I’m in favour of lucid and even-tempered dialogue. Particularly on abortion. When a friend attempted this in his Facebook feed and was met by his own friends with swearing, I realized (once again) how it is the most wounded people who lash out when the topic is raised. And I have a lot of empathy for that.
But too lucid, too even-tempered is a problem. And that’s what you encounter in this piece about those who do abortions in the third trimester for any reason at all.
But “After Tiller” declines to judge, even when it comes to the demonstrators outside the clinics, who clearly have no idea of the compassion, moral inquiry and deep caring that is going on inside the place they’re picketing.
It’s time to do a little judging, when the procedure we’re talking about takes people, babies, and kills them when they are in a stage where they can a) feel pain and b) survive outside the womb. Either because they have disabilities or simply just because, the former being just as bad as the latter, in the big picture of life here on planet earth. (I want no part in the perfecting of the human race whether done by totalitarian governments or by individual women, men and families. I’m talking about the macro level here.)
There is a point at which even-tempered becomes cold and sinister and we see it here, I think.
by 
People judge. We do it all day long. This is not a bad thing. It is just the way we are. The individuals who claim to be non-judgmental are those who are tolerant of everyone who agrees with them.
‘After Tiller’ looks at late-term abortions and four colleagues of George Tiller. This movie and the journalist who gives us this movie review are judgmental.
They judge that George Tiller was ‘assassinated’ and the colleagues are carrying on his work. But, why use the term ‘assassinated’ as we commonly use that word to refer to political or social leaders unless we judge that George Tiller was a political /social leader? Surely the movie and journalist judge Tiller and colleagues as ‘noble’.
They judge that late term abortions performed by Tiller’s colleagues are acceptable because these colleagues have ‘compassion, moral inquiry and deep caring’. Not sure of the difference between ‘compassion’ and ‘deep caring’ but being redundant does not lesson they are great words to use to convince someone of the acceptable nature of a judgement. Moreover, one can find records of ‘compassion’ in reference to doctors at Auschwitz so these nice words are meaningless unless one is masking judgementalism.
Caring and compassionate, eh? I’m reminded of 1984 here, and how, if we are told Big Brother is caring and compassionate often enough, and with enough force, it will eventually be drilled into us and we will be. unable. to. resist…
I wonder how many of the women who experienced abortion at one of these late term abortuaries look back on their experience years later and remember care and compassion? Because care and compassion is not what I would be remembering if I had had an abortion. I’d be remembering guilt.
The person who reviewed “After Tiller” does judge and reveals her bias by referencing “the demonstrators outside the clinics, who clearly have no idea of the compassion, moral inquiry and deep caring that is going on inside the place they’re picketing.” What kind of compassion and caring person murders a child? And, I see no evidence of moral inquiry. This is absolute garbage!
And, when reading the review, I also made a connection between late-term abortions and Nazi death camps — not because I was thinking as a rational human being, but because a primitive gut instinct kicked in, and reacted to the horror of both.