Jonathan Hielkema, a student at Calvin College, a Christian college in Michigan, has posted an article he wrote called Pro-Choice at Calvin. I'm not very familiar with the college, but it seems that Calvin College has failed this student, not just because they haven't instilled proper theology in Hielkema, but also because they haven't taught him how to think critically. There are good arguments for the pro-choice position, but Hielkema doesn't seem to be aware of any of them, instead appearing to content himself with sophistry and denying science.
One glaring problem is that Mr. Hielkema doesn't seem to be very gracious with his brothers and sisters in Christ in Calvin College Students for Life, preferring to refer to them as "anti-choice" (which is just a ridiculous non-sequitor) rather than the more accurate "pro-life." I would imagine that Hielkema is also anti-choice -- when it comes to things like rape, murder, and theft.
I believe that universities, especially Christian universities, should be hotbeds of intellectual activity, and people should be free to express their doubts and differing opinions. But they should do so gracefully, especially to fellow believers. Hielkema's article would be right at home at other pro-choice sites like Jezebel or RH Reality Check.
So how can I claim that Hielkema is deficient in critical thinking? Take this paragraph, for example: "Argumentation is not likely to change anyone's mind unless they are already wavering, but persuasive use of evidence and skillful storytelling are both useful tactics in defending abortion."
Come again? The whole point of a logical argument is that you investigate it, and if sound, you are intellectually obligated to accept the conclusion. Argumentation won't change a closed-minded person's mind, but someone who is trained to follow logic where it leads should be convinced. Then he says that persuasive use of evidence is a useful tactic in defending abortion, but one might wonder if he really believes this, as he completely ignores the scientific evidence that human life begins at fertilization.
He continues, "Facts, while indispensable, are not sufficient, and need to be contextualized and used to maximum effectiveness in an argument. These have to be paired with a strong ethical argument as well."
By this point, one might wonder if Hielkema is even aware of what the pro-life argument is. I'll give you a very simple iteration of it: Premise one, it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Premise two, abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. Conclusion, therefore, abortion is wrong. How much more of a strong ethical argument can you get than abortion is murder and murder is wrong? Here are even more arguments against abortion.
"For instance, merely citing the fact that countries with more restrictive abortion laws see just as many abortions as more permissive countries is useful, but it is useless by itself if the person opposed to you believes laws should reflect their idea of morality...If you don't have a framework for criticizing their reasons why abortion is wrong, you won't be as persuasive."
No, I would point out that Hielkema's argument criticizing my argument is a red herring, which is a logical fallacy. Whether or not making abortions illegal lessens the instance of them is irrelevant, because it doesn't refute the pro-life argument. Plus, notice how he doesn't even give us any evidence that his claim is correct. In fact, the number of abortions increased dramatically in the United States after abortion was legalized in 1973. Pro-choice people seem to believe that women can't be law-abiding citizens.
However, even if it wasn't true, and it didn't lessen the instances of them, it is irrelevant. Even if making rape and murder illegal didn't lessen the instances of them, it is still right to make the acts illegal because we have to respect human dignity, and those who commit these acts need to be punished. Until Hielkema can actually refute the pro-life argument that the unborn are innocent human beings and killing them is wrong, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on, to say nothing of the fact that he believes the very thing he is critiquing -- that the laws should reflect his idea of morality. There's nothing wrong with that, but Hielkema has not done the work of supporting his view of morality.
Hielkema calls the pro-life argument, that the unborn are human beings, an assertion. This would be news to embryologists, who consistently agree that the unborn are human beings from fertilization (see the linked article, above). Hielkema has decided to ignore science and any semblance of common sense, instead arguing that the unborn have no life of their own, but exist only with permission of the parent. First, the unborn is a living organism -- it has a life of his own. But the argument that the unborn only exists with permission of the parent is absurd. If we take it to its logical conclusion, parents should be able to kill their children at any point up until they move out and support themselves. This is simply absurd reasoning, in every possible sense of the word "absurd." Pro-life people are very much concerned with the difficult situations that a woman may find herself in, but these situations do not justify killing her child. For example, suppose a woman gave birth but when her child is two years old, she loses her job and now no longer can support her family. Does she have the right to kill her two-year-old child to make it easier to feed her older children? Of course not. So we also can't justify killing a child in the womb for that reason. Hielkema's response here is simply question begging.
Now in some rare instances pregnancies do become life-threatening, and in these situations an abortion, provided the child is not yet viable, is permissible. But a woman can not have an abortion in the off chance that the pregnancy may become life threatening. If she could, then we could also allow a parent to kill her two year old child in the off chance that he may grow up to kill his parents (which is rare but has been known to happen). Presumably Hielkema believes in God, he should understand that the female body has been designed (by God) to facilitate pregnancy.
