Get PJ Media on your Apple

Belmont Club

The House on the Corner

April 14th, 2013 - 6:19 am

One of the fugitive themes in the recent spate of articles about the Kermit Gosnell abortion clinic is introduced at the 6:20 mark of the video below. Wade McKissick, who apparently lived not far for Gosnell’s said of it, “you could see the weird stuff … but I didn’t know … the killing … I didn’t know what was going on.”

No one could have heard McKissick’s words without connecting them with the equally vehement protestations of the residents of Dachau seventy years ago.  Asked by the arriving Allied Armies about what went on the camps  they said ‘we didn’t know what went on there’, though some responded more forthrightly “what could we have done?”

Roger Simon who lost most of the European branch of his family to events there at the time, understands the grievous nature of the  question posed by Gosnell’s clinic, to which we shall return later, but it is Andy McCarthy who presses down hardest on the keys.

He spells it out plainly. Perhaps none of us are innocent of the House of Horrors if only because “Stephen Massof, one of Kermit Gosnell’s fellow butchers” was from the viewpoint of the law largely innocent. “After all, most of what he did at the ‘Women’s Medical Society’ was perfectly legal.” He committed no crime because he broke no law.  He was only doing his job.

Yet it is not deja vu at those words but shame which McCarthy expresses. Nor is it simply the regret over the behavior of some wayward reprobates.  It is the shame of being part of a country that hatched a corrupt process. McCarthy argues that Gosnell was only the end of the line, the ultimate development of a massive industrialized process that has been going on for decades. “In Philadelphia, at a human abattoir on Lancaster Avenue, is where it ends, not where it starts. It starts with the perversion of language.” And it goes on from there; to where ‘fetus’ is substituted for baby; and in turn ‘embryonic tissue’ for  fetus; to where ‘D&E’ is used as a euphemism for pulling a baby, fetus, tissue — whatever — apart with a forceps. It goes on and on and on.

No, we  knew what was going on. It was simply that nobody wanted to call it what it was.

But as Roger Simon noted “Dr. Gosnell — monster though he is — has accidentally shoved that uncomfortable truth in our faces.” And so Roger argues that whatever their points of view people owe it to themselves at least to call things by their proper names. He recounts:

“my wife Sheryl and [I]. We were in the kitchen last night, preparing dinner, when we saw a short report of this story on the countertop TV.

Both lifelong “pro-choice” people, after watching only seconds, we embarked in an immediate discussion of whether it was time to reconsider that view. (Didn’t human life really begin at the moment of conception? What other time?) Neither of us was comfortable as a “pro-choice” advocate in the face of these horrifying revelations. How could we be?”

Yes, Dr. Gosnell was exceptional (thank God for that!), but a dead fetus was a dead fetus, even if incinerated in some supposedly humane fashion rather than left crying out in blind agony on the operating room floor, as was reportedly the case with one of Gosnell’s victims. I say blind because this second-trimester fetus did not yet have fully formed eyes. (Think about that one.)

So I don’t think I’m “pro-choice” anymore, but I’m not really “pro-life” either. I would feel like a hypocrite. I don’t want to pretend to ideals I have serious doubts I would be able to uphold in a real-world situation. If a woman in my family, or a close friend, were (Heaven forbid) impregnated through rape, I would undoubtedly support her right to abortion. I might even advocate it. I also have no idea how I would react if confronted by having to make a choice between the life of a fetus and his/her mother. Just the thought makes my head spin.

Anyone who he thinks he knows how he would respond in these situations — and hasn’t — is doing nothing but posturing.

Roger has at all events restored the question of abortion to a legitimate subject for debate again and away from the facile mantra peddled by the the system so aptly described in 17:47 of the video. It was narrated by a woman who started with Gosnell as a younger girl and had  8 abortions at his clinic. Each time they told her “It’s Ok. It’s Ok. It’s Ok.”

And suddenly she knew, though she still could not explain, that it was not Ok. And why that is  deserves a closer look.

