What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Tweets from @Mordor

"A just verdict. The jury has rightly convicted #Gosnell for his appalling crimes, ensuring no woman is victimized by him ever again."

@PPact (Planned Parenthood), May 13.

(H/T James Toranto.)

Really, there's not in my lifetime been any bunch of people more dependent for their sustenance upon euphemism and, more than that, upon the thing not said, than the ghouls of the abortion industry and the advocates who serve as their public face. This is also noticeable in the fact that its non-public advocates are such reliable liars and systematic dissemblers.

And to think, the phrase "collateral damage" was so loudly mocked and criticized by the professional high-dudgeon specialists of the American left back in 2001-03.

Comments (36)

"No woman?" Not that I'm saying that what he did to women was all right, but frankly, yes, I think the worse crime is the out and out murder of at least three babies by snipping their spines!

But Planned Parenthood, keeping in character, doesn't even mention the three dead babies.

I mean, I have no problem with a reference to the women who were victimized, but really?

...Meanwhile I'm pretty sure I just summarized the whole point of this post in my one comment.

Well, carry on then.

At least I know I wasn't making myself too obscure, MA. :)

Really, though, it is worth considering that Gosnell would never have seen the inside of the courtroom had it not been for the more gratuitous physical harm he did to the women in his clinic. PP's response to the trial made perfectly clear at every step that were it not for the fact that Gosnell had engaged "unsafe" practices--unsafe for the pregnant women at his mercy--his whole practice would have been perfectly fine with them, down to every last grisly detail.

I mention Mordor in my title. When Sauron attempted to ensnare the Elves in the forging of Rings of Power, he still retained the ability to appear beautiful and wise, and he called himself "The Lord of Gifts," and the Gift he promised was the power of an unfettered will. When he corrupted the greatest race of Men and turned them against their allegiance to God, he called his dark master the "Giver of Freedom," and the Freedom in which he encouraged them was the rejection of all their received wisdom and the final doom of their civilization.

We have long ago forfeited any right to beg God to restrain his anger.

I actually think the trigger for its all coming to light was that Gosnell was drug dealing or violating some drug laws. The pro-choice state health board had been ignoring complaints about injured women for years. So much for caring about women.

Please do not have a myopic focus on the issue of abortion here because there are other reasons to vilify Gosnell besides abortion; in fact, a Catholic friend on his Facebook page linked to an Atlantic article and said this is not an abortion issue. Gosnell endangered his patients (if you want to call them patients) lives due to his clinic's unhygienic and feckless practice even if one disregards the morality of abortion. At least acknowledge that dimension. Planned Parenthood advocates easy access to safe abortions for all women, and there doesn't seem to be any hypocrisy when they condemn Gosnell's practice.

-----

Ok, now that I said that, I don't feel like discussing this "sensitive issue" (of the morality of abortion) here on a practical as opposed to academic level due to the realistic possibility that I would offend someone, and I do not feel it is necessary for me to participate in any discussion here for intellectual stimulation (no, I am not saying that in a condescending tone), but I may respond if I find a nice opening.

----

And yes, Guilibini and Minerva work isn't original, as was pointed out here; there work is entirely derivative of the pioneering scholarship of Peter Singer and Michael Tooley. I still admire them due to their ability to articulate eloquent arguments for abortion, not necessarily their conclusions.

---

I'll go now and prick my finger with a lancet.

Eloquent? Bull-hockey. They aren't remotely eloquent. In fact, the clunky writing of the article was one of many things wrong with it (which paled in comparison to all the other things wrong with it). Btw, their article was an argument for post-birth infanticide. They took it as a given that pre-birth abortion is allowable. They didn't bother to argue for that.

The reason the Gosnell trial is an abortion issue is because it would have been legal for him to stab, snip, and mutilate babies to death as long as he held them inside their mothers' bodies while doing it, but he is being (rightly) convicted for snipping their spines a few seconds later, after their bodies had slid the rest of the way down the birth canal and out.

Anyone who cannot see this is, what was that word? Oh, yes: Myopic.

"We have long ago forfeited any right to beg God to restrain his anger."

This was true from long ago.

Thankfully, God became man that (among His other purposes) we might boldly approach His throne of grace.

Yes, I read the abstract, and I will try to read their article later. They argue for post-birth infanticide, and the justification of abortion is indeed a foundation for infanticide. For some reason, I referred to any ethical argument that denies the personhood of the fetus and even infants as "pro-abortion" arguments, since that is the cultural issue at stake.

