Why Did Gosnell Sever the Babies' Spinal Cord If They Were Already Dead?
The Philadelphia judge overseeing the Kermit Gosnell murder trial threw out three of the seven first-degree murder charges Gosnell faced for allegedly killing babies born alive at his abortion clinic.
One of the most horrific underlying reasons for the dismaying dismissal is that Gosnell's support staff lacked the medical expertise to know whether a baby was actually dead when Gosnell cut the baby's neck and spinal cord. So Gosnell is actually reaping the benefit of having hired high schoolers and others with absolutely no medical background as his medical support staff. Think about this, the judge is actually doubting the word of people who made their living killing children as to whether a baby was alive or not.
One has to wonder of course why did Gosnell need to sever the baby's spines if they were already dead? Why would he have done that? Is it standard operating procedure to desecrate the corpses of babies post mortem?
It's worth noting that Gosnell is hardly in the clear. He's still facing four counts of murdering babies and one for murdering a mother. So this acquittal is not the end of the case. In fact, the defense is just beginning to present their defense. It's still not known as to whether Gosnell himself will take the stand.
But in general think about this. If Gosnell had killed the baby in the same way in the birth canal that would be perfectly fine to our current legal system but only because he's alleged to have delivered the babies before killing them, it might be illegal. This particular demarcation of humanity seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it? Is location really the arbiter of humanity? While legal eagles might argue that, only a moral idiot could agree.