There is in the recent coverage of Kermit Gosnell’s House of Horrors a puzzling sense of shame among conservative pundits, almost as if the guilt for keeping silent fell hardest on them. As if they of all people failed the most by not speaking out. There is the understandable regret for having gone along with the lies, partly for the sake of social peace or the reluctance to engage in acrimonious debate, or out of a fear to appear ‘square’ or ‘clenched’ or outmoded.

But there is more to this than the simple shame of being afraid to be caught in the snare of being holier-than-thou, there is a sense of having been conned into a contamination that is hard to explain. For abortion, more than other public policy issues of a sexual nature, is harder to look in the face than the others for the precise reason that it goes to very core of what it is to be human. It is the Gorgon of our psychological landscape; the place where we would let no light fall.

Though 3801 Lancaster Street seemed to stand on a major Philadelphia street in the apparent blaze of day  its doorways were really guarded by a spell that guaranteed that no one inquired into what happened within because everyone knew what was happening already. A knowledge not only that infanticide was practiced within but that most of us, in small or big ways, had tacitly given our imprimatur to it.

For the House guarded one secret that has not been touched upon in the cultural debate. That the real purpose of abortion is to make it impossible, once we have acceded to it, to object to anything else.

To understand 3801 Lancaster street maybe we should go back to  Moloch rather than to  the system of industrial execution that flourished 70 years ago. “Child sacrifice — “the ritualistic killing of children in order to please, propitiate or force a god or supernatural beings” was long practiced by the Incas, Aztec, many cultures in the Middle East, North Africa and in pagan Europe.  The question is: why?  What was its purpose that Moloch should be worshipped thus in his many names?

One theory is that child sacrifice was a sacramental device used to kill what we used to call “God” Himself.  Moloch’s problem was how to get everyone to belong to him and to no other. His answer was to arrange a radical crossing over, an extreme commitment, a journey beyond the pale so shocking that to embark upon it was to go beyond point of no return. There was no going back to God after that.  And once you had offered your child to Moloch there was no point refusing him anything else.

Killing your own child  – just as acquiescing to killing the Jews was to the German public — was a form of enlistment by complicity. It is the last and most decisive step in the extinction of freedom. Though apparently practiced upon the child the real target of abasement is the mother. And by extension it is all of us. That is the shame the conservative pundits felt. Not the shame of sexual guilt. It is the shame of having gone along. By consenting to be an accomplice in the destruction of her own child she binds herself mystically to the doctrine of Moloch. “You are nothing but meat. So take this child and eat. Do this in memory of you.”


The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99

Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99

No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99

Tip Jar or Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (48)
All Comments   (48)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Q: Who becomes an abortionist?

A: A sociopath.

Who else would dedicate their life to the taking of other lives? There is good reason why abortionists do not get respect in the general medical profession even by those physicians who are pro-abortion. A sane and rational man would not take up the profession of killing of the innocent.
Make no mistake about it. Every abortionist has a little bit of the Gosnell in him/her and he is not only monster out there. He is the one who was so blatant that he got caught.

As for Roger Simon, I say that he was wrong on abortion and he is wrong on marriage. Both are different aspects of the same cultural phenomenon.
As for Libertarians, their support for abortion on demand is just another place where they play useful idiots to the Progressive movement.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
THE STATISTICAL MATHEMATICS OF ABORTION:

As I've stated before: math is a mortal enemy of Progressivism. Even simple arithmetic gives a lie to just about every "principle" that progressives espouse or implement.

What this country has is rampant abortion. In any given year something like 1.2 million abortions are performed. The more staggering statisitc is that anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of all American pregnanices in any given year end in abortion.

Let's, for argumant's sake, make allowances for those abortions that have a compelling reason for them: Rape, incest and a danger to the mother's life. Let us then add severe birth defects. Then let's toss in, very reluctantly, all the Down's Syndrome babies who are aborted. Let's then add in as "legitimate" those cases of women whose birth-control methods failed them, as sometimes happens. Finally, let's even add as "compelling" those cases of young women who are totally alone, scared, and with no one to help or advise them otherwise. Once you add up the total from that rather expansive collection of "legitimate" and "compelling" reasons to abort, we are still left with only a fraction of those 1.2 million abortions. How many? I don't know, as the last two categories provides a broad range of estimate. Still, I think you will come up with only a minority of all abortions . That leaves a majority of abortions that do not fit in any legitimate, excusable or compelling category. The only question is whether it is a bare majority or an overwhelming one.

