Stay in the Loop
BSR publishes on a weekly schedule, with an email newsletter every Wednesday and Thursday morning. There’s no paywall, and subscribing is always free.
A human? A tumor? Or something in between?
The Gosnell trial and the abortion debate
Robert Zaller
Why is Kermit Gosnell on trial for his life?
Gosnell, of course, is the West Philadelphia abortionist whose clinic operated for more than three decades after 1979 at 38th and Lancaster, a few blocks from where I work. I knew nothing about its existence until Gosnell was arrested and charged with four counts of capital and one count of third-degree murder, among other offenses. Why should I? Gosnell's abortion mill catered to the poor, the frightened, and the undocumented. Not the circles I normally circulate in.
Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Foundation (yes, there is such a thing), and other pro-choice organizations have jumped up to declare that Gosnell's clinic— with its unlicensed operatives, blood-stained floors and (nice touch) freezers full of fetuses— is an aberration, completely unrepresentative of the abortion business as a whole. In fact, they say, this is what abortions were like before the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, and would be again were it to be repealed.
Point taken. Whether Gosnell's chop-shop operation was a one-off, however, is another question.
Is a fetus human?
The Pennsylvania Department of Health stopped inspecting abortion clinics a few decades ago; since it resumed in response to this case, five of 22 clinics have stopped providing surgical abortions albeit for a variety of reasons. I suspect that, as in many other areas, you get what you pay for, and those who can't afford better than Gosnell will wind up dealing with someone like him in one place or another. Many poor women also allow their pregnancies to extend beyond the 24-week limit for abortions prescribed by Pennsylvania law, and thus require the services of someone willing to break it.
Which brings me back to my question: Why is Kermit Gosnell on trial for his life?
A 41-year-old Bhutanese immigrant, Karnamaya Mongar, died in Gosnell's care as a result of an improperly (and illegally) administered anesthetic. That's the event that brought his clinic to public attention. But that's the third-degree murder count against Gosnell, not one of the four capital ones.
The capital charges allege that Gosnell killed four— what term do we have for them?— human creatures exhibiting signs of life after being— born's not the exact word either— extruded by induced labor. Gosnell is accused of having killed them by snipping their spinal cords at the neck.
A felony, or homicide?
It's been suggested that this was a fairly routine procedure, and that Gosnell may have performed it hundreds of times. But only in four cases did the evidence seem sufficiently strong to prosecute.
Imagining this scenario even once is horrifying enough. But in what way is it murder if abortion itself is not? A 24-week-old fetus can be legally aborted; it's the exercise of a Constitutional right. If it's a day later, though, the fetus itself suddenly assumes a legal status. What's the difference?
Performing a late-term abortion is a felonious act, not a homicide. Gosnell is charged with 24 counts of having performed such abortions, but only four are also charged as murders. The fetus, then, hasn't acquired any legal rights as such at 24 weeks.
On the other hand, if a pregnant woman's fetus is killed by assault at any point in gestation, the responsible party is liable in the death. Is that a right?
A mother's loss
The loss of the fetus is a loss to the woman, hence an aggravating factor in whatever injury she has suffered. If there's an analogy, it's to a property right. If the woman feels the fetus to be an object of value, then its loss is like any other theft or breakage. If she doesn't, however, that fetus is merely an object designated for disposal.
Late-term abortions are generally forbidden for two reasons: They can be more dangerous to the health of a woman, and they can result, as alleged in Gosnell's case, in something that shows signs of life after removal from the womb. Does the mere exhibition of a reflex movement suddenly endow that something with personhood and the full panoply of human rights? Does it instantaneously convert abortion to infanticide? Is an aborted fetus a live human being if it twitches once?
For me, this is what the Gosnell case is about. Pro-choice logic requires its advocates to maintain an absolute, not to say a metaphysical distinction between a fetus and a human being, as if "humanity" were conferred only by the mother's willingness to bear her child to term.
I say "child," but that term refers only to what we may call "maternal preference." A woman who loses a fetus to miscarriage may say that she has "lost a child" or "lost a baby"; if it is aborted, however, there is no loss and no child.
If she initially wants to give birth, then she is said to be carrying a child; if she changes her mind, the "child" no longer exists— only an inconvenient condition requiring medical attention.
Just immature?
Barbara Ehrenreich, a writer I generally respect, once likened terminating an unwanted pregnancy to removing a tumor. Whatever a fetus is, though, it isn't a tumor. I can state this from personal experience, having been one myself. If you ask my opinion, it's an immature human being. I can't think of anything else to call it. Whether it has or ought to have rights is a matter for debate, but let's at least understand what we're debating.
It seems to me that we are dealing with a clash of rights here. Pro-lifers sometimes (not always) treat women as if they were simply vessels for bringing new life into the world. Pro-choicers tend to treat an unwanted fetus as mere detritus.
Unlike some other ethical questions, the issue is not just theoretical. At some point you do have to choose: Is abortion generally permissible, or not at all, or only under special circumstances? You can reach a nuanced position that chooses any of these alternatives, but it has to be one that recognizes the clash of rights. The absolutists almost always adopt (a) or (b).
