Are You a Person "Worthy of Protection?"

A pro-abortion professor, Dr. Mark Mercer recently argued:
Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.....
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality. (emphases mine)

This reminds me of the mental gymnastics on display in a discussion between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Rick Santorum in 1999 on the subject of partial birth abortion.  Life begins not at conception, but when you "bring your baby home?"


Next consider Virginia Ironside who said she would "put a pillow over my child's face if it was "deeply suffering." The questions that begs to be asked is who gets to define "deeply suffering?"

Then, just for the heck of it, consider Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw who said that we all probably know at least a "half a dozen people who are no use in this world."  He suggests putting them in front of a committee and having them justify their existence.  And let's not forget his appeal that "chemists discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly...deadly, by all means, but humane, not cruel." I think a review of history will show us that Adolph Hitler took him up on that challenge.

Returning to the issue of abortion...Media coverage of the abortion issue uses subtle language choices to influence the debate; choosing who is a "foe" and who is a "supporter." If you believe in the sanctity of all life you are an "abortion foe."  If you subscribe to the belief in "abortion rights" you are a "supporter." Why would they do that?  Why are the people who want to save the lives of the unborn the "bad guys?"

To help us figure this out we need to remember that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, said: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it"

Maggie, as any good progressive would, supported the concept of Eugenics.  She had quite a few things to say about building that new race.

Mercer, Ironside, Shaw, Sanger...what they all have in common is a progressive world view and would probably refer to themselves as socialists or progressives.  Hillary Clinton describes herself as a progressive.  And what this means is that they all have a collectivist view of the world.  The individual is not important it is the collective that matters. I am not sure what kind of mental gymnastics one has to go through to avoid the realization that the collective is actually made up of a bunch of individuals, but I'm sure it is quite strenuous.

Ideas and world views have consequences.  If the world view is focused on the collective, it becomes increasingly easier to ignore the "individual" to the point that they become something "not human."  De-humanization leads to horrors.  History has shown us this.

How much has this progressive view infiltrated our society?  I would say quite a bit when we see in the news that Oklahoma House overwhelmingly passes fetal pain bill. We need a law to say it is wrong to inflict pain on a fetus?

Finally consider the Complete Lives System proposed by Ezekiel Emmanuel: Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions.  These "principles" include age-based prioritization of allocating medical care as well as a discussion of "promoting and rewarding social usefulness."  I think George and Maggie would approve. (And, for the record:  "Yes Virginia, there are death panels in the new health care law."  They have nicer names but the result is the same as far as I can determine.)

I am not ignoring the realities facing us.  I am merely asking you to consider the vast difference between people who have principles and values that say every life is precious and worthy of protection and those whose principles consider that only those deemed to be socially useful are worthy of protection.  Which group of people do YOU want making tough decisions?

What does restoring honor mean?

Image via Wikipedia

I started this blog because I needed a place to process and share my concerns about the direction in which our country was headed.  I was inspired by the theme for this weekend's events and the statement "Restoring Honor Starts Here."

I spent Friday evening and 4 hours on Saturday watching the events organized by Glenn Beck; America's Divine Destiny and Restoring Honor Rally.  Whatever your opinions or feelings are about Glenn Beck, please read on and share with me your thoughts.

You may have heard any number of things about this event.  That it might be a "pit of hate" or that Beck was trying to steal the message of Martin Luther King, Jr. who years ago spoke on the same site and said that he had a dream.  The fact that Alveda King was a part of this did not matter.  There are already many reports that are trying to find evidence of hate and attendees that have something negative to say.  I am not surprised.  I am not surprised that they found some examples of t-shirts that had hateful things to say.  However, what they are not showing are the number of shirts that said "Restoring Honor Starts Here" or "Faith, Hope, and Charity."

So what does restoring honor mean?  It means returning to the principles on which this country was founded.  Restoring Honor Starts Here means that it begins with the individual.  If we each try to live honorably it will make a difference.  A great source to find out what he means by faith, hope, and charity is found at his site: "Make the Pledge-40 days and 40 nights." This also includes Martin Luther King's Pledge of Non-violence.  This is what he encouraged people to commit to in the days leading up to the rally....and beyond.