Hielkema goes on to assert that some 5,000 to 10,000 women a year were killed by illegal abortions. This is a well-known fabrication, an outright lie that was told in order to get abortion legalized. But one of the pioneers of legalized abortion, Dr. Bernard Nathanson in his book Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 193, had this to say: "It was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did, too, if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?" In fact, in 1972, the year before abortion was legalized in the United States, how many women died from illegal abortions? According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics Center for Disease Control (as cited in Dr. and Mrs. J. C. Wilke, Abortion: Questions and Answers, rev. ed.), due to the advancement of medical technology only 39 women died from illegal abortions. Legalizing abortion doesn't make it safer, advancements in medical technology and antibiotics has made it safer (which is misleading in itself, as abortion is deadly to the child).
Hielkema really isn't even trying in this article to make a cogent argument. He uses the tired old tripe that pro-life people are sexist (apparently because it's not sexist to claim that women need to become like men to be equal to them) and racist (despite the fact that abortion is one of the biggest killers of people of color). But hey, when you don't have an argument, demonize the opposition. The argument that poor women won't be able to afford abortion while rich women will is another question begging argument, since if abortion truly is murder, then we shouldn't legalize it just so poor women can do it, too. We should make it illegal so that rich women can't legally do it.
Hielkema asserts that abortion is a necessity and a right, but I would wager he doesn't have a very good grasp of what rights actually are. Rights, as outlined in our Declaration of Independence, are inalienable and endowed on us by our Creator, the same Creator Hielkema probably believes in, and among these are the rights to life (the most important one), liberty, and property (the original terminology). No one has a right to kill anyone unjustly. In fact, a true discussion of rights leaves an unresolvable dilemma for pro-choice people.
Again, Hielkema's article (despite his assertion, without evidence, that the pro-choice position is more moral and correct) is nothing but an exercise in futility. There's not a single compelling argument that he gave, despite his constantly trying to hammer it in that they are. Repeating yourself does not add weight to your arguments.
Not only has he engaged in complete sophistry, but his position is untenable when you honestly look at the Scriptures. God has revealed that first, we are not to murder, and that human beings are made in God's image. The unborn share our common human nature as those made in the image of God. Arguing that we can kill those made in God's image, especially in light of Jesus' teaching about the Good Samaritan and how much Jesus loved and cherished children, is folly, simply incorrect, and borderline blasphemous.
It makes my heart break to see Christians speak with such hate and disrespect. If this issue was white and black, society would come to an obvious answer....so this argument (as well as his) suggests that one's opinion is irrefutable, which it obviously is not. There are many educated, intelligent people on both sides of the argument. Please, I beg you, speak with respect and love, instead of dripping with sarcasm and cynicism. That is what God calls Christians to do.
ReplyDeleteIt was certainly not my intention to belittle Hielkema at all. As SK noted below, my tone was not sarcastic, but crisp and to the point. Maybe it was a bit harsh, but please understand -- Hielkema is a Christian, so should be held to a high standard, and he is a staff writer at the college, so he should be held to an even higher standard. If he had argued from bodily rights or personhood, I would not have been so stern with him, because while those arguments fail, they are at least defensible. Hielkema did not make one argument, instead reying on demonizing the opposition (calling them "anti-choice," racist, and sexist), and we know what God said about bearing false witness. Plus Hielkema relied on obvious (and well-known) falsehoods, and we know what the Lord thinks of liars. We should expect better of fellow believers. No perfection, of course, but we should at the very least expect intellectual integrity.
DeleteI would argue that Hielkema is not a Christian, although he falsely claims to be. I deduce this based on the man’s own writings, not simply mere speculation, which can be found here: http://thelimitsofhistory.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/statement-of-faith2.pdf Unless there is another Jonathan Hielkema of the same age who attends Calvin College who posted this statement of faith, or the author of the Chimes opinion piece has recanted such profession since the time of its writing, then I do not see why we should not take this important worldview into consideration. If you read his beliefs, he asserts that Jesus is not God. He states: “I can say this: I do not find Jesus, the historical figure, worthy of worship. Of emulation? Yes. Of devotion? Yes. Of discipleship? Yes. Yet I reserve worship for the God of Israel to whom Jesus offered prayer and worship. As Jesus did, so do I try.” A Christian who does not believe in the deity of Christ is an oxymoron. The entire Scriptures and history of the Christian faith would reflect this non-negotiable in determining whether one can rightly be called a Christian or is not. His belief of who Christ is falls outside of Christian orthodoxy – let’s not kid ourselves.
DeleteThis is ultimately this issue I had with Chimes posting the article. It was published giving the allusion that the writer is a Christian who represents the College’s viewpoints. Both aspects are false. He is not a Christian, whether he claims to be or not. Furthermore, the Chimes staff has since (and rightly so) amended the original website with the disclaimer: “This is an opinion piece and does not necessarily represent the views of Calvin Chimes, Calvin College or the Christian Reformed Church.” Calvin is fully within its right to publish an opinion piece that does not reflect its viewpoints, but at least make that fact clear to the average reader – which they have now done. In my opinion, allowing Hielkema the platform to express this piece is not inherently different than allowing a Mormon, a Hindu, or an atheist who attends Calvin College to offer their view on the same subject. I would imagine that if the latter were allowed, the editor would note such fact.
