News Feed

October 28, 2016 - Employees pampered As Education Month draws to a close ... +++ October 28, 2016 - ‘Take big view of agriculture’ GEORGE TOWN, Cayman Islands– Sta ... +++ October 28, 2016 - NUPW reacts to Lowe’s comments on privatization The island’s largest public secto ... +++ October 28, 2016 - BUT warns of new militant approach The Barbados Union of Teachers (BUT ... +++ October 28, 2016 - Cameron expresses confidence in Windies women KINGSTON, Jamaica – West Indi ... +++ October 28, 2016 - Expect victimization! Opposition Leader Mia Mottley last ... +++

Death the new choice

Eileen L. McDonagh describes the unborn child as a “private party” who “coerces” the woman “to be pregnant against her will”. Said private party, “becomes the master of her body and her liberty, putting her in the position of its slave”.

Therefore, she has a “right to consent to a relationship with this intruder” and is “entitled to use deadly force to stop it”.

One of the ways we can quell the conscience is by calling something what it is not. This might explain why one employee who testified in the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell said that she called the babies “specimens” because that “was easier to deal with mentally”.

I would not be surprised if you were not aware of this trial. Writing for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf wonders: “Why isn’t it being covered more? — The dead babies. The exploited women. The racism. The numerous governmental failures. It is thoroughly newsworthy.”

That is easy to answer. Death is the new choice and the “standard procedure” of snipping the necks of infants might cast “choice” in a bad light.

Some may object that Gosnell’s clinic was unsafe, extreme and is a caricature. As long as we keep abortion “safe, legal and rare” it will be well with our souls. But are any of these clinics truly “safe”? We can deceive ourselves when we communicate with language like “choice” and “rights” but someone still has to get their hands dirty and do the deed.

Nita Whitten, a former worker at an abortion facility in Texas said: “I took drugs to wake up in the morning. I took speed while I was at work. And I smoked marijuana, drank lots of alcohol… This is the way that I coped with what I did. It was horrible to work there, and there was no good in it.” Former Planned Parenthood clinic worker Judith Fetrow notes: “Clinic workers may say they support a woman’s right to choose but they will also say that they do not want to see tiny hands and feet.”

Dr. Beverly McMillan stopped reassembling suction machine parts because she, “just couldn’t look at the little bodies anymore.”

Is this what “safe, legal and rare” looks like? It is not rare, the numbers testify to that fact. It is definitely not safe for the unborn, the workers or the women. Former head nurse at a Virginia abortion facility Joan Appleton wondered why after counsel women were coming back “psychological wrecks” months and sometimes years afterwards.

The last leg on which proponents of this conscience quelling phrase have to stand on is, legal. It is perhaps the weakest leg of all simply because one can be right from purely legal point of view and still be completely wrong. Natural law will always trump what is on our books. Some media outlets seem to have gotten the message and Pete Spiliakos notes that: “We seem to be in a moment when the national mainstream media either has, or is about to prominently cover the Gosnell horrors.”

I doubt they will adequately cover the then Senator Obama’s “we’re probably crossing the line in terms of unconstitutionality” position on the Born Alive Act. As Robert P. George’s points out in his adequately titled piece, Four Pinocchios for Obama on Infanticide, better late than never, even if marginally so.

— Adrian Sobers

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *