by Thomas Peters
I might not do this perfectly, but I think it needs to be done.
Problem is, if pro-lifers want to head East towards life and pro-aborts want to move West towards the death of unborn children, any turning to the center of common ground by pro-lifers is movement in the wrong direction.
My patience and sincere attempt to be understanding and open to RHRC's common ground forum is about out. What might be the breaking point is a piece by Cecily Kellogg, who describes herself on her blog as a "foul-mouthed liberal, feminist, fat, recovering alcoholic, mother, wife, woman and writer."
So what did this individual contribute to RHRC?
It turns out to be yet another eulogy for late-term abortionist George Tiller, and a defense of late-term abortions in general. Now, because she makes her case based on her own personal experience, I have to talk about that to make my points.
Tiller, she claims "was committed to his work." Why? She says, "because he believed 'abortion is a matter of survival for women.'" I'd like to find out how many of his abortions saved women's lives. I know every one of his abortions killed a child. But that's not fair for me to say, apparently. That's not acceptable common ground. And yet it is acceptable for Kellogg to claim that Tiller "saved" lives.
After this experience (she had her son killed through "intact dialation and extraction" she "searched and found other women like me -- women whose lives were saved by the late-term medical termination of a pregnancy. I also met women who chose to spare their children from agonizing healthconditions and birth defects by having an abortion."
... wait a second, Kellogg, you've jumped from abortions which aim to preserve the life of the mother over into abortions for genetic disease and birth defects. That's called eugenics. And who wishes to be "spared" from their problems through death? When she came down with severe preeclampsia - an "agonizing health condition" (in her own words) - would she have wished to be "spared" from it ... by death? This sort of thinking isn't merely unacceptable common ground, it's insane and inhuman.
Kellogg, in her ideological quest to eulogize Tiller and all the evil things he stood for, jumps more logical tracks: "... doctors only perform [late term abortions] in cases of extreme medical need. Dr. Tiller himself never performed a late term abortion without counseling the parents -- and getting a second opinion from another doctor. My doctor described the day of my surgery as the worst in his professional career."
Dr. Tiller did not only perform late term abortions in "extreme medical need." He did them at will. And what does Kellogg mean by Tiller "counseling the parents"? Of course he "counseled" them; late-term abortion is a major medical procedure! Kellogg's doctor might have had a hard day, but Tiller did this every day - he chose it. And just what, might I ask, is so hard about this decision, if Kellogg truly made the "right" one? If late-term abortion is medically "necessary", what need can there be for second opinions, counseling of options, etc?
Kellog's last sentence is especially deceptive and indeed,manipulative:
"My doctor knew the procedure and was willing to perform it; something that has already become rare and will be rarer still if doctors have to put their lives on the line to perform this life saving medical procedure. If it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?"
Quite honestly: how dare she say that. She paints abortionists as heroes who "put their lives on the line to perform this live saving medical procedure." However, medical situations in which the woman's life can only be saved by a late-term abortion are incredibly rare. They represent a failure in medicine. The answer to "medically necessary" abortions is to make them medically unnecessary. That is the challenge. Her manipulative "if it's you or your daughter, will you be so lucky?" is about as honest as claiming we need to kill all the sharks in the world because one of them might take a bite out of you or your daughter.
Finally, at a deeper level, Kellogg's argument is one of exception. And honestly, you could not find a more extreme exception than the personal one she describes. Through this exception, where she chose to have her son half-birthed, and have his brains vacuumed out, she proceeds to argue that George Tiller was a hero for doing this to dozens (if not hundreds) of children, and then she even has the nerve to scare her readers into wanting this "right" to be preserved for mothers and their daughters.
This is not common ground. It's a repulsive trick.
It's especially repulsive because Kellogg is presuming that no one will dare disagree with her because, by inference, she can claim they "want" her to die or would "be okay" with it.
Well of course I don't want her to die. I desperately want her, and all innocent human beings, to live. But I cannot condone her killing of another person to ensure the continuation of her own life. And I will not stand by and allow her to use the choice she made to preserve her life as a false justification for killing other innocent lives, including and up to those lives which are in no way threatening another person - such as the sick and disabled.
As I said at the outset, there are pro-abortionists who want me to move West, but I wish to move East. Meeting her in the "common ground" she offers of allowing late-term abortions, is a step in the wrong direction. It's a step towards death.