Monday, April 29, 2013

"Safe" Murder?

[Abortion-rights groups] say that Dr. Gosnell was a rogue practitioner, and that if abortion is further restricted, more women will be driven to clinics like his, which prosecutors called a “house of horrors.”
“Restrictions really work to hinder access to safe abortion,”
-Dayle Steinberg, president of Planned Parenthood Southeastern Pennsylvania.
“Safe abortion”.  Ponder those words for a moment.  Since when is murder ever safe?
Let’s come to a logical conclusion here, folks.  If it’s okay to murder babies, if we need to avoid restrictions so as to keep their mothers safe… then, logically, it’s safest to murder a baby after he’s been born.  After all, then the mother cannot possibly be harmed during the “procedure”, right?
Or… maybe not.  That would be murder, after all, and there are restrictions on that.  You’re allowed to kill a person if they’re over here, but not when they’re over there.  Those pesky restrictions…
If abortion is acceptable, then Gosnell’s main fault is merely that he didn’t kill babies quickly enough.  To say that it is okay to slaughter a baby one moment, but that it is not okay the next, is utterly  and completely delusional.
One who says that Gosnell should be on trial for murder cannot turn around a moment later and say that abortion is normally fine.   That’s ridiculousness.
Yes, Gosnell’s clinic was a “house of horrors”.  As is every abortion “clinic”.  Since when is murder anything other than horrifying?  Although the facts surfacing at the Gosnell trial about how abortions were preformed there are easily regarded as more disgusting than “regular” abortion, a baby dies either way.
Murder is murder, whether it takes place in a posh, sanitized clinic at 1:00 PM or in a filthy, run-down hovel at 1:01 PM.

No comments:

Post a Comment