Skip to main content

Arrest of Abortionist Kermit Gosnell Reveals House of Horrors Built by Roe Comments

There are times when the truth concerning what actually happens in every procured abortion becomes obvious and the Nation is shaken out of its complacency. Perhaps the House of Horrors found in Philadelphia will be one of those moments.  What was hidden is now being revealed. The truth is what "Doctor" Gosnell did is no different than what is done in every procured abortion. The only difference is that it is hidden from view. Continue Reading

31 - 40 of 86 Comments

  1. AliceL.
    4 years ago

    I am disgusted that anybody would defend Gosnell and abortion. This man is a serial killer: he is the Ted Bundy of infants. He delivered infants and severed their spinal chords. That people would blame pro lifers for this man's sadism is beyond the pall. This man, Gosnell, has revealed the dirty secret of the abortion industry: that it does not care about women or children and, in particular, feel contempt for poor minority women. Gosnell was not as rotten to white women, by the way, as he was to black women. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist and so are the clinic owners. They dislike poor women and do not believe that a poor woman could love her children. I am not a Catholic but the bigotry from some people on this blog towards Catholics is mind boggling. This man was not a "back alley abortionist" the boogey man that we are warned about: he is a Main Street abortionist and a very wealthy one at that!

  2. JeanCatherine
    4 years ago

    Herod knew it was a threat in the womb when he ordered the soldiers to go out and kill babies who were under 2 years old.

    Do you think the soldiers killed mothers who were pregnant in this village as well?

    If this is so and correct then whats this tell us about life from this standpoint?

    Even if you dont believe in the above its still eventually a life. Who says we have the right to take life? We have scientists who want to say anyone under five can be eliminated if Im not mistaken. So where have we gone and what is this telling us?

    Kane and Abel were fully grown but God asked Kane, "What have you done?"

  3. Katherine
    4 years ago

    I must say the first half of the comments were scarey (full of misconceptiosn about the sanctity of life) and things got better, so I am glad I kept reading. I have a question to James who says a baby who is been in the womb is baby is not equivalent to a baby who is two month old (since fertilization)- If it is OK to kill one, but not the other, where exactly is the line drawn. Cause truly you would need an exact line if you were making a decision of whether is is OK to kill or not OK. Is it at 3 months? and if so, is there that big of difference between 90 days and 91 days. I think when it comes to making a decision to kill your baby - the guidelines would have to be pretty clear. Exactly what day does it go from being OK, to then being not OK. People that agree it is OK when this small an not OK when this small must have some idea when that ls crossed- right?
    p.s I am an engineer! maybe that is why I don't like fuzzy lines :)

  4. Beth
    4 years ago

    Oh, and James, to respond to another point in your post... If an embryo splits early enough in its development, it can indeed result in the formation of another separate human being. They're called "identical" (monozygotic) twins (or triplets, etc). And each of them is a person. Very, very different than, say, losing a few hundred thousand cells by trimming your toenails - wouldn't you agree? Could an embryo "shed" a random cell that did not have the ability to develop as a separate human being? I don't know - perhaps that happens in early development. But in any case, your example is a bit of a red herring, b/c the Church does in fact teach that human embryos are human beings, so there's no inconsistency as far as the Church is concerned. I guess I really didn't understand the point you were trying to make. I read a quote recently from a professor of embryology - I believe he's at the Univ. of Arizona, wish I could remember his name... But anyway, his statement was that there is no disagreement among embryologists as to when human life begins. It's conception - period. The argument is a political one. And funny how we can't "impose our morality" on other people, except when it comes to - for example - the treatment of animals.

  5. Bruce Barron
    4 years ago

    Is there a reason why my comment didn't make it?

  6. James Miller
    4 years ago

    Last comment for me... Sorry if I offended anyone. I came here by way of google news and the article reminded me why I have "lapsed" in my Catholicism, and had the reaction to vent a little/try and get some answers. My intention was not to try and belittle anyone, and I realize that our differences ultimately have deep philosophical roots, which won't be overcome by stating our opinions as facts.

    I just needed to express what I feel is the wrong approach (ie treating all abortion as morally equivalent) when, in my opinion, there would be an overall positive effect if focus was shifted from stopping all abortions, to stopping abortions of babies with human attributes. I realize that the frequenters of this forum disagree, but recognize that the disagreement isn't over whether or not murder is wrong, but instead over what could reasonable called a human.

    Once again, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, as my intention was not to troll this forum.

  7. Bruce Barron
    4 years ago

    Bruce Barron
    Now here is a man after Obama's own heart.Obama will probably pay his legal fees.

    As far as "Common Sense" of Jan19 is concerned this already looks like back alley abortions even now when they have been legalized.In fact it looks worse.

