Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Singer. Show all posts

Friday, May 10, 2013

Abortion doctor trial is changing minds… in spite of press blackout

The trial of Kermit Gosnell has put abortion on display in America. This is in spite of mainstream media attempts to ignore the grisly story of Gosnell’s little shop of horrors in Philadelphia. Previously Examiner reported how Gosnell and his employees were responsible for the death of at least one woman at his clinic and caused serious damage to the health of others. While many of Gosnell’s victims were the women who came to him, they were only the tip of the iceberg.

The other victims of Gosnell and his employees were too numerous to count. Gosnell had worked as an abortionist since 1972. The grand jury report on Gosnell makes a conservative estimate that Gosnell did 25 abortions each night for three nights per week. That works out to an estimated 3,900 abortions per year or 148,200 abortions in the 38 years he practiced until his arrest in 2010. The take for Gosnell’s work was an estimated $1.8 million per year… most of it in cash. A search of Gosnell’s house turned up $240,000 in cash hidden in his daughter’s closet along with a gun.

Gosnell will never be punished for killing the majority of the 148,200 babies who died at his hands. Many were under the legal limit of 24 weeks in which abortions are permitted in Pennsylvania. For others, many of whom were older than 24 weeks, Gosnell apparently destroyed the records, although he recorded the age of hundreds of babies as “24.5 weeks,” just over Pennsylvania’s legal limit.

Seven babies bear mute testimony to the horrors of Gosnell’s “Women’s Medical Society.” Some of these babies were photographed by staff members after they were killed. Others were discovered in the office when police launched a drug raid in 2010. Police found fetal remains “in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers. Some fetal remains were in a refrigerator, others were frozen” according to the grand jury. Forty-five sets of fetal remains were discovered in the clinic. Gosnell admitted to detectives that “at least 10- to 20 percent” were older than 24 weeks. The medical examiner determined that two or three of the babies were viable. The seven babies that Gosnell is accused of murdering are referred to by the letters A through G since they never acquired names.

Baby Boy A was 18 to 19 inches long and weighed about six pounds when he was born alive in Gosnell’s clinic. In spite of the fact that the baby boy was breathing, Gosnell slit his neck and put the body in a shoebox. The baby continued to move. A neonatologist testified to the grand jury that this means that the baby was still alive and in “a tremendous amount of pain.” Several staff members took photographs of the baby because of its unusual size. The details in the photograph showed hair, a developed scrotum and other features that indicated a development of 32 weeks.

Baby C was delivered by one of Gosnell’s employees, Lynda Williams. After delivering the baby, Williams placed it on a counter while she tended to the mother. Baby C was moving and breathing for about 20 minutes. Williams played with Baby C according to testimony and then slit its neck. Williams is among several clinic workers to plead guilty to murder.

According to testimony, it was not uncommon for Gosnell to perform late term abortions on babies that were viable outside the womb. In many cases, babies were born alive, often because Gosnell would arrive late, and then be killed by Gosnell or his staff. Many of these babies could move or cry on their own. When babies were born at the clinic, Gosnell or other staff members would cut the baby’s spinal cord or slit its throat. Gosnell is reported to have preferred it when the babies were already born because it made his job easier. He often made jokes about the size of the babies that he had killed.

Gosnell flagrantly disregarded the law. In Pennsylvania, abortions must be performed prior to 24 weeks, but the grand jury report notes that Gosnell had a reputation as a doctor who would perform abortions “at any stage without regard for legal limits.” Gosnell also disregarded Pennsylvania’s 24 hour waiting period law, often performing abortions on the same day as the initial consultation “as long as the patient paid in full, typically in cash.”

The revelations of Gosnell’s killings have already changed the abortion debate. Roger Simon wrote in Pajamas Media how he and his wife were affected by the Philadelphia atrocities:

“Both lifelong ‘pro-choice’ people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view.  (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception?  What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a ‘pro-choice’ advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations.  How could we be?”

It is an uncomfortable truth for pro-choice advocates that the legal line between a “fetus” and a baby is arbitrary and perilously thin. What Gosnell and his staff did is the logical extension of legal abortion where babies are dehumanized as inanimate growths in a woman’s body.

A number of prominent liberals made comments before Gosnell’s atrocities that come close to advocating his brand of post-birth abortion. Noted atheist Richard Dawkins said in a video clip available on Youtube that he could find no moral objection to infanticide on babies up to a year old. Princeton philosopher and bioethicist Peter Singer has written in support of after-birth abortions and infanticide for more than 20 years. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said in a televised congressional debate on CSPAN in 1996 that “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights [of a person].” In 2001, then-Senator Barack Obama argued against a bill in Illinois that would have required abortionists to provide treatment for infants who were born alive during abortions. The audio of the session is on Youtube. A 2011 article in the Journal of Medical Ethics argued that after-birth abortion should be permitted, even when the newborn is not disabled. In March 2013, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist told the Florida legislature in a video on the Weekly Standard that if an infant was born alive during an abortion, the “decision [of whether to kill or seek treatment for the baby] should be between the patient and the health care provider.”

If support for infanticide is shocking, it is only separated by a degree from Gosnell’s crimes and that by a degree from legal abortion. Beyond all the euphemisms and carefully chosen words is the reality that abortion kills a living human being that, in many cases, would be viable to survive on its own. According to the law, it is legal to kill a baby up to the 24 weeks old as long as it is inside the mother, but if it is born, killing it is murder. The difference in abortion and infanticide is only a short trip through the birth canal.

