Trust Women? (May Newsletter)

Just a couple of weeks ago, Aubrie graduated with her degree in nursing. We are anxiously anticipating her test date for the Boards examination, after which she will be certified as a Registered Nurse.

Commencement was indeed a joyous celebration. Never have I seen such diligence as was portrayed by my wife in her long hours in the books preparing for exams or drafting reports following clinical assignments. Indeed, graduation was a time of great rejoicing.

As I consider photos of Aubrie accepting her diploma, I feel a great sense of pride for the woman she is—full of integrity and discipline. She is a woman I trust completely. Oddly, this pondering reminds me of a statement posted weeks ago on the OSU GAP Free Speech Board.

The message scrawled on the board read, “The question is ultimately: do we believe women can make decisions about life and death and the nature of being? I say yes!” This idea has become a usual suspect at the GAP display, other times taking the form of signs reading “Trust women!” Regardless of its manifestation, the core idea is the same: women should not be told what to do in the area of abortion.

As I noted, I trust Aubrie. What does that mean? Do I trust her ability to grapple with difficult issues of metaphysics, morality? Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. She has shown a pattern of reasoning and clear thinking which makes such trust not a blind leap but rather good sense.

But, what if tomorrow she were to pick up a knife and tell me she was considering killing our neighbor? Would I pat her on the back, tell her I “trust women,” and then send her on her way?

There is no woman I trust more than Aubrie. But, if even she were to consider an immoral act, I would be obliged to speak up and remind her of what she ought not to do.

Why don’t we simply trust women when it comes to the issue of child abuse? Why don’t we simply trust men to use self-control instead of legislating against rape? In spite of the supposed “high road” taken by the “trust women” slogans, this is no more than the usual rendering of abortion as an issue of preference.

I trust women to choose what degree to pursue, whom to marry, etc. But, I will never give an angry mother a baseball bat and let her choose whether or not to abuse her child. The former are matters of preference. The latter is an issue of morality.

Do I trust my wife? Completely. Should that make me blind to what is objectively right and wrong? Never.

She's right...IF...

WARNING: The video below contains profanities (including the "F" word).

The disgruntled student in this video is quite clearly angered by the presence of the Genocide Awareness Project on her campus. It would be easy to dismiss her frustrations by the incessant ad hominem attacks or her lack of response to the pro-life arguments she references (such as her passing reference to the "size" argument followed up with the counter-argument that "it's all [insert obscenity]").

However, let's extend to her the benefit of the doubt and assume that the lack of clear argumentation in this video is simply a visceral response to the admittedly disturbing nature of the GAP display.

Actually, I'm going to go one step further and say that her response is entirely appropriate...IF. This outrage at the comparison of aborted fetuses to the the emaciated bodies of Jews, to the lives lost in Darfur or Rwanda is utterly appropriate and needs no carefully crafted explanation...IF.

If what?

IF the pre-born are not human.

The rant of this college student is born out of a very simple presupposition embedded in our culture---that those who are under nine months gestation simply are not as human as the rest of us.

Why should such myopia surprise us? Not so long ago, men were deemed less than human in our nation simply because of their skin color. Across the sea, bodies were being flipped into burners because of their cultural background. If we can callously kill a man standing before us, why should it surprise us that today we continue to kill the children we cannot see?

Given her presupposition, the response of the college student in this picture is appropriate (if profane). How would you react if pictures of raped women were placed next to chopped down trees to make a comparison?

Perhaps you'd respond with frustration, anger, too. Why? Because you believe there is a categorical difference between the raped woman and the tree. One is a human, the other is not.

This is the same source of the anger in the video, though the presupposition is different. The assumption here: the killed Jews were human, the pre-born are not.

This, then, is that critical question we must answer: what is the pre-born?

If they are not human, then the student in the video is right and those like me are committing a crime with their work.

But, if they are, then the butchering of the pre-born can be compared to the holocaust of the Jews---because in both cases humans are being denied their personhood status and cut down.