We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Sunday, September 14, 2008

Hickey for Choice? Left and Right Throw BS Flag

The estimable Mr. Epp catches the blatant irony of anti-choice Pastor Hickey's Church at the Gate circulating a flier titled "America's Choice." Says the flier: "Americans like options. We dislike being told what to do." Right—that's why Pastor Hickey and himself have dedicated themselves to passing Initiated Measure 11 to tell all women they are second-class citizens.

But it doesn't take one of us Lefties to smell the verbal fishiness. Right-leaning Matt of Agree2Disagree makes the same call:

I applaud the marketing department of Church at the Gate. It’s total B.S. but well done. The reason that it’s total B.S. is the because the Church is led by Pastor Steve Hickey. I check out his blog frequently and he is for choice about as much as Leslee Unruh is.

Not only is Pastor Hickey a major force in the Vote Yes on 11 Campaign, he is consistently using his blog to launch smear campaigns against anyone who doesn't share his point of view... [Matt, "'Choice' at the Gate," Agree2DisagreeSD, 2008.09.13].

The whole right wing must be reading from the same marketing playbook. Take a word you don't believe in—Choice! Change!—and adopt it as your slogan. Brilliant.


  1. I think the ones who are anti-choice are the pro abortion crowd. What about the choice of the unborn baby? In your opinion they have no choice, which makes you anti-choice.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    The anti-life/pro abortion crowd give no choice to the unborn when it comes to these basic fundamental rights our founding fathers wrote about. Let's talk choice since you find it so important for some but not everyone. Hypocrites!

  2. Instead of lobbing verbal barbs at Church at the Gate, how about visiting a service? Go see what they are bout for yourself. Your heart, spirit, and mind might just be surprised.

  3. betterworld: Come now, betterworld, nobody is anti-life. That's a silly word game.

    On choice: folks pushing IM11 would grant choice to a zygote or nonviable fetus at the expense of the rights of an autonomous adult woman. Interesting choice.

  4. Say, "goingfaster", I can't verify your religious background, but I'll infer from your suggestion that you're a churchgoer (do correct me if I'm wrong). So how about skipping a service and trying out secular humanism? Come see what secular humanists are all about for yourself. Your heart, spirit, and mind might just be surprised.

  5. CA: Regarding word games, the spin the pro abortion people put on the word game such as anti-choice is pretty silly itself. I don't know you at all, having said that I value your life as much as the unborn so as our ideas on this subject or probably polar opposite the value each life has is important.

    Your response to goingfaster I would like to interject something. I am a christian, I wasn't always a christian. Half of my life was spent as a secular humanist and the second half here is spent living as a christian. Nobody is "born" a christian. Many are born again in which I can only suppose you find riduculous as I once did.

    Back to the abortion issue. You were once an uborn fetus, a diploid/zygote as you say. You weren't a bird, a bowling ball, a giraffe, a butterfly. You were a human being regardless at what stage of your life. In fact when you were born you couldn't take care of yourself as you couldn't in the womb, but that certainly didn't make you less human and less alive.

    What's Ironic is scientist look for any form of life on other planets/space even the smallest microbe and they always refer to it as "life". Then we devalue human life by calling it a blob, a mass, etc. and view it as disposable. Now that is sad. What's next?

    Regarding the rights/choice of the autonomous adult woman who get pregenant. She certainly has had a multitude of choices before she got pregnant, she certainly has any of the rights you and I have. That is a non arguement.

    Inside the womb it's called abortion. Outside the womb it's called murder. It just doesn't make sense. In fact it's a double murder if someone takes the life of a pregnant mother and the baby in the womb. Go figure. Less human if unwanted? Give me a break.

  6. Sure, we all once were zygotes, and zygotes are life, like all functioning organic material. If I could go back to my zygote days and you could interview me (forgive the absurd hypothetical), I would likely say I want to continue living... but I would not be so presumptuous as to demand that another human being surrender her bodily autonomy to keep me alive. Just like right now, if I need a kidney transplant, I won't support forcing you to give me one of your kidneys. Surrendering your body to my service should only happen by your choice, not legal mandate.

