Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Abortion Monster Style

Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a “doctor” who started but never finished an OB/GYN residency, delivered viable fetuses and killed them with scissors. At least two women have died under “care.” His Philadelphia “clinic” was filthy, with the stench of cat urine because animals were able to wander the building. Sterilization of instruments was unheard of, and he reused disposable tools over and over. He did not have a trained medical staff, and his wife, a cosmetologist, also performed abortions. He even kept bags and bottles of aborted fetuses around the “clinic” for no apparent reason.

Abortions past 24 weeks are illegal in Pennsylvania. Most REAL doctors wouldn’t perform abortions past 20 weeks because of the risk. Late term abortions brought in the most money for him. He charged $1600 – $3000 for them. This guy raked in $10K -$15K a day.

I really didn’t want to touch this subject for a while. Of course, I just had to read the comments on this story. One said that no “pro-abortion” (grrr) person should have any issues with what he was doing.

EXCUSE ME? This is exactly what we are against. Unsafe abortions (see picture). He put the lives of women at risk (2 died) and delivered these viable fetuses alive and killed them. This butcher saw money, throwing aside the safety of his patients. And keeping bodies and body parts of the aborted in bottles?

Dr. Gosnell was a monster, pure and simple. He was an opportunistic, sadistic killer who kept trophies of his work. He just happened to have a license to practice “medicine” too.

18 responses to “Dr. Kermit Gosnell, Abortion Monster Style

  • Terrance H.

    So much for liberal abortion laws….

    You know why the authorities never bothered him, even though his clinic was reported ten-years ago. They didn’t want to be accused of harassing a black doctor in a black part of town, so they ignored the report. That’s what political correctness does for you.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      If abortion were still illegal, there would be “clinics” like this all over the place. The grand jury report stated, “We think the reason no one acted is because the women in question were poor and of color, because the victims were infants without identities and because the subject was the political football of abortion.” It wasn’t about harrassing a black doctor, but because the state figured they were nameless, poor, and minorities, who cares?

      There were citations. He promised to fix the problems. Since there was no follow-up, nothing was done. The Health Department was LAZY. I hope they feel guilty and shamed. They could have put a stop to it.

  • Terrance H.

    I don’t think that’s accurate, Spinny. If and when abortion is made illegal, the law needs to be tough. Doctors should lose their license – for life – and go to jail. Women should go to jail, too. You may think that’s a bit unreasonable, but what is the sense of making something illegal if it’s not going to be enforced?

    Even when authorities are certain an illegal, late-term abortion was obtained, they do almost nothing. Why? Liberalism. Butcher clinics in Ireland are almost unheard of because abortion is criminalized through a somewhat tough set of laws.

    Furthermore, if society decides that abortion is wrong; that abortion is murder, then it is wrong regardless the consequences of prohibiting it. The proliferation of such clinics do not matter.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    Wow. Putting women in jail? That might not even be necessary if it were illegal, and they die from botched ones. That did happen back in the day which is why so many women fought for abortion to be safe and legal.

    Many of those Irish women go abroad to get the abortions. Ireland is extreme. I read that a pregnant woman battling cancer could not get an abortion there even though her health was at risk. She went to the UK for one.

    Oh man. The proliferation of such clinics doesn’t matter is essentially saying that the women victimized in those clinics don’t matter. This is precisely why the fight for abortion rights was so important. The lives and safety of women matter. We are not just walking wombs.

  • Terrance H.

    You are talking about women dying before antibiotics and when laws weren’t all that tough. Big difference.

    Only about 4,000 Irish women a year travel abroad for abortions, and fewer obtain illegal abortions in Ireland. The per capita percent is far lower than places where the macabre act is legal.

    How are they victimized? If they are committing an illegal act, whose fault is it? If some guy were to be injured breaking into your house would you say he is a victim? No! Why? because it’s illegal to break into other people’s property.

    Women’s lives are in their own hands. Whose hands is the fetus’s life in?

  • SpinnyLiberal

    I can see your reasoning. I probably should have said that in that illegal scenario, they are victimized because they are doing something that should be safe and legal. I am relieved that this illegal scenario is hypothetical.

    The life of the fetus is in the woman’s hands. Without her, the fetus can not grow and develop.

  • Terrance H.

    It’s all about SLED, Spinny.

    1). Size; 2). Level of Development; 3).Environment; 4). Degree of dependency.

    1). Unborn children are, at one point, as small as a pea. Do we generally afford Rights based on size? No.

    2). Adults are more developed than teenagers and teenagers more than infants. Do we generally afford Rights based on development? No.

    3). Do we generally afford Rights based on location? The unborn child must travel a mere eight-inches to be “born” and thus considered a person. That seems a little absurd to me.

