The Christian is the real radical of our generation, for he stands against the monolithic, modern concept of truth as relative. But too often, instead of being the radical, standing against the shifting sands of relativism, he subsides into merely maintaining the status quo. If it is true that evil is evil, that God hates it to the point of the cross, and that there is a moral law fixed in what God is in Himself, then Christians should be the first into the field against what is wrong—including man’s inhumanity to man.
The God Who is There, Francis Schaeffer
Thursday, August 26, 2010
“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.
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?