April 11, 2013

Kermit Gosnell’s Abortion Trial and United Methodists

20130412-004923.jpg

Although most media so far are ignoring it, the trial of a Philadelphia abortionist has opened a nasty window into the abortion industry. Dr. Kermit Gosnell is specifically charged with delivering seven late term babies alive and then killing them with scissors. He’s also charged with killing at least one mother.

According to a prosecutor, Gosnell “induced labor, forced the live birth of viable babies in the sixth, seventh, eighth month of pregnancy and then killed those babies by cutting into the back of the neck with scissors and severing their spinal cord,” which he called “snipping.”

Gosnell ran his abortion mill for over 30 years, so God knows how often he performed this “snipping.” He reputedly destroyed hundreds of unborn babies by cutting their spinal cords, but the records are incomplete. Current Pennsylvania law restricts abortion after six months. So the thousands of babies he destroyed under six months were perfectly legal. His so called clinic, which targeted minority women, made up to $15,000 daily, and he was renowned for offering late term abortions.

There’s widespread silence because it is hard to disapprove killing a six month unborn baby while defending killing a five month unborn baby. It’s even harder being disgusted by scissoring a baby outside the womb while defending the dismembering of the same baby inside the womb.

As details emerge, despite media indifference, what will churches say, especially if officially pro choice, like United Methodism, which first backed abortion rights starting in 1970? Early this year, officials from the United Methodist General Board of Church and Society and Women’s Division publicly celebrated the 40th anniversary of court decreed abortion rights without acknowledging any tragic aspect to 50 million destroyed unborn.

After the Board of Church and Society defended partial birth abortion in the 1990s, the 2000 General Conference specifically condemned it. The Board at least no longer defends it but neither does it espouse the church’s official stance. Subsequent conventions have similarly limited United Methodist support for abortion rights, only to be ignored by the church’s official lobby agency, plus the women’s agency.

Could or will these church agencies condemn Dr. Gosnell’s infanticide by scissors? Likely not. It’s a slippery slope to criticize one form of abortion. It would be terrifying to these agencies if United Methodism actually began to return to what remains the universal Christian consensus that the unborn are created in God’s image. But United Methodists can challenge these agencies about their silence.

Like the rest of the Religious Left, United Methodist agencies want greater regulation over nearly every area of life, excepting any protection for unborn babies. Fortunately, their days of abortion advocacy are numbered. As United Methodism becomes more global, especially African, the church’s General Conference will amend and ultimately overturn archaic and morally vacuous pro abortion stances. Some day, in the not distant future, United Methodism will unequivocally defend all the silent victims of future Dr. Gosnells. May the Holy Spirit hasten that overdue day.


Tagged with:
 

14 Responses to Kermit Gosnell’s Abortion Trial and United Methodists

  1. What this guy probably did is sick and twisted. It’s very sad that UMC agencies don’t speak out about this. I recall that, when an abortionist was shot a few years ago, the United Methodist GBCS was out with a statement condemning it WITHIN A FEW HOURS, when only a few facts were known.

    It’s also very disturbing–but a sign of the times–that the media has basically been a no-show when it comes to reporting this story. Abortion-on-demand, possibly supplanted recently by same-sex marriage advocacy, has been a holy grail of the Left for decades.

    If there are any brain-dead people out there who still think that there isn’t a strong liberal slant to the media then the non-coverage of this should knock them in the head (by the way, the article which follows was written by a left-leaning opinion columnist): http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2072577

  2. Marco Bell says:

    So it would be your wish to overturn Roe v Wade?
    What then does a desperate woman do, when she’s already pregnant with an unwanted baby?

    If it is the wishes of the Methodist General Conference to see abortions cease nationwide, then I guess Methodism will be losing even more parishioners.
    Why does it matter to so many Christians that every conception go to term, if only to be dismissed to the ranks of the impoverished population after being born?

