That is a question that has stirred passions in the USA recently, what with this one minute-long political TV ad
and this Planned Parenthood’s representative’s testimony before a legislative committee (just under six minutes long)
Maybe, “What should happen to a baby born alive after a botched abortion?” is the wrong question.
The objective (other than in extremis) of the various procedures we call “abortion”, if I understand correctly, is to implement the choices of mothers who want to stop being pregnant, somewhat sooner than the natural ends of human pregnancies would happen anyway, usually the births of live human babies.
The objective is the termination of pregnancy. (The mothers are often said to have a “right” to “choose” this outcome for their own “bodies” because they are “women”.)
For some reason, anti-abortion people often call themselves “pro-life”, whilst the pro-abortion people refuse to call themselves “pro-abortion” (still less “pro-death”), but instead favour “pro-choice”. I take it that the latter’s sincere purpose is to emphasise the true objective of the abortion industry. The purpose of the abortion industry, apart from profit, is merely the termination of pregnancy, whenever a mother does not choose to continue her pregnancy to full term, and the law allows her that choice (or there is little chance of getting caught breaking the law).
Anti-abortion people object to abortion, not because they are spoilsports who resent the relief it gives the mothers from having to give birth to a full-sized, live babies, in a few months time. Nor do they object, because they are envious of the pay cheques of abortion industry workers. They object only because of something that has been viewed, until recently, as an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of abortion, the killing of unborn children.
But the purpose of the abortion industry wasn’t ever to kill the children, for the sake of killing them, was it? The deaths of unborn children have always been just a regrettable and unavoidable side effect of the crude methods of abortion used, and of when, during the courses of pregnancies, abortions are carried out.
In the third video above, the abortionist’s staff, by all accounts on hundreds of occasions, found themselves holding or looking down at live babies who had survived their mothers’ abortions. Sadly, these were always murdered, by the sticking of a pair of scissors into the backs of their heads, and the severing their spines. (It was easy to see that the victims didn’t enjoy this manner of death.) The staff who did this, apart from when the man in the white coat did it himself, presumably having the Milgram Experiment defence available that they were only obeying orders, all successfully plea-bargained their way down to guilty pleas of third degree murder, as far as I know.
Their boss, Dr Kermit Gosnell, whose questionable skills as a professional abortionist have made nevertheless him a millionaire (as well as a contender for the title of world’s most prolific serial killer) has more to lose than his staff. He wants to enjoy his savings. Perhaps, for this reason, he is gambling with his own life, albeit with better odds of living to write his memoirs than his victims had of living to write theirs, once their mothers had walked through his clinic doors. (If the abortion didn’t kill ’em, he’d make sure the scissors did.) Dr Gosnell is pleading not guilty to seven (specimen) counts of first degree murder, of seven of the babies he killed.
But what this tarnished African American role model seems to have stumbled upon accidentally, is actually a most fortuitous scientific discovery. It is possible, after all, to terminate unwanted pregnancies, without harming the children aborted in the process.
Once the technique of “botching” abortions is perfected, the mothers can cease to be pregnant (their choice), without this causing the deaths of their children. Mankind will be well on the way of solving the abortion problem, keeping both sides of the debate happy. The reluctant mothers and the pro-choicers will be able to keep their right to choose. The babies will be able to keep their right to life, which will please the pro-lifers no end. For making all this possible, Dr Kermit Gosnell could become the first person to win both the Nobel Prize for medicine, and the Nobel Peace Prize, all whilst being accommodated on Death Row.
Parliament originally allowed abortion up to 28 weeks. The law set a maximum age at which one could legally be aborted. That age limit has come down since then. And the age at which children can survive outside the womb, with suitable help, has come down and down and down over the years too. Recently a pair of twin boys survived after being evicted from the womb at only 23 weeks gestation, which is roughly 21 weeks after their conception.
In future, we should change the legislative approach completely, and set a minimum age for abortion, at say 24 weeks to be on the safe side, and only allow abortions to be performed using the brilliant “late term” techniques that Dr Gosnell pioneered.
What folly it would be to refuse to stand upon the shoulders of this ethical dwarf, but medical research giant. Why, it would be as churlish an example of “looking a gift horse in the mouth” as (say) refusing to use Dr Josef Mengele’s valuable scientific research in Auschwitz (if he’d done any scientific research that was valuable, that is), in order to save lives.
Dr Gosnell should therefore not be executed (don’t worry, in Pennsylvania he probably won’t be anyway, unless he signs the consent form) until we have debriefed him. We need to paperclip this genius, before we let him die. (To learn about Operation Paperclip, please click on the image below.)
We need to learn the secret of his failure. For what, to him, was a failure, “Damn! Another scissors job!”, if only viewed as the success it truly was, and built upon, will save millions of lives – 55 million in the USA alone since Roe v Wade. It will allow an outbreak of peace between the two presently warring factions, pro-life and pro-choice.
“Truth is found neither in the thesis nor the antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis which reconciles the two.” [Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]
Readers who enjoyed this might also enjoy