For the record, I hope that Kermit Gosnell does not get the death penalty, because I'm unconditionally opposed to capital punishment. If he does, however, I hope that my pro-choice friends will explain to me exactly what it was that he did away with. A botched abortion? A live baby? How do you decide the difference?♦
To read responses, click here
Gosnell, of course, is the West Philadelphia abortionist whose clinic operated for more than three decades after 1979 at 38th and Lancaster, a few blocks from where I work. I knew nothing about its existence until Gosnell was arrested and charged with four counts of capital and one count of third-degree murder, among other offenses. Why should I? Gosnell's abortion mill catered to the poor, the frightened, and the undocumented. Not the circles I normally circulate in.
Planned Parenthood, the National Abortion Foundation (yes, there is such a thing), and other pro-choice organizations have jumped up to declare that Gosnell's clinic— with its unlicensed operatives, blood-stained floors and (nice touch) freezers full of fetuses— is an aberration, completely unrepresentative of the abortion business as a whole. In fact, they say, this is what abortions were like before the Supreme Court's 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, and would be again were it to be repealed.
Point taken. Whether Gosnell's chop-shop operation was a one-off, however, is another question.
Is a fetus human?
The Pennsylvania Department of Health stopped inspecting abortion clinics a few decades ago; since it resumed in response to this case, five of 22 clinics have stopped providing surgical abortions albeit for a variety of reasons. I suspect that, as in many other areas, you get what you pay for, and those who can't afford better than Gosnell will wind up dealing with someone like him in one place or another. Many poor women also allow their pregnancies to extend beyond the 24-week limit for abortions prescribed by Pennsylvania law, and thus require the services of someone willing to break it.
Which brings me back to my question: Why is Kermit Gosnell on trial for his life?
A 41-year-old Bhutanese immigrant, Karnamaya Mongar, died in Gosnell's care as a result of an improperly (and illegally) administered anesthetic. That's the event that brought his clinic to public attention. But that's the third-degree murder count against Gosnell, not one of the four capital ones.
The capital charges allege that Gosnell killed four— what term do we have for them?— human creatures exhibiting signs of life after being— born's not the exact word either— extruded by induced labor. Gosnell is accused of having killed them by snipping their spinal cords at the neck.
A felony, or homicide?
It's been suggested that this was a fairly routine procedure, and that Gosnell may have performed it hundreds of times. But only in four cases did the evidence seem sufficiently strong to prosecute.
Imagining this scenario even once is horrifying enough. But in what way is it murder if abortion itself is not? A 24-week-old fetus can be legally aborted; it's the exercise of a Constitutional right. If it's a day later, though, the fetus itself suddenly assumes a legal status. What's the difference?
Performing a late-term abortion is a felonious act, not a homicide. Gosnell is charged with 24 counts of having performed such abortions, but only four are also charged as murders. The fetus, then, hasn't acquired any legal rights as such at 24 weeks.
On the other hand, if a pregnant woman's fetus is killed by assault at any point in gestation, the responsible party is liable in the death. Is that a right?
A mother's loss
The loss of the fetus is a loss to the woman, hence an aggravating factor in whatever injury she has suffered. If there's an analogy, it's to a property right. If the woman feels the fetus to be an object of value, then its loss is like any other theft or breakage. If she doesn't, however, that fetus is merely an object designated for disposal.
Late-term abortions are generally forbidden for two reasons: They can be more dangerous to the health of a woman, and they can result, as alleged in Gosnell's case, in something that shows signs of life after removal from the womb. Does the mere exhibition of a reflex movement suddenly endow that something with personhood and the full panoply of human rights? Does it instantaneously convert abortion to infanticide? Is an aborted fetus a live human being if it twitches once?
For me, this is what the Gosnell case is about. Pro-choice logic requires its advocates to maintain an absolute, not to say a metaphysical distinction between a fetus and a human being, as if "humanity" were conferred only by the mother's willingness to bear her child to term.
I say "child," but that term refers only to what we may call "maternal preference." A woman who loses a fetus to miscarriage may say that she has "lost a child" or "lost a baby"; if it is aborted, however, there is no loss and no child.
If she initially wants to give birth, then she is said to be carrying a child; if she changes her mind, the "child" no longer exists— only an inconvenient condition requiring medical attention.
Just immature?
Barbara Ehrenreich, a writer I generally respect, once likened terminating an unwanted pregnancy to removing a tumor. Whatever a fetus is, though, it isn't a tumor. I can state this from personal experience, having been one myself. If you ask my opinion, it's an immature human being. I can't think of anything else to call it. Whether it has or ought to have rights is a matter for debate, but let's at least understand what we're debating.
It seems to me that we are dealing with a clash of rights here. Pro-lifers sometimes (not always) treat women as if they were simply vessels for bringing new life into the world. Pro-choicers tend to treat an unwanted fetus as mere detritus.
Unlike some other ethical questions, the issue is not just theoretical. At some point you do have to choose: Is abortion generally permissible, or not at all, or only under special circumstances? You can reach a nuanced position that chooses any of these alternatives, but it has to be one that recognizes the clash of rights. The absolutists almost always adopt (a) or (b).
For the record, I hope that Kermit Gosnell does not get the death penalty, because I'm unconditionally opposed to capital punishment. If he does, however, I hope that my pro-choice friends will explain to me exactly what it was that he did away with. A botched abortion? A live baby? How do you decide the difference?♦
To read responses, click here
Sign up for our newsletter
All of the week's new articles, all in one place. Sign up for the free weekly BSR newsletters, and don't miss a conversation.