    The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the Religious Right toward womens’ rights is baffling. On one hand, you don’t want to defend Medicaid and many other helpful social agencies, but you have no problem making sure that every sperm and egg be made sacrosanct.

    Most of us know that unprotected sex has consequences, and those that don’t generally find out the hard way. That hard way doesn’t have to include carrying to term, an unwanted, and possibly a damaged fetus, due to an abusive gestation period. The world doesn’t need more challenges, and the health of the ‘mother’ matters more in these cases, whether you despise the woman for her choices or not.

    • servusdomini80 says:

      “So it would be your wish to overturn Roe v Wade?”

      Yes

      “What then does a desperate woman do, when she’s already pregnant with an unwanted baby?”

      1) Raise the child; or, 2) give the child up for adoption

      “Why does it matter to so many Christians that every conception go to term, if only to be dismissed to the ranks of the impoverished population after being born?”

      A human life is a human life. How is a child, developed 6-months within the womb, ontologically different than a child that has been delivered? What does poverty have to do with abortion? Should a poor family end the life of their 2-year old child? Is life not worth living if one is impoverished?

      “The dichotomy and hypocrisy of the Religious Right toward womens’ rights is baffling. On one hand, you don’t want to defend Medicaid and many other helpful social agencies, but you have no problem making sure that every sperm and egg be made sacrosanct.”

      This issue is ill-defined as a women’s rights issue. The right-to-life is fundamental. A mission of the Church is to help the poor. So when speaking of this duty, an invocation of a state program is a conflation of Christian duty with that of the state. I agree, more needs to be done to help the poor; but,eliminating a mouth-to-feed is a barbarous and un-Christian solution to the problem.

      “Most of us know that unprotected sex has consequences, and those that don’t generally find out the hard way. That hard way doesn’t have to include carrying to term, an unwanted, and possibly a damaged fetus, due to an abusive gestation period. The world doesn’t need more challenges, and the health of the ‘mother’ matters more in these cases, whether you despise the woman for her choices or not.”

      Is a disabled person less valuable than an able person? Explain why the health of the mother is more important than the life of her child? Did the child choose to come into the world? Who made the mistake? To punish the innocent is unjust.

      • Marco Bell says:

        If a woman becomes pregnant, it shouldn’t mean that she has to stay pregnant if she chooses not to. Personal autonomy of the individual already breathing air, trumps the zygot or early embryo that BELONGS to the pregnant woman. HER decision… PERIOD!

        So I guess it becomes a “Property Rights Issue”.
        The unborn baby is the sole property of the pregnant mother. So why should
        anybody else have any Rights over her decisions (within agreed time parameters, ie: first and second trimesters only)?

        I think we as a society should do more to save the babies that are already born.
        Universal Healthcare would be a great start.

        I haven’t asked if you approve of contraceptive birth control, but I’ll wait for another day for that discussion.

        Thanks,
        Marco

      • Marco, you are once again defending the indefensible. You are saying it’s OK for a child to be executed by his mother, his only crime being he hasn’t been alive long enough. You have no idea how you have allowed your thinking to be corrupted by pro-abortion zealots.

        The following example is a challenge to the oft-stated belief that “It’s in my body, therefore it’s my property to dispose of as I wish.”

        If a gay couple engages in a legal transaction to pay a surrogate mother to breed, using in-vitro fertilization with one of the partner’s sperm and an egg from a bank, do they have rights over the fetus? Or does the fetus belong to the surrogate mother, to dispose of as she wishes, with or without the consent of the parents? Can she have an abortion without the couple’s consent?

        Here is a case where it seems clear, at least from the current left-wing legal perspective, that the fetus is not part of the woman’s body, and really can’t be considered her property. Moreover, what self-respecting liberal would deny a loving gay couple their baby? At the very least, the unborn baby is the shared property of the parents and the surrogate mother. But it could also be supposed that the fetus is simply a person in its own right.

