Go ahead, read the article first. It's short. I'll wait.
Done reading? Great.
Now, can anyone tell me what the salient, essential difference is between Gosnell's abortion mill and any other?
I'm serious. What's the difference?
If sanitation's the issue, then this part shouldn't be so horrible to read:
Because, severing a baby's spinal cord outside the womb (rather than dismembering a baby or crushing his skull in the womb), can be done sanitarily, I'm certain of it.According to testimony by former employees, Gosnell and his assistants killed “hundreds” of newborn babies by severing their spinal cords rather than killing them in the womb...
So, I'm truly interested in what the big deal is? If they had cleaned the place up (assuming anyone cared about standards for abortion clinics), there would be no moral objections, right?
...an abortion worker has been found guilty of murder for killing a baby…Seriously, rest for one moment on those words; take them in. Are you laughing at the absurdity?
I thought "killing a baby" was the very goal of the abortion industry? Isn't the success of an abortion measured by the production of a dead baby? After all, when a baby survives the attempt on her life, we call that a "botched" abortion. A mistake. A goof-up. A fail. So if the workers can make things right just moments later and kill that same baby out of utero, what's the moral difference? Seems to me like they're just finishing the job they were paid to do.
Anyone else see the irony in this story? Any of you "pro-choicers" out there?
Just a teeny bit of irony amidst the horror?