A courtroom horror story is currently fattening the ratings of the battening media in Philadelphia as anyone able to see and hear Fox News is aware. But those battening are a curiously restricted list. Conservative, pro-life news sources are hip-deep in dead babies, unsanitary conditions and gruesome trophies but the pro-abortion majority of TV and newspaper outlets see only peace and sunlight (well, excepting Boston). The Washington Post belatedly recognized the story and is now awaiting the jury’s decision on Dr. Gosnell along with the conservatives at the Gosnell Trial.
So, how are we to feel about the doctor? What are we, feelings aside, to think of him? Is he a criminal? The jury is in process of deciding, and evidently not having an easy time as the days of deliberation pass. But it will decide that, no other. That is as it should be; that is our way of handling such things for good or not.
The looming, larger question: is he evil? That, we have to decide for ourselves until it is settled for believers, by God. The evidence has been presented to us; it isn’t in dispute.
Dr. Gosnell is charged with the illegal performance of abortions at his ‘abortion mill’ , where he is accused of the murders of a patient and four babies. For the jury, the fact that his actions were illegal is paramount. For deciding on whether the doctor is evil, the actions themselves are the evidence. And per the evidence, the five deaths for which he is accused are merely a token of a larger number that occurred over many years.
See, this is a trial within a trial: one trial is in the courtroom, the other, in the public view. The first is a trial of a killer, the second, a trial of the system of legal abortion in the U.S.
Dr. Gosnell is now shown to have operated a sleazy, unsanitary, slipshod, careless as well as ruthless facility where he ‘saved’ poor patients money by withholding anesthetic in painul procedures. He didn’t care how far along the pregnancy was when he aborted it; when the baby wasn’t killed in the mother’s uterus, he snipped its neck with scissors. He promised abortion, and he delivered under whatever circumstances. A reliable practitioner, right?
Believers to a man, call him evil. Of course; no believer can countenance such callous disposition of human life, even if inconvenienced mothers demand it. If you hold human life a gift of the Creator, how can you say otherwise? But suppose you aren’t a believer, what then?
There is for all, believer or not, a set of principles called: the Natural Law. That is a set of rules derived from the obvious (and not so obvious) characteristics of human nature as we understand it. From that, it’s easily seen that allowing folks to set up for killing babies to satisfy inconvenienced mothers has a price for our species to pay. That price is straightforward: if any mother can decide to kill a helpless and innocent human being for her own convenience, why can’t everyone else do that too? It seems pretty simple, though the abortion supporters work hard to obfuscate it. And that decides the condition of Doctor Gosnell. He was in the business of killing innocents, (usually babies but sometimes adult patients through carelessness) for money. His actions stripped human life of any value whatever, other than the convenience of a mother and a measure of the Doctor’s pocketbook. Under Natural Law as well as religion, that is evil since it damages the species. greater good. Who knows what Einstein, Mother Theresa or Michelangelo has been aborted among the fifty million extinct by abortion since Roe vs. Wade? Such unnecessary deaths impoverish our species. Doctor Gosnell doesn’t care, so long as he is paid, So Doctor Gosnell, whether or not a criminal, is evil.
Should this evil man be punished by the court? The jury is deciding but the general question has not been addressed. Before Roe vs. Wade, abortion was illegal and punished. Then the Supreme Court, our social arbiter in legal matters, approved it as a right. The Court, in approving that right knew it was setting up a commercial business. It knew it was dehumanizing life, too, making a mere commodity of it. There will, in any business, be sleazy operators. So long as fraud is absent, such are left to dissatisfied customers to sue if they wish; they aren’t prosecuted by the state. But government has hedged abortion with exceptions according to the perceived sensibilities of the voters. That is arrant hypocrisy, seems to me. The Supremes set loose Dr. Gosnell, and must bear the moral responsibility of releasing him from the back-alley status of such before their decision to his present public prominence. It isn’t the Doctor’s responsibility that he was invited into the public market. He made no secret of what he did. Now he is the whipping boy for the contradictions in what the Supreme Court did. That is not justice. Logically, he deserves to be sure by any unsatisfied customers, not tried for crime. That’s unsatisfactory? Certainly, but that lays at the feet of the Supreme Court, not Dr. Gosnell.
This is an emotional issue, played for maximum impact in the media; feel free to disagree so long as reasons are provided. We are here to present and evaluate, opinions… .