One Simple Step

Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn are a husband-wife team who've enrolled in the battle they consider to be the "greatest moral challenge of this century." Ed Pilkington details their war on injustice in a recent Guardian article.

The outrage is "gendercide;" it is the subject of their book Half the Sky and the focus of their life mission.

"Gendercide," as detailed by Kristof and WuDunn, includes (but is not limited to) sex slavery, "honor" killings, genital mutilation, and infanticide. The numbers of women affected are truly staggering. For example, 60 to 100 million females are missing in the current population---a statistic the authors use to justify their comparison of this injustice in scale and scope to the slave trades of old and the Nazi Holocaust.

When the authors of Half the Sky encountered these brutalities firsthand, they were shaken by how "open" and "blatant" it is, such as police standing nearby as a young girl's virginity is auctioned off---not to help her, but to ensure her return to her "owners" if she were to escape.

The lingering question is: how could mankind do this to one of his own? How could men purchase women and become rich off of their sexuality? How could families kill their daughters deemed to have disgraced the family? How could those in power turn a deaf ear and blind eye to all of this?

WuDunn's conclusion: "the disregard of women as human beings."

This is a common thread held throughout historical injustices---the victimizer stripping the personhood status away from the victims, thereby justifying himself in committing unthinkable crimes upon the weak.

Consider the arguments of those like Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason.com, used to support embryonic stem cell research. Regarding fertilized embryos, Bailey writes, "we do in fact know that these embryos are not people." This argument---that the pre-born are not persons---is the one used not only to argue for embryonic stem cell research but also for the daily killing of abortion.

That, then, is all it takes---the one simple step to justifying injustice: dehumanize/devalue the victim. The victimizer simply needs to assert that the victim is not a "person," that she is not valuable. Once society buys into this lie, the masses will walk by in apathy as the victims cry for pity.

This was seen in the slave trade and the Holocaust. WuDunn and Kristof argue that it is happening with women across the globe.

And, most assuredly, this is what is happening to the pre-born.

Exposing Injustice (August Newsletter)

“You know, I agree with you. I’m against abortion,” the young professional said. “But, it’s a done deal here.”

The well-dressed businessman had approached our “Choice” Chain with a willingness to engage. “Can you explain?” I inquired.

“Well, it’s not a big debate like in the States. Here in Canada, no one talks about it anymore.”

I met this young man in late July when Aubrie and I attended a week-long training program hosted by the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR) in Calgary, Alberta. During this week of coursework, group discussions, film, and “Choice” Chains, Aubrie and I forged friendships and explored new methods of pro-life outreach.

What the businessman on the street told me, though, plagued me in a way unlike common pro-abortion rhetoric. It reminded me of the times I lived in France, where abortion is not merely taboo—it’s forgotten. It’s not that the pro-abortion side is winning. The battle can’t be found.

Today in the States, the fight against injustice continues. But, for how long? If we allow this injustice to become invisible, will it not also become forgotten? As society continues to marginalize us, we can simply hold our tongue and fade away into distant memory or we can seek innovative ways to demand a hearing.

Thank you for partnering with us to engage a culture growing in apathy.

"Potential" (July Newsletter)

Aubrie’s graduation from Bethel College a couple of months ago was indeed a joyous event. However, the celebration was somewhat mitigated by the anticipation of another milestone: the NCLEX Boards—the exam every graduate must pass before becoming a true nurse. Now, however, I am thrilled to say that Aubrie is not only a graduate but also a veritable Registered Nurse! She passed the exam last month and is now on the job hunt.

In addition to making me a truly proud husband, Aubrie’s experience has given me food for thought, for her transition from student to nurse is a prime example of a misconception in the debate for life.

Aubrie is now a nurse. However, prior to passing the Boards, she was not, and it would have then been inaccurate to call her a nurse. She was working toward and yearning for the day she would become one, but she was merely a potential nurse. Now, that has changed and she is afforded all of the rights of an RN.

Similarly, the “pro-choice” community will argue, a fetus is not yet a person. It is merely a potential person. It is working toward and yearning for that day, but until it is born, it ought not be afforded all of the rights born men and women enjoy. It exists merely as a potential person.

There is a critical flaw in this analogy: descriptions of what something might become do not answer the question of what it is right now. A stick of gum may be a potential chewed-up wad stuck under the bleachers, but that does not change the fact that it is currently a stick of gum. A growing tree may be a potential house, but it is still currently a tree. A teenager may be a potential college student, a potential doctor, a potential husband—but all that he could become one day does not change the fact that he is already human.

Some things, like statuses or roles we take on, will change throughout our life times. But, our essence as human beings does not change. The pre-born is indeed a potential infant, a potential teenager, a potential college student—but that does not change what it already is by its very nature: human.

The distraction of referring to what the pre-born may become one day can no more discredit her personhood than it can discredit the toddler because he is not yet an adult.

Who would have looked at Aubrie before she took the Boards and said that her being a potential nurse made her less than human? No one. Then why do we look at the pre-born and tell them that because they are potential toddlers, students, etc they cannot currently be human persons?

Could it be we are simply prejudiced?