Peter Heck - columns - No Common Ground

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, May 24 2009

No Common Ground

In his letter to the church at Colosse, the apostle Paul warned the faithful believers to be on guard for those who speak with eloquence, but whose message is corrupt and evil. His purpose was, "so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments." It is becoming increasingly clear that as our country has lost its grip on its Godly underpinnings, and has forsaken a solid Biblical worldview, our ability as a people to resist this trap has greatly deteriorated.

Consider as evidence the reaction of many Americans to our President's recent remarks on the most crucial human rights issue of our time. In addressing abortion during a commencement speech, the President appeared to humbly propose attempting to find common ground.

"Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived." Does President Obama not realize how twisted of a statement that is for him to make given that his policies facilitate the destruction of human dignity in the womb? If we are all endowed by God with the right to experience the fulfillment of a life well-lived, Mr. President, why do you continue to advocate limiting that right to merely those who are convenient?

Yet media sources across the country had high praise for Obama's "eloquence" on the issue. To them I would simply point out that a steaming pile of excrement, eloquently presented, is still a steaming pile of excrement.

To illustrate, let's suppose I made the audacious suggestion that we begin allowing families to choose the execution of their dependent great-grandparents. These elderly folks are not productive members of society, they are a financial and emotional drain on a family's resources, and they drive big cars with large emissions, making our planet less livable. Or perhaps I suggest allowing families to choose the execution of their physically or emotionally handicapped children. They tried their best to provide for these kids, but they had no idea the burden they would end up being. Financially, emotionally, it's just too much for them.

Though I would be using the same logic as the abortion crowd, you would hopefully recoil in disgust at my depraved and inhuman proposals. So in response, suppose I offered to "find common ground" with you. How about a waiting period? You have to wait 30 days after your initial decision to kill your grandparents. That's more reasonable, right? Or we could have a familial consent law? You must have unanimous approval from your immediate family to go through with the execution. Better yet a post-birth version of the ultrasound law: you have to watch a 30 minute video of your grandparents knitting, crocheting, and watching TV before you have them exterminated.

Do these compromises make my suggestion more agreeable to you? Of course not. And why? Because you recognize that life itself is worth protecting, not because of what it can do, or how easy it is to deal with, or whether it's "wanted," or whether it's financially independent. It's worth protecting simply because it's life...and there is intrinsic worth in every human being.

That is why there is and can be no "common ground" on the issue of abortion. Waiting periods, parental consent, ultrasound laws...they all end up with the same result: "Do these things, and then you can kill the baby." To Americans who have grown up in a country predicated upon defending the defenseless and recognizing what even Barack Obama himself calls the dignity of life given to us by God, this is unacceptable.

Scientifically, medically, spiritually, there is no longer any question that human life begins at the moment of conception. And therefore we are compelled to defend it from that point, not find common ground with those who wish to allow its destruction.even if they make their proposals with what Paul called, "fine-sounding arguments."

Obama may speak with high platitudes and with soaring rhetoric. But if we as a people lack the ability to see through such eloquence and examine the content of what is being said, rather than the mere presentation of how it is said, God help us.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 06:19 pm | Permalink | 20 Comments | Email

Comments:

I have a tongue-in-cheek suggestion. Let's bring back slavery. However, this time we can only enslave the children that would have been aborted. Rich people can buy these unwanted babies for domestic slaves. Or "scientists" can perform experiments on them to help those of us fortunate enough to be loved? What, that doesn't sound good? Don't judge me!

