One particularly disturbing detail is that Gosnell — who will remain in prison until his trial on 8 counts of murder — severed the feet of the late terms he aborted and kept them in jars at his clinic.
Page 248 of the grand jury’s report reads:
4. The Abortion Control Act should be amended to prohibit the mutilation of fetal remains.
One of the most bizarre things about this case is Dr. Gosnell’s fetal foot collection. He cut the feet off the fetuses he aborted and kept them in a row of jars. No civilized society can accept such an abomination, whether the fetuses in question were viable or not.
Note that in the first sentence, the Grand Jury is recommending that Pennsylvania law “be amended to prohibit the mutilation of fetal remains.”
In other words: currently, mutilating the remains of a legally aborted baby is not illegal.
Now, the right and proper reaction for a normal person to have upon learning that a doctor has a collection of dead babies’ feet in his clinic is one of shock and horror.
Why?
Well, for the bleeding obvious fact that they came from the body of a tiny human being — yea, a tiny human person — and that we all innately know that there’s something horrifyingly wrong with mutilating a dead body.
But don’t expect strident advocates of legal abortion to agree that there is anything per se wrong with Gosnell’s ghoulish collection of aborted babies’ feet. Although they may concede it’s a bit “bizarre and off the wall” — in the words of one medical expert who testified before the Grand Jury — if they want to be logically consistent, they couldn’t bring themselves to pass negative judgment on it.
After all, if you believe that human embryos and fetuses are merely potential life, and that there is thus nothing wrong with destroying them, how could you possibly see anything wrong with mutilating the remains of those ex-potential lives after they’ve been destroyed?
HT: Jill Stanek
