“Am I killing? Yes, I am, I know that.”

A jarring admission (via Big Blue Wave).

The report focused on the Christian backstory to the conflict, and Boyd says that he prays that “the spirit of this pregnancy be returned to God.” The oddity of the prayer aside, it’s the same nonsensical twist of language we’ve seen before. As Suzanne says,

Did you ever notice how people who support abortion confuse the words “fetus” and “pregnancy”?

Pregnancy is a state. It’s not a being.

A fetus is a being.

Easy to miss, I suppose, when you’re busy justifying killing.

Partial Birth Abortion Demonstration

This video is beyond words (via La Shawn Barber). It is not graphic, in the sense that it used a doll and a sheet instead of showing a real abortion, but I challenge you to watch it and not be profoundly disturbed.

No wonder even the more ardent abortion advocates are realize that “choice” isn’t absolute (though some still think late-term abortion can be “common ground”).

Is late-term abortion ever necessary?

It is unfortunately common for people to be against abortion, but make exceptions for cases like rape, incest, or the health (not necessarily “life”) of the mother. It’s unfortunate because it’s an incoherent position.

If the unborn is not a human person, then no justification for elective abortion is necessary. But if the unborn is a human person, then no justification for elective abortion is adequate. How would the way in which a person came to be change the way that we should treat them, and whether or not we can kill them? These exceptional cases may be emotionally, psychologically or even practically complex, but they are not morally complex.

Matthew Warner offers his opinion on those who attempt to be pro-life with exceptions:

I think there are two explanations for these walking contradictions. The first is that they are not actually pro-life and do not actually believe that an unborn human being is an unborn human being. However, they call themselves “pro-life” because their personal preferences happen to align with that of pro-lifers (except, of course, for their exceptions). They may believe they are pro-life, but they are such because it’s convenient and not because they first believe that every human person should be treated with dignity and respect for their individual right to life.

The second is that they refuse or are unable to reconcile the conflict between their belief in an objective right to life of every human person with their emotion associated with a particularly challenging situation. There are no doubt some extremely difficult situations people find themselves in after traumatic, horrifying events like rape and incest. And certainly when a loved one’s health hangs in the balance, I can understand the emotion involved, too.

It’s not our place to judge these people. However, it is our place to stand up for any innocent people who may get trampled on in the process.

The good news is that it doesn’t have to be so hard for these people. Most of these emotional situations are made much worse because the mothers, and often the doctors, are very uninformed as to what options are actually available. On a larger scale, many who subscribe to these exceptions do so because they have been badly misinformed and lied to about the reality of such emotional situations.

Many justify their entire reason for the need for legal abortions as to save the life of the mother. They picture a mother who is faced with a decision: To have this baby and die, or abort this baby and live. Of course, even if this situation was entirely plausible, we are not justified in intentionally killing an innocent human being. However, the truth is that it’s not a real situation. It’s one made up by abortion advocates to maintain a shred of credibility in the imaginations of American emotionals.

Others make similar types of arguments for cases where they think the unborn baby suffers from some disability or will suffer and live a short life after birth. Yet again, these are situations fueled by half-truths, short-sightedness, and hopelessness.

There’s also a good debate in the comments at Fallible Blogma, but to dig deeper, check out the article upon which Matthew bases his post:

“Is Late-term Abortion Ever Necessary?“… sheds a lot of light on these difficult emotional challenges that so many imagine make exception for horror.

Apparently, painting late term abortion providers as heroes is “common ground” on abortion

Thomas Peters dismantles the Reproductive Health Reality Check so-called “common ground” forum on abortion:

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.

CNN video on mother who said no to a late-term abortion

This video (which I’m having trouble embedding) from an AC360 interview (via AmP).