Kermit Gosnell

The Difference Between The Marathon Bombers And Gosnell

Last week the country was emotionally ripped apart by multiple heart wrenching events. Of the multiple ‘bad news’ headlines that ran across our screens and newspapers last week, two stood out to me more than any other. While the tragedy in Texas was devastating to watch live and equally burdened our nation-it was not the event that most stood out in my mind.

No, there were two events that stood out in my brain and made me quite angry: the bombings in Boston and the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia abortion doctor. Or should I say, he was a “woman’s reproductive health specialist.”

The bombings in Boston, executed by the Tsarnaev brothers, killed three and wounded 180 others. It instilled panic and martial law in Boston for 24 hours and implemented fear into the heart of every American who watched their news reels.  The trial of Dr. Gosnell, the abortion doctor who killed dozens of children in inhumane ways, left me equally as angry but in a different fashion. The reason is because of society’s ‘tolerance’ of one crime over that of another.

Dr. Kermit Gosnell is responsible for multiple ‘botched abortions.’ He ran an abortion service in West Philadelphia for nearly forty years. Over those four decades, reports came from his office that would make a soldier cringe. Reports of fetuses stored in trash bags, refrigerators, and shoe boxes. Children were born alive and then had their spinal cords snipped with scissors of their organs removed one by one. Such treatment and acts are pure genocide and thus, Gosnell is unworthy of the term ‘Doctor’ in my book.

The other crime, the Boston Marathon Bombings was committed by two brothers-killing 3 people and injuring 282 others. The two brothers used pressure cooker bombs in crowded areas with the sole goal of instilling fear and panic on top of inflicting malicious destruction upon property and human kind alike.

Both crimes were committed with the purpose of killing. Is one crime worse than the other? One may think so. All perpetrators were evil-there’s no doubt about that. But the crimes had different targets. One was a crowd; the others were children. One was executed using house hold tools; another was executed using every day medical instruments. One was one catastrophic attack; the other was multiple instances of murder over 40 years. Both are horrendous. Only one of them was allowed to stay in business legally.

Of the sets of crimes, what were the motivating factors? The Tsarnaev brothers do not yet appear to be directed by foreign terrorists, but they did possess anti-American motives. According to the Washington Post they were “‘self-radicalized’ through Internet sites and U.S. actions in the Muslim world. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has specifically cited the U.S. war in Iraq, which ended in December 2011 with the removal of the last American forces, and the war in Afghanistan.”

When analyzing Gosnell, one has to wonder: what were his motivations? Could it possibly be he thought he had a purpose? Was he trying to give back this community? Can such a life of horrendous acts actually have a purpose?

Both crimes were dreadful, but you wouldn’t know that from the media coverage. The manhunt for the Boston Bombers attracted almost as many viewers than the Super Bowl. The media wouldn’t cover Gosnell because the incident exposes some uncomfortable questions about their liberal narrative. Instead, the media tried to justify them incident by saying that women “are forced to turn to Gosnell” because of pro-life advocates.

The problem we have here is that we have two horrendous crimes. One was clearly illegal, while the other was done under the guise of being legal. I’m not saying that the Boston Marathon Bombings were not insignificant crimes. They were. The problem we have is that we focus so much more on the illegal crimes than the technically legal crimes. What does that say about our nation? Are we turning a blind eye to a major societal failure? You would think that the members of educational institutions like Harvard and the progressive media would be screaming up and down about human rights violations, especially in the predominately African American neighborhood of West Philly.

But they aren’t.

This begs the question: which side is more concerned over these crimes? If one side of the media is covering both sides equally and the other isn’t, what does it say about the way each side weighs the significance of the crimes? If the media isn’t covering Gosnell but is focusing all of their attention on the Boston Bombings, then is it fair to say they value the bombings more highly than the trial? I would say so.

By the media’s logic, the coverage of Gosnell isn’t worth the value of air time. While I’m not saying that one crime was worse than the other, I think it’s worth noting that the kids killed by Gosnell never had the chance to run in the Boston Marathon.

Tanner Brumbarger (@Brumbarger) is the Editor in Chief of our sister publication, The High School Conservative. He will be attending college in the Fall of 2013.

Related News

4 Responses

Leave a Reply
  1. Dan Clark
    Apr 28, 2013 - 09:59 AM

    Liked your article, however did you mean?

    “I’m not saying that the Boston Marathon Bombings were insignificant crimes.”

    Reply
  2. raun bransburg
    Apr 27, 2013 - 06:48 PM

    I agree with the Op-ed completely. Gosnell is a terrorist and abortion is murder. However, who is this Christopher Rushlau.? he is the village idiot. He hangs out in this website and consistently responds to every op-ed with anti Semetic weird comments that are irrelevant. He reminds me of the freaky homeless guys that hangout by UC Berkeley and babble like idiots about every topic while smoking a concoction of eclectic illegal drugs.

    Reply
  3. Christopher Rushlau
    Apr 26, 2013 - 08:38 PM

    Here’s another essay on almost the exact same theme you chose.
    Note the rhetorical (a key term in civics which I’ll define as reasonable persuasion, summarized as sweet reason) points of similarity and difference.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/26/how-we-respond-to-different-tragedies.html

    Reply
  4. Christopher Rushlau
    Apr 26, 2013 - 12:02 PM

    Thank the Lord you didn’t mention Israel!
    I heard two stories, in the early 1980′s, in my hyper-Catholic period, about European views to US child-raising. A Swedish exchange student said to a psychology class at a small Catholic college I was attending, after one BA from Carleton and a year in Kenya with the Peace Corps (that, too, is a scam), “US parents treat their children like babies until they’re eighteen and then they throw them out the door.” A Hungarian woman in her forties or so, who’d lived here for decades, told me, over in Burlington, VT, in some Catholic-related context, that children in Hungary were raised to gradually assume more responsibility so that, when they arrived in terms of years at adulthood, they could handle the strain.
    Our educational system seems to seek to reverse this transition, to take independent-minded persons–your five-year-old–and stamp them into the shape of a “modern major general” by the time they’re twenty-five, all set to go kill a few thousand Arabs so we can all rest easy. Dr. Strangelove, a movie from about 1964, subtitled, “Or: How I Learned to Love the Bomb and Stop Worrying.”
    We traumatize our children to make them “emotionally numb” and intellectually tractable so they can administer this global empire of ours, which benefits in a long-term sustainable way exactly none of us.
    What are your suggestions about abortion, Israel, and the Constitution? What exactly is bothering you? What would you change and what would you keep? Whom are you addressing? Are you trying to persuade or intimidate? In a phrase, what do you care? What it sounds like is you want a job in the token-conservative rumor mill. The movement for “American” values (you mention “anti-American”) doesn’t have a voice in the US because its first cause would be anti-racism. The Carolene Footnote makes the very important suggestion that you cannot be said to have a rule of law if some groups are excluded from political power. If the system is racist, it’s not legal. The Israel movement runs the country, and the world, right into the ground before our eyes. That’s the main problem, given that this is accomplished without, usually, the normal imperial tools of bullets in the backs of necks, etc. Most of us go along with this order, because we’re afraid to lose our “main chance” on a sinking ship. “It’s not my job to keep the ship from sinking.” Right? Then whose job is it?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyrıght 2014 THE COLLEGE CONSERVATIVE.

Facebook

Twitter