To me Singer sounds eloquent; like a duckling, he's still imprinted as my ethical mother as I read some of his work in the university library.

To Lydia's comments I would add that the plight of the women in that abortion mill has been acknowledged by most of the commentary I've seen from the pro-life crowd. The pro-life creators of the Gosnell documentary (the one that Fox took so much heat for broadcasting) were at sometimes ridiculous pains to emphasize that angle of the story. While not my favorite columnist, Kathryn Jean-Lopez at National Review also has emphasized that slice of the story repeatedly, in almost all her work following the trial (and if NRO do not speak for mainstream conservative activism, who does?). To respond to this post in particular with a plea for less "myopia" is about like shouting "I know you are but what am I?"

If you don't have anything to say about Planned Parenthood's reaction to the verdict, and what it says about their special kind of politically-motivated (and profit-driven) myopia, that's fine by me. I don't want to debate the morality of what Gosnell did to those babies any more than you do. Don't bother trying to turn it around on the pro-life side, as if they're the ones guilty of airbrushing certain victims out of the story to suit their own ends.

Thankfully, God became man that (among His other purposes) we might boldly approach His throne of grace.

Thank you captain obvious for reminding us that there is still grace for those individuals who repent even as their society collectively moons the mercy seat and bid God throw down with them.

It is obvious that Planned Parenthood's response was defensive PR since they do not want their service and image to the connected with Kermit Gosnell's practice, but I was stating that they indeed can post their twitter response to Gosnell's conviction without sounding hypocritical.

I was saying that there are manifold reasons to condemn Gosnell besides abortion -- those reasons are important too, but perhaps should not supplant the immorality of abortion; perhaps, he is the most egregious abortionist due his gruesome and medically negligent practices. Gosnell's practice certainly elicits disgust due to his methods of terminating newborns, unsanitary procedures, and storage of the body parts of the terminated fetuses/infants, but besides that, most people have been inured to the reality of abortion in the United States as many advocate abortion for political identity (liberals general accept abortion because other liberals endorse it), ideology (women's rights and bodily autonomy), or for practical convenience, and others, myself included, simply accepted the validity of the reasoning to justify abortion secular ethical framework (but this does not mean that I believe abortion is "moral", just that I appreciate secular ethical arguments permitting abortion and I see critical faults in those arguments).


Gosnell's practice certainly elicits disgust due to his methods of terminating newborns, unsanitary procedures, and storage of the body parts of the terminated fetuses/infants, but besides that, most people have been inured to the reality of abortion in the United States as many advocate abortion for political identity (liberals general accept abortion because other liberals endorse it), ideology (women's rights and bodily autonomy), or for practical convenience, and others, myself included, simply accepted the validity of the reasoning to justify abortion WITHIN A secular ethical framework (but this does not mean that I believe abortion is "moral", just that I appreciate secular ethical arguments permitting abortion and I see NO critical faults in those arguments).

Thanks for the reply Mike.

If you'll take a look at my comment within the context of what I quoted, you may see that I was speaking to the talk of "rights" to pray for the Lord to restrain his wrath.

We always have the "right" to pray for that since we, as children in His house, are granted that by grace through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Tangent to the post? Yes, but the talk of what we have a "right" to do rubbed me the wrong way.

As far as on-topic comments go, when I read about that PP tweet I was stonkered. It's willful blindness. I don't know that there is any way to try and convince a person who can seriously tweet that. They can only be opposed.

PP's response to the trial made perfectly clear at every step that were it not for the fact that Gosnell had engaged "unsafe" practices--unsafe for the pregnant women at his mercy--his whole practice would have been perfectly fine with them, down to every last grisly detail.

Actually, I am not all that confident that PP would have willingly ratted on Gosnell even for the purpose of making him clean up his unsanitary practices, aside from the other stuff. Is there any history at all of PP either pushing for legislation to require clinics to abide by more stringent standards, or asking / pushing state enforcement to click in and do something about a notoriously unsanitary practitioner?

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM), which currently faces a lawsuit in Colorado for malpractice and health standard violations, is not licensed or regulated as a health clinic under Colorado state policy. A Media Trackers investigation has revealed and PPRM has confirmed that while individual PPRM doctors and nurses are certified at the state level, the clinics themselves only meet federal level standards and regulation dating back to the 1980s.

