Gosnell and Choice

I along with many other Americans had looked at abortion as a right to choose issue, like health care proxies, DNRs, and other choice issues, where you and I should not involve ourselves in someone's personal and private business. I have always said, "which came first, the birth certificate or the baptismal certificate", meaning no matter what our own feelings on an issue, we should not interfere when someone makes his or her own personal choice. I am an American first and a catholic second.

This Gosnell case had caused me to revisit some of my own beliefs, and I am sure many others are battling themselves similarly.

Dr Gosnell is a Philadelphia doctor who ran an abortion clinic for many years and he is accused of killing one woman and three newborns who were born alive during the abortions. The woman died from an overdose of anesthesia and the babies were killed by snipping the spinal cord at the base of the head, effectively beheading them.

The State of Pennsylvania has failed, through its Department of Health, from reviewing the conditions in the clinic and for not monitoring Dr Gosnell's questionable activities for the last 17 years.

Up until about 2 weeks ago, this story was not reported in our national media, probably because to do do, would have brought the whole abortion debate front and center. Well, 2 weeks ago, liberal journalist Kirsten Powers reported this in her USA Today column and joined with conservative journalist Michelle Malkin who had been reporting on this since 2011. Finally, this trial and the evidence has now being reported in the mainstream media, and its gruesome details are now becoming public knowledge.

The majority of the women who had abortions performed by him were African American or Hispanic, couldn't afford to to have the children because they lived in poverty and had to make a choice between two difficult options.

There are so many methods available today to prevent unwanted births or abortions. It would be a better choice to use contraceptives like condoms, diaphragms, spermicide, birth control pills, etc., ahead of time to avoid becoming pregnant, or even the "morning after" pill which will prevent conception after sex.

Knowing that abstinence is not a reasonable option when one is caught in the moment, it would be more beneficial on so many levels if birth control methods were provided free of charge to those who couldn't afford the expense. It certainly would be less expensive to the taxpayer than the cost of the abortion which would be picked up by Medicaid.

In addition, the mental anguish suffered by women for having to make that choice would not exist. Many are burdened through their lives with sadness or regret for the choices made early in their youth. After all, if birth control were used today, and the couple decides to have children tomorrow, no difficult choices are needed.

It still is a choice issue for women's rights, only the choice is not a tragic one that can haunt a woman for her entire life. Pregnancies would not be aborted so cavalierly by doctors who do so in horrible conditions. And unwanted babies would not be born to those who don't want them.

There are so many people who, for whatever the reason, would love to adopt. Wouldn't that be a better choice to help childless couples get a baby than to deny the couple a child and to deny a child his or her life?

I know this is a difficult topic to discuss. But on the heels of the Gosnell nightmare, perhaps it's time we have that discussion.

We are adults; we should start to act accordingly.