Most of the commentary about the Gosnell trial relates to the failure of the liberal media to cover the trial at all. Whenever the substance itself is discussed, the left-right debate is about who is to blame for the Gosnells of this world - abortionists who botch the abortion and then kill the baby who is born alive. Is it too little regulation as some contend? Or is it too much regulation that drives the competent doctors out of the business?
But I think that misses the significance of Gosnell. In the partial-birth abortion case Justice Scalia asked what the moral and legal distinction should be between (1) killing a baby in the birth canal and then delivering the "products of conception" (a partial birth abortion), and (2) delivering that baby alive and then killing it. But this was only a hypothetical question by the Justice. Gosnell confronts Americans with its reality. Here is a real abortionist who is unable to make the moral distinction between an unborn baby, and one born alive. NARAL's initial comments, that a mother's "choice" should extend beyond the moment of birth, only compounded the problem. If NARAL and Gosnell cannot or will not make the moral distinction between an unborn baby and a live birth, then why should the rest of America? And if there is no moral distinction, how is an elective abortion not murder?
No comments:
Post a Comment