« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gosnell guillotine more humane than being drawn and quartered at 23 weeks

Are any non-Gosnell abortions inside the womb, not gruesome?

Daniel Day Lewis Lincoln

To hear liberals in the media express shock, however belatedly, at how “gruesome” and “grisly” were the murders of newborns by “Doctor” Kermit Gosnell following botched, third-trimester abortions, one would think that your average run of the mill abortion more resembled the merciful deaths of convicted murderers by lethal injection, if not a manicure. But then, Gosnell was also acquitted on one murder charge:

An abortion doctor was convicted Monday of first-degree murder and could face execution in the deaths of three babies who were delivered alive and then killed with scissors at his grimy, “house of horrors” clinic.

In a case that became a grisly flashpoint in the nation’s abortion debate, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, 72, was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose death of an abortion patient. He was cleared in the death of a fourth baby, who prosecutors say let out a whimper before the doctor cut the spinal cord.

Do we think that what happened before the “whimper” (death rattle?) by Baby No. 4 and the cutting of its (his or hers?) spinal cord, was not grisly and gruesome? Three other murder charges were thrown out by the trial judge before trial. More detail:

The gruesome details came out more than two years ago during an investigation of prescription drug trafficking at Gosnell’s clinic. Investigators said it was a foul-smelling “house of horrors” with bags and bottles of fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.

Many of the fetuses in bags and bottles were the result of  choices made legal by the Supreme Court in 1973. Is choice “gruesome” and “grisly”? Apparently, but there’s nothing to see here after Roe v Wade, but in future would our un-regulated protectors of women’s health please get rid of the legal remains of choices before they are photographed for intolerant pro-lifers to run in ads. But no, this same liberal media regularly denounces the showing of fetal bodies being torn apart via suction at week 23.

Funny, when I read Winston Churchill’s accounts of the drawing and quartering of certain King’s enemies in his History of the English-Speaking Peoples, descriptions such as grisly and gruesome came to mind, but I guess that’s not the case if the other ends of ropes tied to horses traveling north, south, east and west, respectively, pass thru a vaginal canal before being tied to small arms and legs?

“Progressives”, can we talk?

Just got through finally watching the first few minutes of the Academy Award-nominated film “Lincoln” for which Daniel Day-Lewis became the first man to win three Best Actor Oscars. But Mike, what has that to do with abortion and Gosnell? Glad you asked.

Why did Director Stephen Spielberg feel the need to re-write history to make a historic figure as revered as the man called “The Great Emancipator” seem even more “emancipating” than he was:

In the film Lincoln is dedicated to the great task of getting the House to ratify the Thirteenth Amendment. But the film fails to note that Lincoln did not support the Thirteenth Amendment when it was proposed in 1864—by the Women’s National Loyal League, led by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Lincoln’s view at that point, as Foner shows, was that slavery should be abolished on a state-by-state basis, since slavery had been created by state law. He changed his mind in response to political pressure from Radical Republicans.

According to the film, Lincoln in 1865 was in “a race against time” (this synopsis comes from the semi-official Internet Movie Data Base), because “peace may come at any time, and if it comes before the amendment is passed, the returning southern states will stop the amendment abolishing slavery before it can become law.” That is simply not true. The movie focuses on the lame duck Congress that met in January 1865. If it had failed to ratify the amendment, Lincoln had announced that he would call a special session of the new Congress in March, where the Republicans would have a two-thirds majority. It would have passed the amendment easily—slightly more than one month later than the lame-duck Congress featured in the film.

The film makes another false argument, that once the Southern states were back in the union, they would have the power to block the amendment’s ratification, which required the vote of three-quarters of the states. Lincoln and the rest of the Republicans were not going to allow the Confederate state governments to remain in power after surrender—that was what “Reconstruction” was all about. Louisiana, Tennessee and Virginia had already formed new governments that abolished slavery. There was no “race against time”—and thus the central drama of the film is bogus.

The abolition of slavery by Western Europeans and Americans is one of the greatest chapters of 5000 years of human history dominated by human suffering under tyranny. But progressives, modern-day liberals, Democrats (but I repeat myself), are never content to compare America with other actual civilizations in that history, for to do so in this context would show that only the Judeo-Christian West abolished slavery on moral grounds. Lincoln, the first Republican, made his anti-slavery bona fides clear in his famous debates with Stephen Douglas, but as a politician and President had to deal with the real world in which the institution had existed since time immemorial.

Therefore, the Real Abraham Lincoln is not good enough for the Utopians. Yet, these same ideological soul mates (read atheists, agnostics and some liberal Christians) have made liberal politics their religion,  with “choice” aka abortion, as its most cherished sacrament. But a funny thing happened on the way to their “holy of holies” where only the Most Reverend Doctors aka abortionists are allowed behind the veil.

Some body parts fell out and spoiled the party, so please pay for Georgetown Law Student’s birth control pills. Technology is progressive. Human nature is not.

Seven lawyers in robes opened Pandora’s Box and Americans succumbed. After all, BMW payments are more easily made absent bills for Pampers at Sam’s Club. Will Spielberg’s next flick re-write Gosnell as heroic or merely misunderstood? That if only five lawyers in robes would tweak Casey v Planned Parenthood

Meanwhile, the march of millions of legal grisly and gruesome deaths inside wombs “progresses”, while liberal Democrats cry crocodile tears over the “pain” inflicted on mass murderers by electric chairs, hangmen’s nooses and even the pin-prick of needles. And we think the national debt is this country’s  biggest problem?

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Editor of Hillbilly Politics

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist at Examiner.com

Front page columnist for Liberty Unyielding and Western Free

Get Alerts