From Mirror of Justice:
Had [Gosnell] killed the babies while they were still in their mothers’ bodies … that would not have been a crime. He merely would have been assisting his patients in exercising what the Supreme Court deems a constitutional right. So why, he would like to know, is he being prosecuted for killing the same babies moments later after they precipitated? … How can it be that killing a baby inside the womb is perfectly acceptable while killing the very same baby (or even a baby that is a few days or even weeks younger) outside the womb is first degree murder? … A baby’s status as a precious member of the human family, possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity, does not depend on something as morally arbitrary as his or her location. But if we permit the Gosnells of the world to kill babies inside the womb, it seems odd to charge them with murder for killing them outside the womb.
The irony is that a common argument against defenders of marriage and sexual morality, is that such defenders are secretly just basing their position on an “ick” factor, on a personal distaste for such practices. Yet here we have pro-choice people with nothing but an “ick” factor as their basis for convicting Gosnell of true malfeasance.
- Why Kermit Gosnell should be acquitted (liveactionnews.org)
- Even abortion industry insiders ‘freaked out’ by Gosnell (wnd.com)
- Gosnell: The New Dred Scott Case? (americanthinker.com)