The Horrible Case of Dr. Gosnell and the Forgotten Ones

[Trigger warning: abortion, murder, disturbing graphic details of Gosnell’s crimes]

In the last week, the Internet has been blowing up with shock, horror and outrage over the murder trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell. A late term abortionist in Lancaster, Penn., Gosnell is on trial in Philadelphia for performing gruesome and illegal late-term abortions that led to death of a woman and seven infants (though in reality, he’s responsible for killing far, far more). During the trial, former employees provided gruesome testimony detailing how Dr. Gosnell frequently and illegally delivered live, viable babies in their 3^rd trimester of pregnancy and then murdered them by severing their heads with scissors. The grand jury report also details how his unlicensed staff illegally administered potentially lethal amounts of drugs to patients, how venereal disease was spread among his patients by reusing unsanitary disposable instruments, and even how he punctured and perforated wombs and bowels leading to the death of at least one woman. The conditions of the clinic can be described as a house of horrors; and according to the grand jury report, when public health officials searched the clinic, “the search team discovered fetal remains haphazardly stored throughout the clinic – in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers.” This place of horrors was Gosnell’s daily business.

 

Is Infanticide the Next Logical Step Beyond Abortion?

Several days ago, The Journal of Medical Ethics, which is an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, published a new article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.  In this paper, Giubilini and Minerva advance four major lines of argument, regarding the right of societies to abort newly born infants:

1. As a society, we have endorsed the moral acceptability of abortion even in circumstances where the fetus’ health is not at risk.
2. Because the fetus and the newborn infant both lack cognitive awareness, they do not share the same moral status as actual persons.
3. Any potential to develop into an actual person is irrelevant as their current cognitive development does not permit them to understand their own potential and thus they are not capable of experiencing a sense of loss in terms of their own future potential.
4. Adoption is “not always in the best interest of actual people.”

Therefore, Giubilini and Minerva find themselves in the position of advocating a stance long held by highly influential Peter Singer,[1] who is most famous for once having argued:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping that they exist over time.  They are not persons.  Therefore, the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”[2]

So what do you think?  Is there a moral difference between aborting a fetus in utero and taking the life of a newborn infant?  And if so, what is that difference?

---

[1] Peter Singer is an animal rights activist who serves as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and the Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne.

[2] Singer, Peter, Practical Ethics (Cambridge University Press, London: 2011).  This book was first published in 1979.

 

Obesity in America: What’s in a Chocolate Bar?

It has been said that you are what you eat; and if that is true, well … we’ll get to that in a moment.  In the meantime, there is no denying the fact that when it comes to eating healthy, many Americans are simply out to lunch.  At this point in our collective history, more than one out of every three adults is technically obese[1] while 15% of children between the ages of 6 and 11 are well on their way. Moreover, it’s not as if 30% of Americans have always been this overweight.  This is trend that has has arisen largely over the past 20 years.  Check out this brief video and you’ll see what I mean.