This week, Dr. Kermit Gosnell was convicted on three counts of first degree murder. He was facing either life in prison or the death penalty. Dr. Gosnell had a choice to make. He could either instruct his lawyer to try to avoid the death sentence (either by appeal or a plea bargain) or he could instruct his lawyer to do nothing and accept whatever punishment was given, even if it was death. This was his choice to make - choosing either a life in prison or death.
Dr. Gosnell was found guilty of killing three babies who were born alive (however, his employees testified that there were hundreds more over the years). I'll spare you the grizzly details, only to say that these were horrific and painful deaths. Sadly, though, what Gosnell did to these babies is no different than what is done every day in abortion clinics across the nation, but for the unsanitary and unsafe conditions and the fact that some were done outside of the mother's body, instead of inside, where it's perfectly legal.
The pro-abortionists have a number of justifications for the practice - women's reproductive rights, over-population, rape, incest, etc., etc. One of the most often cited justifications, however, goes like this: "Because the baby has Down Syndrome" or "Because the baby is the result of a rape" or "Because the baby's mother is a poor, inner city girl with no means of support, the baby would most certainly face a bleak and dreary existence." No one would choose that kind of life for themselves, so surely, if given the choice, the baby would prefer not to live.
"It wouldn't be fair to the baby to bring it into this less than ideal circumstance." (As though any of us are born into a perfect world.) This is basically the same argument used by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, who argued (as did Adolph Hitler, by the way) that it's not fair to society to bring people into the world who have disabilities which will drain society's resources or who are "genetic weeds" (as Sanger called people whom she deemed to be of undesirable races). Whether they argue that it's unfair to the baby or they argue that it's unfair to the rest of society, these two arguments are essentially the same - just flip sides of the same coin.
Back to Dr. Gosnell's choice? When given the choice between the bleak and dreary existence of life in prison, with no possibility of parole, or a quick and painless death, what did Gosnell choose for himself? LIFE. He chose life, as terrible as it will certainly be, over death.
A Down Syndrome child can enjoy standing at the ocean's edge and digging his toes into the sand, but Gosnell can't. A Down Syndrome child can take a stroll in the park on a beautiful afternoon, but Gosnell can't. A Down Syndrome child can spend quality time with his family and friends, but Gosnell can't. A Down Syndrome child still has birthday parities, Christmas mornings, and play dates to look forward to, but what kind of a life does Gosnell have ahead of him? And yet, this man - who has said that a Down Syndrome child ought to be killed, because after all, "What kind of life would he have to look forward to?" - this man, Kermit Gosnell, chose even the bleak and dreary existence of a prison cell over death.
The easy, pat answer to the horror that is abortion is to say, "Well, this baby, given his circumstances, wouldn't want to live." Please allow me, if I may, to take that argument away from you. If Gosnell would choose life for himself, how in the world could it possibly be argued that a baby would choose differently? The answer is clear, they wouldn't.
"I have set before you life and death?"