This means that something like a million women a year engage in unprotected sex that leads to pregnancy, or what I will hereafter refer to as "stupidsex." If they didn't want to get pregnant, then why the "stupidsex?" And keep in mind that, typically, it takes several rounds of stupidsex to induce pregnancy. So: several million instances of stupidsex a year result in a million or so "unwanted" pregnancies to women who simply can't be bothered at this time with a lifestyle-changing even known as a babyt. And it gets worse: for every "stupidsexer" who gets knocked up, there are several more who manage to dodge the bullet in any given year. That means that several million women of child-bearing age who don't want babies have tens of millions of unprotected sexual encounters a year. I find that staggering. I know that contraception of all kinds is widely available and affordable, no matter what Sandra Fluke might say otherwise. I think effective contraception costs, at most on average, about two grande lattes a week.

I find this staggering. ANd I know this is an underlying issue that goes well beyond the whole abortion debate.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well said! Just my thoughts for a long time now.

And you left out "health of the mother" as a reason.

Let's see now, between real rapes (rather than "On second thought, dinner wasn't that good and I did not like the movie.") and the health of the mother I wonder how many abortions that would require? If that was the main basis for abortion there would be NO right-to-life movement, other than by, say, the lunatics of the Westbury Baptist Church.

That flaming idiot Republcian Senate candidate SHOULD have said, "Rapes as a justification for abortion? How often does that really happen? Should we base our national policy on that eventuality? Sure, I have no problem with abortions required as a result of rapes or the health of the mother, but it would be like basing our national policy on air traffic control on avoiding mid-air collisions with flying saucers."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Roger Simon: “So I don’t think I’m “pro-choice” anymore, but I’m not really “pro-life” either.”

So what does he believe in?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
He is "evolving." You have to look at Roger Simon's glass on the abortion issue as being half-full rahter than half empty. That goes for my views as well.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Kermit Gosnell may have done the near-impossible and actually created a moment of clarity on abortion. In a sense, he may be the world's most honest abortionist. He's an old man. He's been doing this for years. He knows his profession. His job is to kill babies, and he clearly has no truck with all the game-playing of the modern abortionist. It's easy to play devil's advocate for the man. The modern abortionist is supposed to do all that snipping and suctioning inside the woman's body? Why go through all that trouble and hazard when all you have to do is induce a miscarriage, let the female body do what is supposed to do, and do the killing once the baby is safely out of the womb? It's probably safer for the mother to do that anyway -- and since the result is pre-ordained -- a dead baby -- and since no one is watching, why not do it the quick easy way? For that matter, why bother with all that unnecessary sanitation and things like clean white bedsheets? Why do you even need a doctor present when the woman goes through the miscarriage labor? The female body does that all by itself. You don't need all that for an induced miscarriage. It's all play-acting. The proper, abortionist dresses up like a doctor, and decorates his workplace like a medical clinic. Gosnell threw all that crap and pretension into the trash and got on with the real business at hand. He's a monster to be sure. No doubt. But the elephant in the room is the paper-thin difference between Kermit Gosnell and every other abortionist. They're all doing the same thing, except that the law and society demands that they play-act as doctors while doing it.

That's why the reporter's gallery is empty. Too much clarity for comfort.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
BC Alexis:
I think you are right on all counts. There really is nothing new under the sun. Man does remain Man, in all his virtues and vices.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Looks like an arrest is going to be made today in the murder of the Kaufman County DA and his wife, discussed here last week. Surprisingly, not of some gang member, Mexican or Aryan - but of a former Justice of the Peace, well known in the county, and a harsh political and personal enemy of the DA.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130414-ex-jp-expected-to-be-charged-in-kaufman-county-killings.ece

He blamed the DA and the assistant (murdered 2 months ago) for ruining his life, after they led the charge to convict him of theft of office materials and got his law license revoked, also forcing him out of his job.

