"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?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Meet a Baby Saved

Deeper than Shared Conviction

Out of Focus?