JW, thanks for giving your thoughts. I didn't look Hielkema up. I was assuming he's a Christian based solely on the fact that he's attending Calvin College. I am in agreement with you, that if someone denies that Jesus is God, he is not, in any meaningful sense, a Christian since that's a core tenet of the Christian faith. He would only be a Christian in a loose sense of someone who follows his teachings (as Hielkema apparently believes Jesus is worthy of, despite the fact that Jesus believed himself to be God so is either a liar or a lunatic, if not who he said he was).
DeleteAnon, Obviously, you think you are right and Clinton is wrong--otherwise, why are you correcting him? So, while on one hand you decry those who allegedly espouse "irrefutable" opinions, you are quite happy to advance one of your own. Put simply, your criticism of Clinton is self-refuting. Moreover, how does it follow that because people disagree, nobody is right? Many educated and intelligent people once disputed whether women should be allowed to vote. Did that mean there was no morally correct way to think on the matter? Clinton's tone was not sarcastic, only crisp and to the point. He did not attack the author personally, only the ideas presented. That's what good argumentation looks like. Sadly, you seem to have twisted "respect" to mean that we treat all ideas as equally valid. Jesus certainly didn't think that way, and neither does Clinton.
ReplyDeleteMy own opinion that I am "quite happy to advance" is to speak with respect and love. I was not saying Clinton was wrong. I am stating that we should be wary. I have seen many of these online arguments from Christians, and I think very few would point others towards God. Also, respect does not mean treating all ideas as equally valid, but as treating all people as equally valid. Throughout this article, Clinton says the Hielkema cannot think critically, "he does not have a good grasp of what rights really are," and ignores any common sense. In my opinion, those phrases seem like a personal attack. I realize that this conversation is futile. I just want to encourage all comments, especially from Christians, to be said in a way that would lead others to God and his love.
DeleteI second the comment above. We should not focus on the writer, but the content written. Secondly, the words chosen, whether pro-choice or pro-life, should be respectful. We all have opinions that should be well and academically articulated in order to address the matter at hand. I highly encourage both the author of this article and any others to not go after the student, the institution, or anything that does not necessarily address the main content of what is written. That's just rude. We should only debate the facts or errors (if any) presented.
ReplyDeleteSK already replied to you, so I won't rehash his replies. I'm just baffled that these anonymous commenters are calling me out for my statements, but don't seem bothered by the fact that Hielkema referred to pro-life Christians as racist, sexist, and anti-choice. As SK mentioned, I did dismantle his arguments without attacking him personally. In fact, the only thing I can think of that I said that might be construed as an attack on his character was when I argued that he is deficient in critical thinking, but if you have read the article, you will see that I gave a very clear argument to support that statement.
DeleteAnon #2, I think what's puzzling here is that anonymous commenters make sweeping statements about Clinton being "rude," but they present little in the way of thoughtful interaction with his post and make no attempt to counter his actual points. Clinton's post was indeed academically articulated and well-argued. He did not call the author names, but rightly pointed out the many flaws in the arguments presented. Thus, he did, as you request, "address the main content of what [was] written." He gets high marks on this one.
ReplyDeleteYou write:
ReplyDelete"I'm not very familiar with the college, but it seems that Calvin College has failed this student, not just because they haven't instilled proper theology in Hielkema..."
There's your problem: Calvin College is a (fairly well-known, liberal arts) COLLEGE, not an indoctrination station. My parents are Calvin graduates as are their three sons.
If you're going to trash an educational institution, at least take the time to become familiar with it. Thanks for your consideration in the future.
I'm not trashing this institution, and I was being honest about my knowledge of this institution. I do know that they are a *Christian* college, which means that there are certain things they should teach at this college. However, there are certain in-house debates that they may not want to come down on, such as free will vs. predestination (though if they're named after one John Calvin, then perhaps they would come down on one side). So I'm not saying they should indoctrinate students into, say, a young Earth Creationism view or something. But they should establish correct theology (which I would expect at any Christian college) which includes a healthy respect for life at all stages.
DeleteChimes is the student newspaper, not an official/public relations publication. It represents Calvin College in the same way the Grand Rapids Press represents Grand Rapids, Michigan, where Calvin is located. The pro-life crowd went a bit far with this. Hielkema, who is actually from Canada (home to many Calvin students, who come mainly from Canada's Dutch enclaves; Calvin itself was founded by Dutch immigrants), doesn't speak for or on behalf of the college - he was just stating his opinion.
ReplyDelete