Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Life Links 5/15/13

At the Washington Post's She the People blog, Keli Goff wonders if Gosnell could save the pro-choice movement from themselves.
While Planned Parenthood applauded the Gosnell verdict, and should be applauded for doing so, the real question becomes how it, and the rest of the reproductive rights movement, moves forward after Gosnell. If the Gosnell case is treated as merely an unfortunate blip, then the mainstream reproductive rights movement will risk becoming a relic of the past, out of touch with modern day feminists who embrace reproductive rights, as well as the grey area of what constitutes a life. But if these groups care about ensuring that reproductive rights continue to exist long after the name Kermit Gosnell has been forgotten, then it is essential that they acknowledge two things.

First, that protecting life is important morally, ethically and politically. Second, defining when life begins is a conversation that must be dictated by science and common sense, not political expediency.
For some reason, Slate's William Saletan seems to think that abortionists who kill children after they survive abortions would report those killings to the CDC.  If Gosnell didn't report killing infants born alive, why would any other late-term abortionist?
Saletan also pulls the "late-term abortions are rare" claim by noting they are a small percentage of all abortions.  That's a little like arguing the federal government rarely spends money on science and medical research because it's just 2% of the budget. 

Saletan's claim that there are no more Gosnells is published just before Operation Rescue and LifeDynamics reveal the horrific photos of children allegedly born alive and killed at Douglas Karpen's Texas abortion clinic.

No comments:

Post a Comment