As the jury drew near to the end of its deliberations I tried to keep current with the trial of Kermit Gosnell, the man who ran the now-infamous Philadelphia abortion clinic, and who was charged with the death of five people. In light of his conviction on some of those charges, I sat down to write reflections on the whole affair. It occurred to me that there are several lines which could be followed.
First, there’s the line in which the gruesomeness of the facts is presented. Certainly this is an attention-grabbing line given how grisly things really were. Then there’s the line that focuses on the fact that such explanations are so difficult to find. Given the glee with which the media seems to thrust all the graphic details of trials like this in the face of the public, the very fact that we have not seen gruesome images on the front page of newspapers, magazines, tabloids and the like is somewhat curious. Certainly there have been a plethora of other pressing news stories in the last two weeks to justify turning the nation’s attention to these matters. But the truth is that in the three weeks prior there was almost no coverage at all of a story with more than enough gore to warrant the usual wall-to-wall treatment.
Jonathan Waits
|
And of course I would be remiss if I overlooked the line expressing the shock that this man has anyone willing to defend him as guiltless and the barbarous practices of his clinic as guilty only on the point of the unsanitariness of the facilities. I would like to think that killing babies (at least on this side of the womb) should be considered morally reprehensible to even the most callous conscience.
The fact of the matter, however, is that for some — perhaps many — what Gosnell did is not morally reprehensible. The manner in which it was done is problematic, but his actions themselves were legal and even commendable. This last observation leads to the line on which I would like to offer some thoughts: ideas have consequences.
For those individuals who are supportive of the practice of abortion, an idea must first be embraced. This idea stems from the answer to a question: what is the unborn? Scientifically speaking, we are human beings from the moment of conception onward. The idea that must be embraced by those supportive of the practice of abortion as it currently exists in this country stems from one of two decisions regarding this fact.
First, an agnosticism that flies in the face of established scientific fact regarding the identity of the unborn must be embraced. In other words, the personhood of the unborn must be denied on some grounds.
Second, the circumstances in which terminating the life of an innocent human person is morally acceptable must be defined such that terminating the lives of human children who have not yet left the confines of the womb does not fall outside the lines.
For reasons which are hopefully obvious, the latter line of reasoning here is not often taken. This means that most individuals who have accepted the practice of abortion justify this decision in part on the fact that the unborn are not human persons and should thus not be afforded the rights and privileges such a status bestows. Here, though, is where the consequences of ideas come to bear. If the unborn is not a human person, then what happens to the unborn does not matter.
Consider the implications of this. If the unborn is not a human person then there really should be no limits on abortion at all. Double homicide laws for cases when pregnant women are murdered are irrational. There should be no limits on embryonic stem cell research.
Let us push this just a bit further, though. What is it about being born that bestows personhood and all its rights on a human being? Is it simply leaving the womb somehow that turns a non-person human fetus into a human person? Medically speaking there is no evidence to this end. Why, then, should a newly-born infant be treated any differently than a non-person human fetus — particularly if the non-person human fetus leaves the womb accidentally in the course of a bungled abortion procedure? Were the actions of Gosnell and his staff really morally reprehensible? Not according to this line of reasoning. If anything, they were being logically consistent with their decision to view the unborn as non-person humans. They simply took it a step further than most of us are yet willing to go.
Indeed, as advancing medical technology continues to decrease the age at which a child is viable outside of the womb, the difference between the unborn and the already born will continue to shrink. For those who have embraced the view that the unborn are not human persons this quickly-closing chasm will force them to another decision point: are the newly-born any different?
For those like Gosnell, their decision has already been made. Furthermore, when the definition of who counts as a human person to begins to shrink, the treatment of individuals whose personhood goes currently without debate will suffer as well. In other words, why afford the mothers of aborted fetuses any better care? We should be little surprised to see many more situations very much like this one come to light. One already has in Delaware.
Ideas have consequences. Before we embrace a particular idea, let us take the time to think through its full ramifications in order to make sure we are content with where they take us. An idea was embraced in the Gosnell clinic and taken to its logical conclusion. Let us not be upset that the end was reached before much of the culture had a chance to get there. Let us be upset that it was a bad idea from the start and work to sow a better one in its place.
Jonathan Waits ([email protected]) is pastor of Central Baptist Church in Church Road, Va.