Some people say their prosecution of JP Williams was politically motivated, since Williams had strongly supported a challenger to DA McLlelland. That's speculation, but it's no secret now that Mclelland suspected Williams of the previous murder.

“He was distraught,” Wood said. “He very pointedly said to me, ‘I know who did this.’ I said, ‘Well, who, Mike?’ He said, ‘Well, Eric Williams.’”
McLelland, who worked for years as a diagnostic psychologist, described Williams as “a narcissistic psychopath” during that conversation and others."

Williams wife, who has cancer, lost her insurance due to his prosecution by McLellend and Hasse. That would be the motive for the revenge killing of McLellend's wife, apparently.

So, no gangs, no nefarious plots by shadowy organizations - just another sad, sick f*uck roaming this world, rubbing shoulders with us every day.

As Walt Kelly pointed out some time ago, "We have met the enemy, and He is Us."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What? No "white supremacist?" no "militia?" No "Tea Party" crazy man? The MSM is, what . . . 0 for 10 on these kindds of stories?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"God, what was I thinking?"

Will she seek forgiveness in a real church from a real God, not the churches and gods of Wright, Sharpton, and Jackson?

"Horrific and barbaric treatment"
"Not operated according to basic medical standards"

If only it were clean and antiseptic, then snipping would be OK. If only the victims were whites and not "brown and black women," then it would be OK.

No, it would not. Nothing can make this OK.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"God, what was I thinking?"

What was she thinking when she got knocked up 8 times?

Nela Boortz used to play a recording on his radio show, that of a woman in a Tampa motel room with her dozen or so illegitimate kids.

"Somebody's got to pay for all my children. Somebody's got to pay for all my suffering. Somebody's got to pay."

Big Babbydaddy Obama is going to make sure we pay, on 15 April.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Frank Sinatra's mother was an abortionist in Hoboken. Wonder how that affected him?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7853419/Romans-killed-babies-at-brothel.html

We must face up to the fact abortions are historically among the wages of venal sex. Archaeological digs at ancient brothels often find copious remains of dead infants, which is no surprise given a very high correlation between prostitution and infanticide throughout history. In the pre-Roe twentieth century America, abortion clinics grew like weeds – wherever there was prostitution, there was strong demand for the services of abortionists. Abortionists were (and possibly are) an indispensable part of the sex trade, even though they were despised by pimps and prostitutes alike.

Although demand for abortion went down when the Pill became readily available, it was almost certainly the AIDS epidemic that really changed the industry. Starting in the late 1980's, prostitutes in North America made it a policy to require condom use during sessions and to blacklist customers who tried to pay for sex without a condom. Even so, prostitutes continue to be among the strongest defenders of “abortion rights”. Given the recent trend among customers to push prostitutes into unprotected sex, that ought to be no surprise.

We can talk until we are blue about the evils of abortion – and infanticide. What typically happens is a wave of moral outrage that then dies down, which leads to business as usual. If there is any industry that desperately needs government regulation, it is the sex trade. The problem is that it is difficult to regulate an illegal industry. Given the sex trade's historical role as a source of revenue for abortionists, it would be insane to make any policy to reduce abortion without making serious attempts to reduce the economic demand for the services of abortionists.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Many people, particularly women, do not want to look at anything that upsets them. They prefer to avert their eyes from anything that bothers them. This is not out of callousness. This is out of not wanting to get so upset that one is not able to make dinner or do other household chores. It is about keeping one's self from getting emotionally paralyzed in a world controlled by monsters.

NARAL and the Nation magazine point to the Gosnell clinic as an example of what happens when abortion is illegal. Other abortion clinics are pointing to the bad sanitary practices of the Gosnell clinic to show how his clinic is the sensational exception rather than the rule. The National Abortion Federation is trumpeting the fact that his Philadelphia clinic did not receive its accreditation. The net result of these pro-abortion tactics will likely be to focus attention upon hygiene and avoid larger questions.

The very unpleasantness of Dr. Gosnell's abortion clinic is likely to ensure abortion's continuation. Over half of the electorate is female, and women don't like to get upset. So, rather than focus upon the horrific consequences of Dr. Gosnell's ideology, it may be wiser to talk about how cute fetuses are.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All