    Even if there were no legal abortions people would seek abortions which would be criminal and were so until Roe vs Wade. So called "Common Sense" argues that thank goodness we have legalized abortion because think of all the back alley abortions that are no longer because we have now legalized it.To argue that legalized abortion is a good thing because it did away with criminal abortions is not the reason abortion was legalized.

    The argument for abortion rested on the following:

    The court’s decision in Roe’s favor rested on two premises: a woman’s "right to privacy," and the belief that the beginning of life cannot be pinpointed. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority decision in Roe v. Wade, stating, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."18

    HOW IS THAT FOR "common sense."

    There is no such thing as an absolute right to privacy under the Constitution.And the notion that when life begins did not have to be resolved and everyone in other fields were as ignorant as the court,the court being more knowledgeable in these respective fields than the people who were expert in them, and simultaneously able to speak for them,amounts to gross negligence,fallacious argumentation,malfeasance of office,and intentional irresponsibility.It is intellectual pride and arrogance that is diabolic as are its consequences.

    What is even more important is that any State in the Union can overturn this decision in their legislature or simply refute this "mere" opinion of the SC or better yet ignore it.The Court's decision is not final where it touches upon State powers and interferes with police powers of the State.In other words,any State can prohibit abortion within its borders.

    The SC is morally obliged to review certain decisions but they can't afford to admit they blew this one and have the murder and blood of over 50 million persons on their hands.

    In conclusion a conceptus or concept that comes into existence cannot "BECOME" what it already is.Things don't become into existence and things always have names which are identifiable.

  8. tls
    4 years ago

    PLEASE REMEMBER: We have a human being at the moment of conception. Most of these comments just prove that we ARE a society of "convenience and wantedness" by all the anger (from the Evil One), bitterness (from the Evil One), anti-Catholic (from the Evil One) opinions expressed in these comments. I pray to the most BLESSED TRINITY...Father, Son, & Holy Spirit that they pour their unending love & mercy into into each hardened heart and grant all the grace of enlightenment that abortion IS murder. Satan is the father of all LIES!!!!!! Mary, Mother of Mercy, PRAY FOR US!

  9. Nicole L
    4 years ago

    Those people who perform abortions are serial killers. Reading this article makes me see or feel the joy those people take in killing those babies. They just cannot stop themselves, they did it once and it becomes an addiction, a thrill to see those little bodies twisted in pain until life is shut out of them. Talking about an egg is an egg not a chicken. It is true. All women carry eggs but when there is conception it's no longer an egg. By the way. why is it people will say I am going to have a baby even if it is only 6 weeks into the pregnancy but the pro-choicer want to call it differently?

  10. Beth
    4 years ago

    James Miller - A sperm or an egg are not human beings because they do not possess the ability to develop as an individual person. For the same reason, a skin cell is not the same as a human zygote, even though they are both comprised of a single human cell with 46 chromosomes. I cannot scrape my cheek, spit into a petri dish, and create a person. What distinguishes a human zygote is that, from the moment of fertilization, it contains a unique complement of human DNA *and* the inherent ability to grow, differentiate and develop into a fully-grown human. All it needs is the right amount of time and the right growing conditions - all of which is encoded in its DNA and therefore not a weakness or shortcoming but rather is further evidence of its very humanity.

    A human being cannot develop all of its intellect prior to birth. The brain remains relatively small until after birth, in order to allow for the passage of the baby through the birth canal. Again, this is part and parcel of being human, and should not be used as evidence against the unborn child's humanity. A baby's brain is an amazing thing from its very beginning, but a newborn has far less "intelligence" than a 2-year-old (the latter of whom has a much bigger brain and is much more aware of his surroundings and himself). Is this to say, then, that it would be a more serious crime to kill a two-year-old than it would be to kill a newborn? How, exactly, does one measure intelligence, and what capacities of the intellect are necessary to acquire before one is considered truly "human"? Like you say, these are the hard questions, but it is an incontrovertible fact that every procured abortion interrupts the development of a unique human being. Every single one of us existed at that stage once, and to deny the humanity of these "least among us" is the ultimate hypocrisy. To say nothing of our Lord, who humbled himself to become one of us, even being conceived in the womb - at what point did our Lord's humanity become "real"?

Leave a Comment

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment

Newsletter Sign Up

Daily Readings

Reading 1, Jonah 3:1-5, 10
The word of Yahweh was addressed to Jonah a second time. 'Up!' ... Read More

Psalm, Psalms 25:4-5, 6-7, 8-9
DIRECT me in your ways, Yahweh, and teach me your paths. ... Read More

Gospel, Mark 1:14-20
After John had been arrested, Jesus went into Galilee. There he ... Read More

Reading 2, First Corinthians 7:29-31
What I mean, brothers, is that the time has become limited, and ... Read More

Saint of the Day

January 25 Saint of the Day

St. Peter Thomas
January 25: Carmelite Latinpatriarch and papal legate. Peter was born ... Read More