    (And you might not want to go down the murder trail....)

  7. Steve Hickey9/15/2008 7:44 AM

    "I would not be so presumptuous as to demand that another human being surrender her bodily autonomy to keep me alive."

    It would follow then that we don't have the right to exact anything from a human embryo (such as stem cells) so we might perhaps be cured to continue living?

    Next thought... remarkably you see no scientific difference between a kidney belonging to one body and a developing human life which has a separate life and body of its own. To justify your view you forfeit sound reasoning.

    Does Planned Parenthood offer more than one choice? No. So they are anti-choice - in they business of eliminating a woman's options for their profit - and I am the one saying there are many options besides taking an other human life so hopefully yours is better. If this were put up for debate - technically pro-lifers are the ones who best represent choice. The word illusions are part of the greater deceptive underworld of the group you are a spokesperson for.

  8. Does Church at the Gate offer more than one choice? Call me when Church at the Gate offers Jewish, Muslim, and atheist services.

    Kidneys: the analogy is not between a kidney and an embyro. The analogy is about demanding that one human being put her body in service of another human being. Try again, Pastor Hickey.

  9. Steve Hickey9/15/2008 8:37 AM

    Yes we actually do talk comparative religions and teach that there is more than one path to take. We also give people full disclosure on where those various paths lead, and we let people choose. We just had two rabbis speak last month on the restoration of the third temple and in October there is a Yom Kippur teaching coming from a Jewish scholar. I'm showing documentaries on Islam and having my Native friends tell our people about native religion. You are welcome to attend.

    Read my stem cell comment again or the post I'm now putting on my blog so you'll see more clearly how your reasoning falls short. You obviously still don't see it.

  10. Right -- and practicing Muslims and Jews and atheists can get actual religious services, not just comparative religions talk -- every Sunday (or Saturday, or Friday, depending on the Sabbath of our choice).

    Kidneys. Forced servitude. Figure it out.

  11. I would surely have hoped you would have had a better arguement for abortion other than comparing it to "kidney's". (I'll refer my response to Mr. Hickey's response.) The baby in the womb should have the same civil rights you and I have, that's what I find "choiceless" about your ideology and others who think the same.

    What's so blatantly obvious is that all of the arguements that pro abortion minds make are really smoke and mirrors. You use the "choice" lie but yet deny "choice". You use the "rights" lie but yet deny rights.

    Give me a break. I'll certainly go down any trail you want.

  12. Steve Hickey9/15/2008 9:53 AM

    Where do you see forced servitude and second class status for women in IM11? It's not there.

    What is there is a slammed door on sex offenders who want to stay in business.

  13. Responding to CA: Say, "goingfaster", I can't verify your religious background, but I'll infer from your suggestion that you're a churchgoer (do correct me if I'm wrong). So how about skipping a service and trying out secular humanism? Come see what secular humanists are all about for yourself. Your heart, spirit, and mind might just be surprised.

    If you are a secular humanist, how can you have the spirit you mention? Are you sure you are what you think you are? I haven't always been a christian, but you know what? I love being a christian because now I know love, and hope. No wonder you are so bitter, secular humanists can only see the negative because they have no hope or love. Try going to the Gate, you will find both hope and love.

  14. "so bitter"? "only see the negative"? Hate to break it to you, "goingfaster", but you're painting secular humanists with a pretty broad and evidenceless brush. I can't speak for other secular humanists, but I've enjoyed lots of hope and love. If I didn't have hope, I wouldn't bother blogging. If I didn't love my family (community, country, etc.), I wouldn't bother trying to make life better. Do you need to imagine that people who have chosen different worldviews are all miserable, just to assure yourself that you have chosen the right worldview?

  15. Caheidelberger: Just like right now, if I need a kidney transplant, I won't support forcing you to give me one of your kidneys. Surrendering your body to my service should only happen by your choice, not legal mandate.

