Support First Things by turning your adblocker off or by making a  donation. Thanks!

Pete, Gosnell was merely doing what he was paid to do; getting rid of unwanted children.  That’s why his trial is not a major story and is not of interest to the media, save, perhaps, for what happened to those few women harmed, which is a local story of criminal malfeasance or rather, malpractice.  The infants he killed were there to be killed. Bodily products that are unwanted are disposed of.  Unwanted children are such bodily products.  Seen in that light, where is Gosnell’s shame?  Our mainstream media cannot look at this story too hard because it presses home an old-fashioned, Christian shame in the popular attitude toward abortion that they promote.  They would be ashamed to cover the story

People who are no longer Christians, and as far as I can tell, neither any longer humanists,  can see no big issues relating to the story.   How many of the people who would be reporting the story have had abortions or would have been a father but for an abortion?  I know, it is impossible to say, but given the numbers of abortions, the milieu of journalism,  and what happened in terms of the media response to the story  it seems fair to speculate.  Horror?  What horror?  What do you think we are, as sensational as the National Enquirer ?  Standards for shame are changing.

Famous atheists, Richard Dawkins, for example, tell us that the world will be a better place when people no longer believed in God, because people would have a clearer, more human, a human-based morality.  Christians abhor what Dr. Gosnell did and find it immoral and have pushed the reporting of it as a horror.  Those who choose to ignore the Gosnell trial have a different standard of morality.  This must be what the atheists mean.  Oh, brave, new morality!

Comments are visible to subscribers only. Log in or subscribe to join the conversation.



Filter First Thoughts Posts

Related Articles