If you did not see the rally you can watch it online at C-SPAN's video library.  You can also see Rev. Al Sharpton's Reclaim the Dream rally at the same site.  I watched both in their entirety.  I encourage you to do the same.  The Taylor Marsh article below may also be of interest. I do agree with her statement that "no one owns a calendar day" and "real heroes live beyond a moment." I agree.  The real heroes, those who have set examples of how to live our lives, live on in us all.  I do not agree with many of the writers other views and come back once again to what the definition of "hate speech" is.  She could not find it at the rally, although she tried.  She claims, however, that Glenn Beck's hate speech will return on Monday. 

The main piece of evidence for this claim in this particular article is the fact that Glenn Beck said he believed that Barack Obama "had a deep-seated hatred" of white people; that he was racist."  There is a Youngturks video at youtube that discusses this.  What a "soundbite" will not give you is the background and what lead up to this statement.  This is the smoking gun for many of his critics.  How can we talk about tough issues without this language?  If you see evidence through a person's behavior, their background, their past actions, and their statements that they are racist what do you do?  As to the video's commentator mocking Glenn's claim that he believes most Americans are color-blind, he makes the standard "what would you know about racism?" statement.  That most Americans strive to live honorably and treat others as they would wish to be treated is not such a far fetched statement.  To use specific instances of where people fail in order to paint a picture that all of a "group" of people are racist or hate mongers is destructive and keeps us from achieving the dream of Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is also a classic Saul Alinsky method.  Alinsky, who had no belief system by which he ordered his life, held great disdain for people who tried to live by some sort of moral code.  His weapon against them was to "make them live up to their own standards."  This was not a constructive and healthy challenge to help people live better lives, it was a tool to discredit and invalidate everything the opposition stands for.  It is pretty effective because we are all flawed human beings.  It is not difficult to find instances where we fail to live honorably.  Adding to this the fact that Saul Alinsky had not such constraints (the end justifies the means) and you've got a recipe for much pain and suffering.  Just because you can prove someone is not perfect does not invalidate every good thing you know about them. 

The other notable thing that Taylor Marsh does is to dismiss Alveda King's participation in the event by referring to her as an "anti-abortion activist."  Alveda King expresses that abortion harms blacks.  This then is used to marginalize her support for the rally.  I encourage you to research MLK's stance on abortion as well as the road Alveda King took in order to take a stand against abortion.  I would also encourage you to find out more about Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.  Planned Parenthood's statements as well as other views.  The Eugenics movement of the early 20th century is worthy of your exploration.

One of the most ironic statements at the Planned Parenthood site includes:
"...attempts to discredit the family planning movement because it's early 20th century founder was not a perfect model of early 21st century values is like disavowing the Declaration of Independence because it's author, Thomas Jefferson, bought and sold slaves."

Individuals who subscribe to the world view that is prominent in the pro-choice arena have on many occasions indeed disavowed our Founding Principles because the people who wrote the documents were not perfect. 

Is America perfect?

In answer to that question I share a concept that may be useful.  Some time ago, at my son's suggestion, I read a series of books by Orson Scott Card.  One of them, in particular, has had an impact on my life.  It is titled Speaker for the Dead.  The books and stories were enjoyable to read, but the concept of a Speaker for the Dead is the thing that has stayed with me. This concept arose from the author's frustration about how people were portrayed at their funerals.  Knowing someone's life story is important because we can learn where they succeeded, but we also need to hear about where they failed.  I encourage you to read the entire explanation but I share a portion here:

"...to understand who a person really was, what his/her life really meant, the speaker for the dead would have to explain their self-story--what they meant to do, what they actually did, what they regretted, what they rejoiced in.  That is the story we never can know and yet it is the only story worth telling." (Intro xi-x)


Glenn Beck ended his keynote address yesterday by re-stating that for us to move forward we need to learn our American story, successes as well as failures; find America's whole story.  We need to first restore honor on and individual level if we ever hope to achieve the dreams of our founders as well as the dream Martin Luther King, Jr. 

I see nothing hateful about that.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Taylor Marsh: Glenn Beck's King for A Day Rally (huffingtonpost.com)