        The pro-choice “hands-off-my-body” mantra could just as easily come from the developing mouth of the fetus, and the same arguments which gave equal rights to women, who were not always considered fully human, can be used on behalf of the unborn.

  3. eMatters says:

    The false teachers have been silent on this just like the mainstream media has (search for “Kermit Gosnell” at MSNBC and Politico and you literally get zero items. Zero. And at Politico at least is the most often searched term!).

    It is very telling that they can’t even pretend that Gosnell is an aberration. They know that what he did is morally indistinguishable from any other abortion. It is simple moral reasoning that it is wrong to take the life of an innocent human being without proper justification, and that is what happens during 99% of abortions. The situations surrounding abortions are psychologically complex (pressures on the mother to abort, economic concerns, etc.) but morally simple (you don’t kill unwanted humans outside the womb for those reasons, so you shouldn’t kill them inside the womb for those reasons). Their size, level of development, location and degree of dependency are not reasons to ignore their right to life.

    And for a group that sees racism even when it doesn’t exist, they have completely ignored how Gosnell gave preferential treatment to whites.

    And they can’t play the fallacious “back alley abortion” card when the “front alley” abortions are as bad or worse.

  4. This monster is someone the liberals would prefer to ignore. If convicted, and he deserves to be, count on the liberals in the churches to hold a candlelight vigil for this saint who “helped” so many women. I find it a bit bizarre that what got this slimeball in trouble was not his performing thousands of late-term abortions, but that the clinic was “unsanitary.” By all means, let’s make sure the killing of children is hygienic and neat. Had liberals been present when Herod’s soldiers slaughtered the infants of Bethlehem, they would have insisted that the swords be sterilized.

  5. Donnie says:

    Between this and the silence over Christian persecution in Islamic nations, the silence of the mainlines is deafening. I have some serious theological disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church, but I admire them for their commitment to martyrs and the unborn.

  6. ericvlytle says:

    Cleareyed, there is no “probably” about this guy, this is the man who boasted about the size/viability of one of the babies he “snipped” by saying it could “walk him to the bus.” he also kept the bodies of the aborted babies in jars in his “clinic” (is that the right word for a slaughterhouse?). One reason you may not be familiar with it is, as the article points out, the media have swept it under the rug for the obvious reason that this psychotic does not fit their image of a highly competent, professional, and (of course) compassionate medico, but he is like something out of a horror movie.

  7. eMatters says:

    Please send an email to me explaining why my comment is stuck in moderation again. If you don’t appreciate my views just let me know and I’ll stop visiting and remove my IRD Facebook connection.

  8. I’ve posed two questions to the GBCS recently. (1) If we, as Christians, are to stop saying “Illegal Alien” and instead say, “Undocumented Person” because the former is de-humanizing, then can’t we agree to stop saying “fetus” and start saying “unborn person” for the same reason? (2) Why have you not issued a statement on this trial condemning these late term abortions?
    My first question has gone unanswered and my second was answered with, “We don’t cover every news item.” I pray Mr. Winkler’s successor is less politician and more Christian…but I’m not hopeful.

    • Marco Bell says:

      Mr. Swanson,

      You are quite right regarding terms of reference.
      The vernacular is important for every reason in a viable argument, and I agree that “Unborn Person” (versus Fetus) probably speaks volumes to the cause of putting a face on the “Victims” in your argument.

      But for the sake of honesty, I am from the ‘other’ camp, who supports a woman’s Right to choose. I just thought your point needed affirmation.
      Call it cognitive dissonance. Not a condition, but a fascinating perspective.

      Thanks,
      Marco

      • Marco, your “camp” is less about choice than pro-lifers are.

        Pro-life advocates support a woman’s right to choose: 1) whether or not to have sex, 2) whether or not to have unprotected sex, 3) whether or not to be married when engaging in sex, and 4) whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption should she get pregnant.

        The only “choice” the misnamed pro-choice side seems interested in is the one for abortion.

Leave a Reply

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