I agree, but I suspect he is not singularly unique or even all that isolated a case. The national choice to turn a blind eye on this industry in the name of woman's rights lays the foundation for this type of individual.
I can't read any of that sort of thing right now-- too close-- but I've heard several folks who were shocked to find out on doing research that he wasn't doing anything unusual, just odd that it was a cluster of pretty strong showing on several aspects.
Some of them had switched from pro-abort to anti-abort.
It's actually the combination of poverty, lack of access to affordable contraception (to prevent the pregnancy in the first place), conservative lawmakers putting up more and more barriers to safe first and second term abortions, anti-abortion activists and conservative lawmakers enabling insurance to not cover abortion and preventing Medicaid from covering abortion, and conservative lawmakers attacking Planned Parenthood, that creates atrocities like Kermit Gosnell. In other words, things that can be measured with data, rather than some abstract "blind eye."
Regarding my statement about turning a blind eye. It is an interesting although equally vague set of rationalizations you push to support choice, they are all based on selective statistics with research bias. The left rises up to support gun regulation (which is clearly regulated at both the state and federal level) but actively fights against state and federal regulation and oversight of the abortion industry. see: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/493/26/ and http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/18/abortion-live-action-editorials-debates/2095169/ Perhaps post Gosnell we will see change such as Michigan. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/2/michigan-hb-5711-regulates-abortion-industry/ But I expect the pro-abortion lobby to fight with much the same vigor as the NRA.
Funny you mention guns, because it occurs to me that if Gosnell is an argument against legal abortion, then Lanza, Laughner, Kleebold, Harris, etc., etc., ad infiniitum are all arguments against legal guns.
They all went along killing for years, with many other legal infractions and some adult deaths, and were only caught when an entirely different legal group came in to catch them on drug violations and found their chamber of horrors knee deep in filth and trophies?
For you, perhaps. But I was responding to "The national choice to turn a blind eye on this industry in the name of woman's rights lays the foundation for this type of individual."
Yes, decades of ignoring obvious law-breaking until a totally different law is broken is much, much different from someone breaking a law (guns) to break a bigger law (murder) and being immediately resisted.
My take on Gosnell is that when someone overcomes the natural reluctance to brutally kill a defenseless baby, there's not a whole lot of barrier left between that person and other moral offenses. If I remember correctly, a few dozen "abortion providers" have been convicted of felonies since 1973, a crime rate that dwarfs that of pro-lifers and rivals that of inner city gang members.
Another thought is that after this and the closure of Planned Parenthood's Delaware office for similar issues to Gosnell's, it's going to become harder for PP to argue against mandatory inspections and the like.
But putting a shank into his spine? No--and by the way, Brian, that's a knife, not a gun. And I fully support knife control in prisons, for what it's worth.
Gino, I'd agree if and only if we find that breaking the reluctance/barrier to performing abortions is not correlated with breaking the reluctance to commit other crimes. The cast of characters who did nothing about known complaints about Gosnell until the EMTs had to cut chains to remove a dying woman from his clinic--Pennsylvania regulators, Planned Parenthood, and more--casts this into doubt.
15 comments:
I agree, but I suspect he is not singularly unique or even all that isolated a case. The national choice to turn a blind eye on this industry in the name of woman's rights lays the foundation for this type of individual.
I can't read any of that sort of thing right now-- too close-- but I've heard several folks who were shocked to find out on doing research that he wasn't doing anything unusual, just odd that it was a cluster of pretty strong showing on several aspects.
Some of them had switched from pro-abort to anti-abort.
It's actually the combination of poverty, lack of access to affordable contraception (to prevent the pregnancy in the first place), conservative lawmakers putting up more and more barriers to safe first and second term abortions, anti-abortion activists and conservative lawmakers enabling insurance to not cover abortion and preventing Medicaid from covering abortion, and conservative lawmakers attacking Planned Parenthood, that creates atrocities like Kermit Gosnell. In other words, things that can be measured with data, rather than some abstract "blind eye."
And outlawing abortion would create more of them.
I would highly suggest looking at the situation he was actually in; the meme you're pushing doesn't reflect it.
Gosnell is a straight up monster.
Regarding my statement about turning a blind eye. It is an interesting although equally vague set of rationalizations you push to support choice, they are all based on selective statistics with research bias. The left rises up to support gun regulation (which is clearly regulated at both the state and federal level) but actively fights against state and federal regulation and oversight of the abortion industry. see: http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/493/26/ and http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/04/18/abortion-live-action-editorials-debates/2095169/
Perhaps post Gosnell we will see change such as Michigan. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/2/michigan-hb-5711-regulates-abortion-industry/
But I expect the pro-abortion lobby to fight with much the same vigor as the NRA.
Funny you mention guns, because it occurs to me that if Gosnell is an argument against legal abortion, then Lanza, Laughner, Kleebold, Harris, etc., etc., ad infiniitum are all arguments against legal guns.
Oh?
They all went along killing for years, with many other legal infractions and some adult deaths, and were only caught when an entirely different legal group came in to catch them on drug violations and found their chamber of horrors knee deep in filth and trophies?
No, but they all broke the law. (As did Gosnell, it would appear.) And therefore constitute poor arguments against the laws they did not break.
I think there are legitimate arguments against legal abortion. I just don't think Gosnell is one of them.
The contrast between the results of their law breaking is the focus.
For you, perhaps. But I was responding to "The national choice to turn a blind eye on this industry in the name of woman's rights lays the foundation for this type of individual."
Yes, decades of ignoring obvious law-breaking until a totally different law is broken is much, much different from someone breaking a law (guns) to break a bigger law (murder) and being immediately resisted.
My take on Gosnell is that when someone overcomes the natural reluctance to brutally kill a defenseless baby, there's not a whole lot of barrier left between that person and other moral offenses. If I remember correctly, a few dozen "abortion providers" have been convicted of felonies since 1973, a crime rate that dwarfs that of pro-lifers and rivals that of inner city gang members.
Another thought is that after this and the closure of Planned Parenthood's Delaware office for similar issues to Gosnell's, it's going to become harder for PP to argue against mandatory inspections and the like.
But putting a shank into his spine? No--and by the way, Brian, that's a knife, not a gun. And I fully support knife control in prisons, for what it's worth.
Brian is right. Gosnell's actions are no more an argument against legalized abortion because what he's being tried for are illegalities.
but none of this was my point.
Gino, I'd agree if and only if we find that breaking the reluctance/barrier to performing abortions is not correlated with breaking the reluctance to commit other crimes. The cast of characters who did nothing about known complaints about Gosnell until the EMTs had to cut chains to remove a dying woman from his clinic--Pennsylvania regulators, Planned Parenthood, and more--casts this into doubt.
Post a Comment