My patience and sincere attempt to be understanding and open to RHRC’s common ground forum is about out.
Tiller, [Cecily Kellogg] 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.
Kellogg’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.
Sharks aside, I’m curious how anyone’s daughter would be “lucky” with late-term abortion, considering that Kellogg “chose to have her son half-birthed, and have his brains vacuumed out.” That doesn’t sound lucky to me. A daughter would be lucky to avoid that fate, not to be complicit in it. And it’s kind of hard to pay that favour forward…
Anyways, Peters himself admits that he might not break things down “perfectly,” but he does a pretty good job — read the entire thing here.