The malpractice suit was filed against PPRM by Colorado Springs resident Ayanna Byer last month. Byer, whose complaint included a total of six charges, alleged that she was forced to undergo an abortion at a local clinic without proper anesthetic after asking doctors not to go through with the procedure. Byer’s specific reports of battery and negligence are listed in her Complaint and Jury Demand against a PPRM physician identified in the complaint as “Dr. John Doe”.

Last month, Gloria Steinem gave a speech at Planned Parenthood’s Southeastern Pennsylvania annual Spring Gathering. The event was held during the Kermit Gosnell trial. It’s ironic since there’s been inquiries about whether Planned Parenthood knew about the Philly abortionist’s house of horrors. Well, it’s been confirmed that they knew in Pennsylvania, and they did nothing.

The Gosnell trial has shifted the focus off the high-quality services we provide,” said Dayle Steinberg, the organization’s president and chief executive. “These are criminal, horrendous . . . acts and should be appropriately punished.”


Steinberg said that when Gosnell was in practice, women would sometimes come to Planned Parenthood for services after first visiting Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, and would complain to staff about the conditions there.

A Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Wilmington, Delaware is temporarily closing after botching multiple abortions on women and facing a state investigation. The state Division of Professional Regulation has launched the probe into the conduct of several staff members.

This is the same clinic where former staff members said it was so filthy that women were put at risk for catching AIDS or other diseases.

In October 2005, Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violating a Minnesota state parental consent law

Hmmmm. Does that provide an objective observer any confidence that PP really is concerned about unsafe (for the women clients) practices at abortion clinics? Does it?

That's a good question Tony (and I am not being sarcastic). The key adverb is "really"; of course, Planned Parenthood wants to maintain a respectable image that promotes concern and empowerment of women superficially, but under the subterfuge, they may advocate abortion for other distasteful political and economic reasons.

Also for wicked and evil reasons.

NBC news described his crime as killing newborns. No mention of what those newborns had to go through to be born. Ladie dadie da-die da. Move on, nothing else to see here.

Mr. Fosi, we could hammer out the nuances, but I don't think we'd disagree on anything fundamental. You're rubbed the wrong way by the word "right," and I'm rubbed the wrong way by the word "boldly." But charity probably requires I just accept your statement as is and let the details lie.

"Boldly approach the throne of grace" is taken directly from Hebrews 4:16. On the other hand, Sage's original comment raises the whole interesting issue of God's judging _nations_. If the "we" in Sage's comment is the American people rather than individual Christians, the question of whether "we" have any right to hope that God will not judge our nation qua nation becomes a real one and an acute one.

"Boldly" is at least connotatively different from "with confidence," which is the translation I had in my head for whatever reason. Whatever the case, I of course did not mean "we" as individuals, but "we" as a nation.

And...evidence of another Kermitt Gosnell, this time in Texas. I'm just waiting for the pro-aborts to join in enthusiastically calling for him to be prosecuted. But I may wait long. If he is prosecuted, no thanks to them, they will of course jump in and say they were always for it. Yeah, right.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/05/15/another-gosnell-report-shows-texas-abortion-doc-kills-babies-born-alive/

Sage,

I don't mean to distract from the great (or just interesting) comments so far, sorry. My intent isn't to pick away at you, or your post since I agree with what you've said in it.

I decided to comment only because there was a time when I wouldn't have understood your use of "we" and I would have applied it to myself as a believer. Thus, my comment was to my past self and anyone else who might be in a similar place while reading the post.

As you said, we can parse "boldly" vs. "with confidence" in relation to "right" but I think you are correct when you say that we don't disagree on anything fundamental. I was just adding a footnote commentary to the discussion of what a person has a "right" to pray for and how it applies to believers, since it seems like more than a couple believers follow this blog.

I understand the sense in which you mean "we" as in we the nation of the United States. I, too, am of a mind that our nation is set for judgement for legalized child murder and a good many other things.

Given that God is the judge of all nations, and seeing how things turned out for national Israel (His chosen people!), I would say that the question of whether God will judge our nation isn't really up for serious debate. However, I continue to pray that the Lord might do as He did in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah and will not completely destroy us for the sake of the righteous living in the land.

I can't read that at the moment Lydia, but I genuinely hope it's not as bad as the Lifenews headline makes it sound.

I'm afraid it looks like it very much is every bit as bad. I haven't looked at the photos, either. I don't need them in my dreams.