    4). You are dependent if you take medication in order to stay alive; you are dependent if you’ve had some unfortunate accident accident and require, at least for a time, a machine to keep you alive. Infants are dependent on their parents to keep them alive. Should dependency really be the threshold.

    It’s your opinion that abortion should be legal, but as you can see, there is sufficient reason for it to be illegal.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    OK, that is a very interesting acronym. Never heard that before.

    Size – we don’t afford rights based on size. If both are fully developed, then they get the same rights. If one is not and the other is, why would that “pea” get the same rights, let alone need them?

    Level of development – again, teenagers are fully developed in the sense that they have everything, fully formed, that they need to survive.

    Environment – I understand how you can see that is absurd ifthe fetus is at full term.

    Dependency – Yes, because in those scenarios, the child, the person on medication and life support are fully formed. To develop and become fully formed, a fetus gets what it needs to do so from the mother through the umbilical cord that is attached to her.

    That is why I believe it is ultimately her decision.

  • Terrance H.


    You’re right: we don’t afford Rights based on size, and development has nothing to do with it. The brain of a teenager is far more developed than the brain of an infant (a brain not developed enough to know how to provide for itself). The adult brain is more developed than the brain of a teenager. And, if you believe this, your heart is actually more developed than mine. Based on what I’ve judged your age to be, your arteries have circumflexed and mine haven’t. So, you can’t say that all of us born humans are equally developed.

    Level of Development: see above.

    Environment: What does being full-term have to do with anything? I’m addressing this based on the merit of this particular argument (i.e., because the human being is inside the mother (location) it’s not worthy of Rights.) I find that to be rather absurd.

    Dependency: You keep going back to this “fully formed” argument as if that’s some sort of scientific requirement in order to be considered a human being. It’s not. Now, you may concede the biological facts and argue level of development. And though we don’t afford Rights based on that alone, you may argue it doesn’t really matter because when the majority of abortions are performed, there is no brain, no self-awareness, so the child simply never knows anything. That’s a fair argument. But, then again, we know, and that should be enough. Our sense of humanity should tell us that’s enough.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    We know each other’s stances pretty well by now, but I don’t know about ages. I still don’t understand the “circumflexed artery” thing. Does my circumflexed artery make me look old? How old do you think I am? 🙂

  • Terrance H.

    No, I don’t think you’re old. I do think, however, you’re in your late 30s or early 40s, based on some of your comments. I could be wrong, and if so, forgive me. But as you age, your heart (specifically the coronary arteries) develops, basically, a near failsafe. If one of your arteries gets clogged, the artery will re-route itself in order to prevent a heart attack (i.e., circumflex). Obviously it doesn’t always work. But it’s just something we all develop as we age. I was looking for examples and that’s the first thing that came to my mind.

    Basically, my opinion boils down to this: even though the unborn child never knows life, pain, or anything even close – we know. And that should be enough. It’s the most liberal position anyone could ever take: standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves – and expecting nothing in return. You do it because it’s the right thing to do.

  • SpinnyLiberal

    Very good. Whew. In July, I turn “the new 20.” Haha. Are you in your late 20s – early 30s? You sound around my age, but since you say your arteries have not circumflexed…. 🙂 Thanks for the information. I didn’t know that.

    OK, I understand your opinion. You already know mine.

  • Terrance H.

    I’m 25.

    • SpinnyLiberal

      Ah OK. At least you’re not young enough for me to say, “I’m old enough to be your mother.” Technically, I am – if I got pregnant at 15. 😉

      • Questioning With Boldness...

        Oh man! You’re old Spinny! 😉
        I have very strong convictions on this issue and out of respect to our apparent differences I have avoided(and will continue to avoid) comment. I have thought of writing a piece on my position about abortion but with 3 little boys all under 4 years old, I get wicked emotional about the topic. I respect differences in opinion but this is one of the areas that drove me ot of my Democratic state of mind. It was further solidified when I held my first son. This story repulsed me to tears and I have not even spoken about this particular story out loud for fear of getting too emotional. Life is precious, no matter how old— or young. Just keep in mind, babies have survived outside the mother’s womb from as early as 22 weeks, albeit it requires medical intervention but life is absolutely viable at those ages of gestation.
        Again, I do respect your opinion though. It’s just one that I can’t agree with.

      • SpinnyLiberal

        No kidding, Questioning. I should really get on the funeral planning, considering I’m one foot in the grave and all. 😉 Sometimes I feel that way, though.

        Yes, it’s a very difficult subject.I didn’t think I’d be commenting this much, but all these things happened around the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I respect yours as well. Agree to disagree. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: