« They Also Serve Who Do Not Vote | dan kaufman's Blog

On the Murder of a Late-Term Abortionist


There is something I want to ask the man who murdered George Tiller and all his celebrators and apologists. I put the same question to Bill O'Reilly and to Operation Rescue who both singled out Tiller for condemnation. I ask assuming it was no coincidence that Tiller was known as one of the small percentage of doctors who perform late-term abortions.  The question is this: 

If you believe we are full human beings at the moment of conception, why single out a late-term abortionist?  Why is he worse than any other?  If you believe we all have souls that deserve equal protection, what difference does it make if a fetus is the size of a roly-poly bug or an almost-born baby?  If late-term abortions seem particularly troubling to you, you know what you are?  A liberal. 

It is the left that believes fetal development matters. It is the left that believes that a fetus's rights grow as it does, that early on the mother's interest in controlling her body outweighs the fetal interest in having a place to incubate until it becomes a person.  When it does become a person, we then may put its interests above the mother's.  Figuring out when that happens has always been the left's heavy burden.  Drawing lines is harder for those who see truth in shades of gray.    

In fact, if you see truth as black and white, you don't have to draw lines.  Truth draws them for you.  The right is supposed to believe life begins at conception, period.  The right is supposed to believe it doesn't matter how far along the fetus is.  The right's heavy burden is holding onto the belief that destroying a fertilized egg by morning-after pill is just as wrong as a late-term abortion (or as the murder of a 3rd-grader, for that matter). 

The people who chose George Tiller as public enemy #1 are not up to that burden. I want to tell them and I especially want to tell Tiller's assassin:  You have admitted to gray.  You never stopped to think about it, but that Tiller churned your guts more than any other abortionist shows that, no matter what you claim, you understand that it makes a difference how far along a fetus is.  You believe a 7-month-old fetus is more a person than a 7-day-old invisible cluster of cells.  That's what we on the left have always thought was obvious.  

Finally: common ground.  But our stance is informed by what we know. Your stance denies it.

Deep down we're all scientists, which is only to say we all believe our eyes.  We may have hopes and dreams about how things go.  We may wish for a soul that outlives the body, but we're all afraid of dying.  We may pray to an omnipresent, loving father, but we all at times feel lonely.  Some of us may even pretend a two-cell life is the same as a trillion-cell life, but we all know it's not so.  

The man who shot Dr. Tiller knows.  And he went and told the whole world.  He killed for tenets that his choice of victim shows he does not hold. He would have done better to hire a skywriter to spell out in great smoke letters:

"I'M CONFUSED!"

If you liked this, please share it by clicking the "Recommend" link just below or by right-clicking "Permalink" and copying into an email to everyone you've ever met. Catch my future posts by clicking "Follow Me" above. If you want more now, check out my (possibly) life-changing website. Thanks for reading and for all loving comments.

 - Daniel Kaufman


7 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Excellent post, Dan. One of the most powerful weapons of the anti-abortion movement is a single word - "baby" - as in "abortion is the murder of an unborn baby". Dan, as you point out, embryonic and fetal development proceed through stages that start with something lacking in all elements of personhood as the concept is generally understood, and then progressing toward the development of these attributes, gradually, starting in late pregnancy and continuing through infancy.

The word "baby", of course, is designed to conjure up a mental image in the hearer - a smiling, gurgling, and adorable tiny person, whom no-one would wish to harm, much less murder. This is thoroughly dishonest, but with the following qualification. In my view, "baby" has become so ingrained in the vocabulary of the anti-abortion activists that they have also incorporated the image into their own belief system.

To them, a baby dies in each abortion, and that is why their convictions are so intractable.

user-pic

Not at all clear that they do have this picture of a baby except as a means to blame the mother. Something like 50% of fertilized eggs are lost in the next menses -- if they truly believed that this was a tiny baby would they not take steps to insure a Christian burial for the lost infant? At a minimum taking a pregnancy test before the menses were due to see if there was a fertilized egg involved?

Further, a right wing commentator near D.C. was arguing about the number of deaths caused by illegal abortions prior to ROE -- he argued there were fewer deaths than alleged -- he did not claim double the number.

Great post, except for one thing -- once the fertilized egg has developed into a baby its rights are balanced against the mother's -- they do not automatically exceed the mothers. In early medicine there were situations where either the life of the mother or the life of the baby could be preserved -- Catholic doctrine and practice was to let the woman die and save the baby.

user-pic

Dear Dan,

Actually, the guy I killed was on my local television news all the time spouting off about how he was doing good for all those women. Making it sound like he was doing God's work. Well, I said to myself, you're not going to be spouting off on T.V. much longer -- and he won't.

So don't go getting all religiophilosophical on me, because if you really want to know the truth -- the guy really, and I mean really, pissed me off.

Your friend,

Scott

user-pic

If you ever visit the Army of God website, you'll see what motivates these domestic terrorists. Using a great deal of imagination but little skill, photoshopped pictures of late term 'aborted babies' are shown on every page. Obviously pictures of massacred cells would not have the same impact.

However, while I get your point, there are several issues that need refining in your post. While the wingnuts would dearly love to see "fetal rights and interests" included in abortion discussions, they don't actually exist or belong in pro choice discussions. Abortion laws themselves are made with a view of the state's interests and rights in "protecting" women and "potential life".

Also, rather than using the word "person" for a later term fetus, it is much more helpful to just go with viable or viability, in order to protect rights that belong to a born person versus an unborn fetus, which doesn't have any. But more importantly, so far the "interests" of the fetus have not been given more importance than the health of the mother. The partial birth ban outlaws a certain procedure in late term abortions, but not late term abortions themselves.

Finally, it's not that the left recognizes the difference between a 7 day old cluster of cells and a 30 week fetus that is a deciding factor in late term abortions. Most of them are done because of gross fetal abnormalities or because the woman's health is truly in danger. A Heartbreaking Choice shows the true reality of these abortions and why they need to be kept legal.

user-pic

Thanks for this very thoughtful and carefully written article. I have been thinking about this subject a lot lately but haven't had the desire to post about it.

However, there is no reason to abort a viable fetus. Third trimester elective abortions are wrong. If you got raped, you had 23 weeks to get an abortion. I don't see any stories on that "Heartbreaking Choice" website that justify a third trimester abortion. Aborting a third trimester fetus is euthanasia, and euthanasia is not legal in this country (although that is another debate). If the mother's life is in danger, then do a cesarean section and let the child die of natural causes. Withholding futile treatment of a terminal condition is generally acceptable in western medical ethics.

I am so sick and tired of the abortion debate. I think the extremists on both sides of this debate are wrong.

user-pic

Dan, I enjoyed your writing as it was thought provoking. My only critique and I'm not sure if you did this on purpose as showing the misinformed position on the morning after pill, but the egg is not fertilized when you take Plan B. In fact, it says if you are pregnant the pill does not abort the pregnancy. It prevents the ovaries from releasing an egg and therefore it is never fertilized. There is an abortion pill, Mifeprex which actually terminates the developing fertilized egg that has attached to the uterine wall. But the morning after pill, does not, in fact it's very similar to birth control. The reason I bring this up, is because American Life League has decided to start protesting birth control pills citing they kill – “The Pill Kills”. But they do not, technically. But who cares about technicalities, right?

user-pic

Thanks for the kinds words, Jennie. I just double-checked on fda.gov. While the morning-after pill primarily works as you describe, and it won't abort an implanted fertilized egg, "Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation)." So technically it's perfectly fair to say the pill kills. Anyway, didn't you know that rhyming logic is always unassailable?

Leave a comment

dan kaufman

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 4

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address