Lydia,

The vivid graphical descriptions of Karpen's abortion practice are indeed heinous as they describe the killing of humans (or at least living entities who bear some resemblance to adult humans anatomically with the developmental potential to be adults humans) and we have a natural aversion to that. However, I still have an interest to defend abortion on an academic/philosophical level, since in the argot of secular ethics, abortion does not terminate the life of a "person", although that does not mean I would recommend someone to have an abortion or anyone to practice providing abortions. Still, it would seem the general public is inured to the issue of abortion. I doubt most people who identify themselves as pro-choice became that way because they read Practical Ethics and became persuaded by Singer's arguments.
=====

If God is angry with the United States (I suppose for the prevalence of abortion and possibly other issues), then what other nations have God's favor that the citizens of the US should regard as faithful exemplars of following God? I really do not know what God's wrath is, but I do recall in the opening chapters of The City of God, while reflecting on the decline of the Roman Empire, Augustine does argue that adversity and calamity does not usually discriminate between the the righteous and unrighteous. The rain falls on the just and unjust.

C'est la vie... shit happens! That's how I essentially regard the problem of evil as a Catholic and do not think in terms of God will's; I essentially was (or still am) a Humean sceptic before I converted and I retain. In many cases, there does not seem to be a correlation between one's righteousness and one's share of earthly blessings. On a more secular example, my father tends to eat 3-5 Hagen-Daz ice cream bars (300 kcal/19 grams of sugar) along with other junk food and has a BMI of 33, but as for myself, in contrast, I am thin, used to run about 3 a day (before my vigor was inexplicably, from that perspective, purloined from me). I have no interesting in judging his habits here, although I do want to convey that they do not appear to be healthy. However, his beta cells are quite resilient, even though I thought his lifestyle would overtax them, and they would catastrophically fail due to such punishment. As for myself, even if my father did genetically bequeath me with resilient beta cells, what use are they if my hapless beta cells are under assault by my immune system? Shit happens! That's what I realized while I was lying disorientated in the ER, hooked to an IV drip, hyperventilating with tachycardia (120 bpm), with a blood glucose level of 700 mg/dL and high ketones. I am not culpable for my condition since there are no known controllable risk factors or lifestyle choices I could have made, but I guess I just have to live with it (and be thankful for Fredrick Banting).

I didn't finish this sentence
...

C'est la vie... shit happens! That's how I essentially regard the problem of evil as a Catholic and do not think in terms of whether certain events are part of God will's. I essentially was (or still am) a Humean sceptic before I converted and I retain my penchant for sceptical thinking, but such thinking does not conflict with faith and may in fact augment it. I suppose my former embrace of Humean scepticism and Popperian falliblism are why I gravitate towards a more fideistic faith as opposed to believing firmly that human reasons affirms the existence of God.

Karpen and Gosnell have been murdering babies. Karpen still is. Karpen allegedly is doing so outside the womb as well as inside. Most people realize that murdering babies is wrong. They've been confused into thinking it isn't wrong inside the womb, but once it gets outside, as allegedly in Karpen's case, their sanity returns and they still know it's wrong. That this is some sort of "religious" conclusion as opposed to a normal human intuition powered by the natural light is one of the things the secularists would like us to believe so as to erase the last vestiges of the natural light from the minds of man. Fortunately, BR, most people are not philosophy students. Hence, the case of Gosnell and, if it comes to wider knowledge, that of Karpen has actually made many people rethink their position on abortion rather than get further lost in the blinding labyrinths of personhood theory. For you, I hope that you can get _all the way_ out of those labyrinths, but I doubt that my debating you in comboxes (a little bit of which I've tried to do in the past) will help.

@ Black_Rose:

You seem to be deluding yourself that you are a Catholic, and may be under the mistaken impression you are heading for a 'nice' Eternity in heaven with that 'nice' God guy. In a million years I wouldn't for a moment consider your views remotely Catholic and recommend you urgently and extremely critically review them.

As for Gosnell, I consider his actions no worse than any of his co-murderers, who simply kill in a technically-correct manner. We should be wary of overdoing our outrage, lest we indirectly lessen the gravity of the sins of the other 'flashier' abortionists.

...as a Catholic

On what planet are your views remotely Catholic?

Now, now, guys, just because BR might be a few (thousand) steps behind you on the path doesn't mean she isn't on the path.

You seem to be deluding yourself that you are a Catholic, and may be under the mistaken impression you are heading for a 'nice' Eternity in heaven with that 'nice' God guy. In a million years I wouldn't for a moment consider your views remotely Catholic and recommend you urgently and extremely critically review them.

