Josh Benner

Tag: dailywire

  • New movie looks into Kermit Gosnell and his house of horrors abortion clinic

    Gonsell_Facebook_Banner_820x462.jpg
    I saw the new movie “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer” about former Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell who was sentenced to three life sentences for delivering live babies and then murdering them.

    For starters, I think it’s a movie that a pro-life person (such as myself) will like. And I think pro-choice people will sit this one out. I don’t know if I really see minds getting changed as a result of this movie.

    Given Gosnell’s low budget, I thought it was very well done. And while it’ll undoubtedly cater to a largely Christian audience, it’s not a family film (it’s rated PG-13). And the subject matter is difficult as it talks about abortion and Gosnell’s lack of regard for the lives of the babies he murdered.

    You have a man arrested for running an abortion clinic despite the fact that he wasn’t board certified, he had staff doing medical procedures who hadn’t been properly trained. He was working in squalid conditions. The end credits show a picture from the initial law enforcement raid with a stray cat inside the clinic. One of the first scenes of the movie features the investigators going through the clinic and finding body parts of babies discarded in various places, such as refrigerators.

    The man was a butcher. Late term abortions. Doing procedures in an unsanitary environment. Inducing labor and then murdering babies who were born.

    One of the things the movie tries to do is capture the inattention from the media regarding the story at the time. Ironically, that is also true of the movie. It’s not like Gosnell was operating 90 years ago. His clinic was raided in 2011 and he was convicted in 2013.

    Writing for the DailyWire, Matt Walsh points out that Rotten Tomatoes has just six reviews of Gosnell. Walsh offers a key reason as to the lack of attention to Gosnell’s story:

    Any case of illegal abortion will inevitably lead to difficult questions about legal abortion. After all, what is the substantive difference between killing a baby moments after it leaves the birth canal and killing it moments before? How can an advocate of unrestricted abortion become an opponent of infanticide? Any argument offered to justify late-term abortion must also apply to post-term abortion.

    -Matt Walsh, DailyWire

    I think Walsh is right on this point.

    How do we view what Gosnell was doing?

    Was he a crusader who was trying to help women in a poor community? That was part of his defense.

    Or was he a murderer?

    Was what he did technically illegal? Delivering baby and using scissors to snap their necks. Was it technically illegal but not really that different from aborting a baby a few inches further into the birth canal?

    Or is it murder?

    I believe that answer is clear.

    It’s a difficult issue within our larger society. When does one have a right to life? It’s a pretty fundamental question.

    I understand that many people are pro-choice but don’t support late term abortion (although it is legal in some states). But I think the distinctions people try to make are arbitrary. That a baby has a right to life once there’s a heartbeat or once the baby is viable and could survive outside the womb.

    What is it about those stages that inherently confers a right to life?

    From the moment of conception, a baby is distinct from both of the parents and a separate life.

    Gosnell did a little over a million dollars in this opening weekend. I would think the audience was overwhelmingly people who are pro-life. As the Los Angles Times movie review said “The film never loses sight of the choir to which it is plainly preaching.”

    Will this movie be a turning point in the national conversation on abortion? I doubt it.

    But it is a movie that shows these abortions for what they were: murder.

    Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear what you think, and don’t forget to subscribe! 

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

    Let’s connect!
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Instagram

  • New gender study suppressed because it doesn’t fit agenda

    pexels-photo-349494.jpeg
    I originally read about this story on the DailyWire.

    A recent article from a Brown University researcher named Lisa Littman was published on the subject of rapid-onset gender dysphoria. In short, there can be a social component to issues with gender identity.

    The article suggests the hypothesis that:

    friends and online sources could spread certain beliefs. Examples include the belief that non-specific symptoms such as feeling uncomfortable in their own skins or feeling like they don’t fit in — which could be a part of normal puberty or associated with trauma — should be perceived as gender dysphoria; the belief that the only path to happiness is transition; and the belief that anyone who disagrees with the teen is transphobic and should be cut out of their life.

    Brown University has pulled the study offline. In a statement from the Dean of Brown University School of Public Health, she said:

    Independent of the University’s removal of the article because of concerns about research methodology, the School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.

    So the article has been removed because: “conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.”

    So we must therefore hide from research because it’s unpopular and doesn’t fit an agenda. The research results are unpopular and what is necessary is to proactively seek out studies that suggest the opposite findings.

    Truth should speak for itself. Truth is inherently worthy of being known. If truth is going to be suppressed because it might “discredit efforts to support transgender youth,” then there can be no honest discussion on the subject.

    Similar posts
    Colorado baker who refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake now has to defend himself for not baking a transgender cake

    Parents allowing children to decide their gender: why?

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.

    Let’s connect!
    Facebook
    Twitter
    Instagram

     

     

  • Pro-life: compromise vs practicality

    ap,550x550,16x12,1,transparent,t.u2
    Matt Walsh wrote an interesting piece for the DailyWire today. He was comparing the gun rights advocates to the pro-life movement.
    Walsh argues that the pro-life movement could learn from the gun rights advocates.
    The gun rights movement has a different attitude. They won’t give an inch. Ever. At all. They treat even the most mild gun restriction as a tyrannical assault on our way of life. They won’t agree that any gun should be banned. They won’t allow for any exceptions. They aren’t just in favor of gun rights. They are radically, absolutely, unequivocally in favor of gun rights. They are extremists about guns. And I don’t say that pejoratively. We ought to be extreme in our defense of our principles. Every gun rights advocate ought to be an extreme advocate. Every pro-lifer ought to be an extreme pro-lifer. That is the lesson here, I think.
    -Matt Walsh
    I normally agree with Matt Walsh but I think there’s a major flaw in his reasoning.
    Walsh argues that the gun rights advocates don’t budge, don’t give an inch, and that the pro life crowd celebrates seemingly small wins. But the gun advocates have the constitution on their side. Pro life advocates don’t (in fact, the supreme court precedent is against them).
    So the gun advocates are on top of a hill and defending their territory.
    The pro life crowd is on offense, trying to advance the agenda.
    The analogy is really rather that the gun rights advocates are similar to the pro-choice movement in that the pro-choice side also fights tooth and nail and doesn’t like to give an inch.
    Walsh criticizes the pro-life movement for being too quick to compromise. What’s the alternative? Especially when there is such vehement opposition? It’s not like a pro-life bill gets passed and the pro-choice advocates sit back and do nothing. States have passed laws requiring abortion clinics to educate women on alternative options. There’s a 2015 law in California which forces pro-life advocacy centers to post information about abortion. The battle rages on.
    You have to do things one step at a time. And so conservative state legislatures pass laws that help.  Walsh seems to call that “compromise,” but it’s utilitarian, it’s doing what you can today to save the unborn. Will it save them all? Sadly, no.
    Just because you can’t save everyone doesn’t mean you should give up at trying to save anyone in the pursuit of saving everyone. You do what you can.
    The pro-life side should most certainly not compromise or flinch from the value of all human lives, and having a deserve to protect the unborn. It should not compromise from the reality that life begins at conception. It should not compromise that abortion is wrong, because it is taking a life. And the pro-life side should continue beating the drum and fighting for new laws.

    Josh Benner is the associate pastor at Cornerstone Evangelical Free Church in Fergus Falls, Minnesota and has a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He enjoys writing about faith and culture. He lives with his wife Kari in Minnesota.