have been many mass shootings lately? No, I’m not, because I dispute that Gosnell was unique.
What was the difference between what Gosnell did and what George Tiller, or any other partial-birth abortionist did? How about any abortionist anywhere who delivered a baby alive after a botched abortion and simply left the child to die in the trash bin (a practice Barack Obama enabled by personally blocking the legislation that would have criminalized it)? In what ways were the children killed different from the children Gosnell killed?
Fact is, the anti-humanity actions of Kermit Gosnell, while more spectacularly gory than the sterile environment of these other cases, are essentially the same as any of those other cases. In all cases, a new human person is born, or nearly born, and is either directly killed through a horrific, violent procedure, or is simply left to die—just as any human person would if denied access to food and water for a long enough time.
Some of the people pushing for more restrictive gun laws may not realize they’re being led by the nose like this—they really and truly do care about children and really had never thought about the horror of the abortion industry (and an “industry” it is, make no mistake). If you fall into that category, open your eyes and consider the horror children face every day in the abortion facilities rather than on the extraordinarily rare occasions that a madman snaps.
But the people pushing this, the ones doing the leading, know exactly what they are doing. It is about control.
Fortunately, based on the sheer politics of it all and the combination of vulnerable senators in gun-friendly states where the people are not buying the President’s snake oil, it does not look like anything extremely restrictive has any chance of passing Congress at. all.
I’ll bet, on the other hand, if a president were to make as impassioned a plea as Obama is making here, surrounded by families members of those hurt by abortion, women who regret their abortion, people who survived abortions (and were spared an “after-birth abortion”), etc., for more restrictions on abortion and greater scrutiny of abortion facilities, complete with a similarly compliant media to what Obama has on gun control, the cause would be a slam-dunk.