Being annoyed with me for behaving like an adversarial troll or not adhering to proper etiquette on blogs is one thing, but making judgments about my spiritual state when you only encountered my arguments on a online medium without knowing anything substantial about my real life personality and my spiritual life is another.

"as a Catholic"

I said that in a reference to the problem of evil while using myself as an example to illustrate a point. What's is so "un-Catholic" about my "shit happens" perspective of the problem of evil? Must a Catholic attribute diseases/unfortunate events to God or Satan perhaps as a "punishment" for my previous sins, or put it in the providence of personal responsibility? Nor have I expressed resentment here or in real life that God "failed" to protect my islets from my autoimmune assault or supernaturally cure me so I would not have to be dependent on injections. The distal etiology of my condition lies in some material combination of genetic risk factors and environmental triggers, both of which are currently unknown and cannot be modified by lifestyle so I cannot be regarded as a culpable causal agent; there is no need to invoke "God" to explain the mechanistic causes of the disease and I certainly see myself as a material being whose body and mind is constrained by physical laws. However, I do thank God for granting me peace and serenity to accept this cross with minimal complaining, but managing this chronic disease is a secular challenge that relies on my intellect since I have to be personally familiar with the pharmacokinetic profile and strength of my "medication" (since it is suppose to replace something that my body no longer produces I do not consider it a "medicine" in the tradition sense) to use it properly and to know the biochemistry and endocrinology involved with this disease. I have a confidant at my parish who saw me express such great joy after when I saw the person whose faithful and humble example (as opposed to any intellectual arguments and apologetics) at Christmas Mass, and he told me that such joy is a gift from the Holy Spirit as a spiritual encouragement, but the caveat is that while I was happy then (as I was completely healthy and physically fit and not in any inordinate distress in the other dimensions of life), I would later experience trials that would strengthen me spiritually. But being a Christian is more than experiencing sensations of joy perpetually, and we will all endure some for of adversity in our spiritual and material lives there this sense of joy will be diminished. Some people who are so faithful such as Mother Teresa does not need to experience such joy for reassurance for their faith.


I still retain my philosophical scepticism (which is related to but is not scientific skepticism that demands that claims be supported with scientific evidence). Such scepticism downplays the power and reliability of the human mental faculties in perceiving and understanding the phenomena of the physical world and inferring causal relationships using those faculties. Since most of our knowledge is derived from our observations and our intellect processes those observations to construct models about the world that are consistent with sensory inputs, and our perceptual and reasoning capacity is quite limited by our neural architecture and imperfect, our inferences and deductions would therefore be erroneous and therefore one cannot know anything pertaining to the physical world with absolute certainty. This is the epistemic root of my fideism and is opposed to the Thomian view that elevates human reason as a means proving the existence of a god or inferring His existence via natural theology. My scepticism is not motivated by a disdain towards abstract human reasoning or the methodology of scientific investigation or a preference of being in an ignorant state, but it is an honest and humble acknowledgment of the limitations of human reasoning. While I do believe I can experience and know God through prayer and the sacraments, all I have are my senses and imperfect ability to reason, so I could never conclusively establish God's presence through my senses or intellect and therefore I would have to rely on His spirit to grant me faith to believe and His church to instruct me through His divine revelation.

As for abortion, I have my own reasons for defending it from a secular perspective, even though I do not encourage anyone to get an abortion, and I have my own reasons to oppose it from a theological perspective. My confidant thought I did an excellent job in attacking the pro-life position from a secular perspective (it's a form of argumentation not a statement of personal belief) when I e-mailed him a ~12 page (not double spaced and incomplete) word document using nominalism and evolution to assail the metaphysical foundations of secular pro-life arguments. The reason I devoted so much of my intellectual resources to defend abortion (and I do get a sense of psychological satisfaction doing this) is not to advance some liberal pro-choice agenda, but to illustrate that one cannot rely on secular arguments to appreciate the value of human life (a fideistic view) and such appreciation could be arrived at with the assistance of God's grace and revelation.

The reason I devoted so much of my intellectual resources to defend abortion (and I do get a sense of psychological satisfaction doing this) is not to advance some liberal pro-choice agenda...

Never underestimate the power of denial.

So you really think I am consciously pro-choice (although I could be subconsciously pro-choice)? My reasons for arguing the pro-choice position are complex, but they do not detract from my sincerity and piety.

Denial is typically a subconscious process of avoidance, and not a product of insincerity.

Denial of what anyway?

You enjoy making pro-choice arguments because you are pro-choice, you are also in denial about that fact.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.