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/25/2009 08:59:34

I'm disappointed to see such a slanted misrepresentation of an issue that so urgently requires honest discussion and real analysis. If pro-life were undeniably the correct position on this issue, then why resort to smearing the other side and killing the conservation? What were you thinking when you cooked up a scenario as vile and irrelevant as murdering our grandparents? It's unfortunate you didn't glean a thing from our discussion, e.g., how people are what's important, and human life is a term that is actually problematic to anti-abortionism as well. For what it's worth, at least you didn't go the full nine yards and call our President the antichrist. You seemed headed in that direction but you didn't quite make it.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/26/2009 03:01:06

N. Gavelis, You still have not articulated why it's alright to kill a human at the beginning stages of their life and it's not ok to kill them at a later one. You obviously believe it is "vile" at one point and perfectly acceptable at another. The point we are trying to make is that there is no difference. All human life has intrinsic value simply because it is human.

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/27/2009 07:12:44

Based on your writings in the last column's comment section, N.Gavelis, you believe that the baby is a 'person' and therefore abortion is wrong from the beginning of the second trimester forward. Is that correct? If so, you would favor legislation that banned all abortion without exception from the end of month 3 of pregnancy, correct? Let the humanist rationalization begin in 3...2...1...

Posted by MGM on 05/27/2009 11:32:29

MGM, thank you for being a better listener than Matt here. Thanks also for that suspenseful lead-in you gave me. Can I get a drumroll too? Now Matt, I repeat for the Nth time: people are people because of their ability to think and feel. Old folks think and feel - that's beyond obvious. Even comatose folks may still think and feel. Pete's straw man argument doesn't represent my position, nor does it follow from my rationale. It's just an ugly smear designed to outrage people like yourself, presumably so that you might take action against abortion, be it in the form of donating to a lobby group or maybe bombing an abortion clinic. And to MGM, yes, I oppose late-term abortion and would support legislation against it.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/27/2009 12:52:35

A couple of statements need to be corrected. Matt, I never ever said abortion was "perfectly acceptable." If you'd read my comments, you'd know I feel differently. Reading isn't that tough, is it? And to MGM, a fetus doesn't suddenly gain the ability to think and feel after 3 months - we're talking biology here, not magic. The neurological equipment behind sentience begins developing roughly 28 weeks into pregnancy, closer to the end of the 2nd trimester than the 1st. However, I'd still keep with the first trimester cutoff to avoid any possibility of suffering. Now let's see how many ways this post will be misrepresented.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/27/2009 15:05:05

N. Gavelis, Reading is not difficult, but following your reasoning is. I know you like to think of yourself as a deep thinker, with a nuanced opinion on the matter of abortion, but you are deceiving yourself. You have made an erroneous conclusion about what makes something "human". Pete did a good job of giving you the scientific establishment's conclusion that we become human at the moment of conception.

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/28/2009 09:47:36

Answer the questions that have been posed to you. When is it wrong to abort a baby? How do you know when the baby is "thinking and feeling?" At what moment does it become unacceptable? Is there a test that we must give the baby to see if it "thinks and feels" before an abortion can take place? Wouldn't it be better to error on the side of life if there is a point at which it would be wrong to take the baby's life?

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/28/2009 09:52:30

N. Gavelis, By the way, you argue that you never said abortion is "perfectly acceptable", but you are arguing that it can be performed in the first trimester. That is what makes me conclude that you think it is acceptable at that point. If we are talking "biology" like you stated, then all the biology is there at the moment of conception is it not? Just because it isn't developed to the point that you arbitrarily make doesn't take away from the fact that it is human.

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/28/2009 10:03:29

A quick point of correction, NGav: "Pete's straw man argument doesn't represent my position, nor does it follow from my rationale. It's just an ugly smear..." Contrary to what an overactive ego may be telling you, my column was not addressing N. Gavelis. It was addressing our President's position on the issue of abortion. His position is that abortion is acceptable at any stage of pregnancy (sometimes afterwards) for any reason. It cannot be a straw man if that is exactly what the man is arguing.