    Since you brought up the kidney scenario, I will "go there" if you dont mind. If you or anyone else here, in perfect health, went to your doctor and asked if he would refer you to a surgeon to remove your kidney, he may reply "why?, do you plan on donating it to someone?" If your response was "No, I want to throw it in the garbage. It's MY kidney and I should be able to CHOOSE to do that if I want to." Guess what, you wont find a surgeon in the country willing to remove your perfectly healthy kidney and then throw it in the garbage. Why?...two reasons. One, there is nothing wrong with it. It's perfectly fine. Two, there are people who need that kidney, and even if they agreed to remove it, it would be on the condition that you do not throw it away, but rather give it to someone who needs it. There is no doctor that can ethically accept payment to remove your healthy kidney, one that poses no health risk to you, if you intend to throw it in the trash. So if no doctor will remove this healthy kidney simply because you choose to have it removed with the intent to discard it, ...then why would anyone expect a doctor to ethically abort an unborn child. The kidney can not live on its own and never will be able to..no matter how developed it is. But the unborn child, thats a different story.

    The analogy you presented is flawed. With that said, If you find yourself needing a kidney, let me know, I will give you one of mine. And your right, I WOULD be giving you a part of my body, making that sacrafice and giving up part of my body. However, a woman who finds herself pregnant is not giving up any part of her body when carrying the pregnancy to full term. She is giving up a seperate living being who has its own body...who also may be willing to give you a kidney if you find yourself in need someday.
    -Jeff Harding
    Survived A Choice

  16. Jeff, you fail to grasp the analogy. I'm not talking about Individual A choosing to dispose of his own kidney. I'm talking about creating a law that requires Individual A to surrender a kidney to Individual B to save Individual B's life. You cannot pass a law that mandates one person submit his or her body to the physical service of another. Remember the 13th Amendment?

    I appreciate your willingness to submit your body for my sustenance. But I will not compel it by law.

  17. So your position takes it's stance based on you feeling a woman having consentual sex and becoming pregnant is involuntary servitude? Pregnancy and motherhood ARE NOT servitude. This has been argued in the courts and a court has yet to agree you. In fact, It has been deemed not only to be unsubstantial, but also frivilous by most of the judges who have heard the arguements.

    With your position, a parent should be able to bury their three year old in the back yard and argue that they were simply tired of that kid demanding so much of them and therefor violating their rights and placing them in a position of involuntary servitude. No court will side with that parent, and no court will agree with your "servitude" argument. After dozens of attempts, it has not been accepted by any court...and you are mistaken to think it will change.

  18. Focus, Jeff, focus: I didn't mention motherhood, consensual sex, or burying three year olds. The specific legal question here is whether the state can require one human to use his/her body to provide direct sustenance to another. Such a requirement (as enshrined in IM11) is slavery. (As men who will never become pregnant, you and I may have some difficulty fully grasping this concept, but we can try.)

    Note also that the state cannot mandate that I provide a blood transfusion to my wife or child. I cannot even be forced to surrender my organs for others' sustenance after I die.

  19. If the courts did not recognize the argument as applicable when considering motherhood, pregnancy and child bearing in relation to "involuntary servitude", what makes you think it would find differently when using the term "slavery" as defined in the constitution. Its even more of a stretch to make that term applicable and will be viewed by most judges as frivolous as it was when argued previously.

    As to you and I being unable to bear children and thus susceptable to not being able to fully grasp the arguments weight, I would point out that my opposing opinion to yours, is based on life experiences that you may or may not be unaware of. No I did give birth to a child, (boy that would bring another perspective and further complicate the issue,lol) but I did survive an abortion in the 11th hour. perhaps that is why I am able to consider the rights and value of the other life involved in this issue as well as the mothers, and you...only the mothers. The fact is, the term "slavery" doesnt make your arguement any more valid to the courts than "involuntary servitude". In fact the constitution clearly states, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    So if "involuntary servitude" is deemed not applicable or unpersuasive in the courts...so to will the term "slavery".

    If you cant recognize that an unborn child has a right to live or that life starts at conception, then how can you place upon the same child the ability to hold another life within the definition of slavery?


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.