JD Mullane, a Pennsylvania reporter and one of the few journalists covering the Gosnell trial, reconsidered his pro-choice views after hearing testimony at the trial. Mullane told Mike Huckabee, “Gosnell pulls the curtain back from the inherent violence of abortion. You can't sit in that courtroom and learn about what abortion does to the unborn child and to the woman in many cases … you can't sit there day after day and week after week and listen to that testimony and not be changed, and not have a change of heart, or at least reconsider your position.”

The idea that people will see abortion for what it is and reconsider is exactly what the pro-choice members of the media are afraid of. The Apostle John wrote, “Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed” (John 3:20). To put it in modern terms, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”

Read for yourself about the crimes of Kermit Gosnell and the Women’s Medical Society. The grand jury report detailing the charges against Gosnell and the clinic workers is available online at:

http://www.phila.gov/districtattorney/pdfs/grandjurywomensmedical.pdf

 

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/abortion-doc-trial-is-changing-minds-spite-of-media-blackout

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Casey Anthony and the pro-choice culture of death




Casey Anthony (Wikimedia)
There has been a huge public outcry over the acquittal of the Florida mother accused of killing her two-year-old daughter.  Casey Anthony was acquitted of the murder charges against her, but convicted on four counts of lying to police.  She will be set free after the next week after being credited for the time that she has already served.

Like O.J. Simpson, Anthony was acquitted in the court of law, but found guilty in the court of public opinion.  Her responsibility for the death of her daughter was taken for granted by the media and the millions of viewers who watched the trial on live television.  The titillating details of how she partied at Orlando nightclubs while little Caylee was missing stoked national anger against Casey.  A late June poll of west Floridians by WFTV showed that 92 percent believed that Casey killed Caylee.

Casey Anthony’s alleged crime might be described as a post-natal abortion.  If, as she is accused of doing, Anthony actually killed her daughter because being a mother interfered with her carefree lifestyle then her action is different from abortion primarily in that her daughter was two-years-old instead of an unborn baby. 


Peter Singer (Bbsrock/Wikimedia)
While the law does differentiate between unborn and born humans, there are actually people who advocate that actions similar to those for which Anthony was accused should be legal.  For example, Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, does not dispute that unborn babies are living humans.  To Singer, however, that still does not mean that killing unborn babies is wrong.  In fact, Singer believes that abortion should be taken a step further.  In Singer’s view, even a newborn baby “has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person.”  He says in an interview on the Princeton website that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.” 

There are other academics who have argued in favor of infanticide.  Steven Pinker, a professor of psychology at MIT, wrote an article for the New York Times in 1997 in which he argued that the right to life is contingent upon “having a unique sequence of experiences that defines us as individuals and connects us to other people, …an ability to reflect upon ourselves as a continuous locus of consciousness, to form and savor plans for the future, to dread death and to express the choice not to die. And there's the rub: our immature neonates don't possess these traits any more than mice do.”

In the same article Pinker cites other academics in favor of infanticide.  Michael Tooley, a professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says that it should be legal to kill newborns for a specific length of time after birth.  Psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson have argued that if a newborn is seriously ill that parents must “decide” whether to “cut their losses and favor the healthiest in the litter or try again later on.”

James Watson, a discoverer of DNA and the first director of the Human Genome Project, had a similar view.  In 1973, Time magazine quoted Watson in an interview with an AMA magazine as saying “if a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice that only a few are given under the present system.  The doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so chose and save a lot of misery and suffering."

In the Netherlands, these ideas are already being put into practice.  In 2002, the Groningen protocol set forth standards for performing euthanasia on newborns with incurable deformities, but “the New Republic” noted that it could be applied to children as old as twelve.  Above the age of twelve, Dutch law already allows euthanasia with parental consent.  Dutch law prohibits involuntary euthanasia, but there are allegations that doctors are increasingly killing patients, both babies and adults, without consent or permission.  

While much of the support for infanticide is based on euthanizing the terminally ill, Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was explicit in her support of infanticide for convenience.  Anne Barbeau Gardiner notes that Sanger wrote in “Woman and the New Race” that “the most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”  In “My Fight for Birth Control” she sympathized with a drunken man who considered his newborn a “nuisance” and threw the “naked infant into the snow” because of he was “desperate for want of sleep and quiet.”  She also approved of “drowning girl children” during famines in China in her book “Pivot of Civilization.”


Margaret Sanger (Wikimedia)
It is a short leap from abortion to infanticide.  Even though abortion is typically defended on grounds of medical necessity it is commonly accepted that over ninety percent of abortions are performed for convenience or personal preference rather than medical reasons.  When leading philosophers, ethicists, and doctors dispute the immorality of killing newborns it is easy to see how infanticide for medical reasons could quickly degenerate to infanticide for convenience.   


This brings us back to Casey Anthony and the other mothers who have been accused of killing their children.  These women have been given an inconsistent message about both the humanity of their children and the immorality of killing them.  The legalization of abortion for convenience and the advocacy of euthanasia and assisted suicide have helped to cheapen human life to the extent that some  consider a newborn baby a nuisance to be discarded on the whim of the parent. 

It is an irrational act of cognitive dissonance to hold forth that babies, born or unborn, are not people and that killing them is not immoral and then be surprised when parents do just that.  If our society is determined to continue to walk the tightrope between life and convenience, it will continue to be complicit in the murders of children like Caylee Anthony.