Posted by peterheck on 05/28/2009 10:48:58

Pete, my ego is not quite so active that I own a website in my name where I broadcast my opinions to the world, but your point is taken - my position on abortion is not the same as Obama's. And Matt, I've already answered literally every question that you demand I answer. Seriously, re-read the last thread. Also, by keeping with the first-trimester rule, I AM erring on the side of suffering being avoided, since sentience sets in around month 6 due to thalamocortical connections. The biggest point you've missed is that people are what's important. Personhood is a better standard than human life, which I've already shown is problematic to pro-lifers as well.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/28/2009 12:35:40

Maybe you should?! :-) I'd stop in and check it out...

Posted by peterheck on 05/28/2009 13:04:05

Thanks Pete. If someday I do, I won't register it in my real name (for fear of retribution from the legions of people I'd inevitably offend.) Also ngavelis.com just sounds awful.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/28/2009 13:27:30

We can't just equate everything with a thinking, feeling person when they are not. However, living mothers are indisputably sentient and conscious, and that is why I defer to them on this very difficult matter. I don't force my beliefs on them. Apparently this makes me a vile human being. You are entitled to your OPINION of the first sentence. Many mothers believe abortion is always wrong. Why not defer to them? You are forcing your belief on them. That's what laws do. Finally, don't women who have abortions suffer?

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/28/2009 16:16:42

How again am I forcing my beliefs on women? Last I checked, I'm for leaving the choice in their hands, letting them exercise THEIR OWN beliefs regarding choice or life. Yes, abortion can cause women suffering and that is one reason why the choice should be made by them. You appear to want to prohibit every abortion in any circumstances, thereby forcing your beliefs on every women, but the only thing I am prohibiting here is late-term abortion for reasons aforementioned. As for your 'defer to' comment, what does that even mean? I defer to ALL women, not just pro-choice women.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/29/2009 08:50:37

Matthew's comment reminded me of a similar comparison I shared with my teenager when discussing abortion. Let's say we use the common "we can't impose our views on other people," argument well meaning but confused Christians tend to use when it comes to abortion, on other issues. Let's say, racism. "I know racism is wrong, every once of my being, my faith, and my soul tells me it is wrong BUT I can't impose my views on other people, so I can't say anything to stand up aganist it. Racism must therefore continue." What would have happened to the Civil Right movement if this had been the stance of every person of good will during that time? We have to have some courage and stand up for what's right.

Posted by Tere Johnson on 05/29/2009 11:41:11

My point is that either way, allowing or outlawing abortion, is forcing your opinion on someone. Anytime we make a law or repel a law, we are forcing our opinion on one side of the argument or another. A law is saying something is either right or wrong. We can't hide behind the nonsense of saying, "I can't force my view on anyone." Killing innocent, human life is wrong, period.

Posted by Matthew Turner on 05/29/2009 12:55:44

Hi Tere, Pete made that point earlier. About slavery: it involves the abuse and subjugation of thinking, feeling people. Incidentally most antebellum slaveholders, despite being Bible-believing Christians, managed to deny the humanity of blacks, alleging them to be subhuman and unworthy of human rights. This is the danger of basing values on a word, in this case "human" - however obvious it might sound, it can be twisted and abused. I say define humanity by verifiable traits, namely, the ability to think and feel. Labels can be obfuscated, but the possession fundamental human traits cannot.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/29/2009 14:01:47

I know you're a Christian, Matt, but try not to conflate secular law with moral decrees - the United States is not a theocracy. Here, laws generally follow the formula "X is prohibited, and if X occurs, Y will be the consequences." You can view this through a moral lens if you want, but the American government is not a church, and it's dangerous to mistake it for one. Case in point: hardcore pornography is legal in America, does that mean it's moral? FYI, this is why the rest of the country can't stand the religious right - they tolerate personal freedom only when it coincides with their myth-based morality. Forcing your values on everyone else is not freedom and it's not American.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/30/2009 17:32:35

Just to be clear, I'm not saying morality has no place in law - obviously it has and it does - I'm just saying that each and every law is not a moral decree. To permit abortions is not to say abortions are perfectly morally acceptable, it could reflect the fact that it's within the rights of women.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 05/30/2009 17:43:22