College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Archbishop’s speech omits one key group: unborn babies

Published: Thursday, February 25, 2010

Updated: Thursday, February 25, 2010

    Dear Archbishop,
    I sat in the RSEC, simply as a member of that generation in which you have hope. This time of youth is as empowering as you described. My heart cheered for you at your praise. Thank you.
    You described the work of my generation - giving, saving lives, supporting those most in need. It is all true. What about those that my generation is helping?
    They are people whose humanity has been utterly neglected. Their real names, “brother and sister,” have been replaced with any title that lessens their human identity. They suffer, and so do we when we do nothing to lift them up.
    You called out the evil that lies to the world and declares people to be less than human. You called the evil by name - ageism, sexism, racism, homophobia, elitism.
    All people underestimated, hated and reduced to base creatures by these poisonous movements are to be once again recognized as humans, deserving of dignity. All was well within me, and yet ...
    Your words, though both wise and endearing, are but words now to me. Once again, there is someone who has been left out. Crestfallen - that is my state. The denial of humanity continues. Do you not know? In all your venerable work and humanitarianism, you too have forgotten another of our brothers and sisters.
    Hungry children, thirsty children, suffering children - none of them deserve their fate. In fact, they all deserve the help and protection of those with strength and means. Pre-born children - where do they fall? Is their fate any less of a responsibility of those with strength and means?
    Now, you did not deny the humanity of pre-born children, but you did not affirm it. Instead, you chose to blanket all those opposed to their destruction as people “willing to kill” for this cause. The fanaticism of a few wayward activists does not equate to the undeniable intentions of the Nazi Holocaust or the Ku Klux Klan. Yet, why did you place them in the same context?
    This young person’s heart sank deeply at your words. This young person, whom you praised for idealism, has only to live up to that. This young person is willing to work, engage, speak, defend and persist until all humanity is confessed. There are others much better than I who do the same. You did much the same yourself, no?
    Why do you not open wide the doors to all? Why must we continue to work all the longer to regain the worth of all?
    There are idealist young people who dream and strive for a day to come. On that day, someone will be asked to speak to the people, much like you, Archbishop. They will speak about these times we live for now. They will talk about the betrayal of human beings by their own kind, and the audience will be stunned within themselves, wondering how it could have been so.
    Yet, they will smile to hear the words of conviction that give full dignity to ALL PEOPLE. Hearts will rise as those recognized will include the poor, the hungry, women, men, the elderly, the suffering, those different, the dying, the stranger and those who live within the womb of their mother.
    No one will be omitted, excluded, denied, discounted or deemed unworthy. They will speak great truths, and the crowd will cheer without reserve.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

11 comments Log in to Comment

Kate Kohl
Sat Mar 6 2010 00:09
Good grief! How in the world are college students STILL going on about an issue that was settled 40 years ago? Get over it already!
Justin
Tue Mar 2 2010 21:22
Casey, I was the anonymous poster directly below you. I managed to skip the name section and was labeled anonymous.

I don't assume that everyone agrees with me on this issue. Some people may call me a Bible thumper, but I formed my opinion on the beginnings of life from science rather than the Bible. At the zygote stage (single cell) your DNA was unique and different from your parents. Your various systems and organs began to form from that point. You can read the timeline in a science text.

Life isn't the only area where you will find a lack of agreement. Hitler considered Jews expendable. Slave owners considered blacks to be less than a white person. The point is we should all stand for what we believe is right. Keeping silent when you see injustice is simply not right. Someone will dictate what society considers to be right. In the case of life do you really want the abortion providers to make that call considering they stand to do well financially off ending life?

Archbishop Tutu made this discussion fair game when he insinuated that pro-lifers are killers. Equating abortion opponents with killers makes as much sense as calling someone a racist who works for racial equality. At one time American society thought nothing about treating blacks like livestock and more recently as unworthy of using the same things that whites used. Now we look back, hopefully, on that mindset as being ignorant and wrong. At some point civilization will hopefully reach the point where we will hold babies in utero as persons of value. Until then I am satisfied with being humane and valuing life at both ends of the spectrum.

Casey
Tue Mar 2 2010 01:42
Here: "If you deprive a person of their right to life no other right is worth much. "
And here: "That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about his 'give or take' respect for the lives of pre-born persons"

Anonymous assumes all agree with his or her idea of what constitutes life. To Anonymous, I ASSUME, conception equates life, but once again this is assumably just an assumption of Anonymous. Anonymous is probably what one would consider a "Bible thumper," but once again not all people, even Christians, hold this idea to be true. You are part of a minority around the world who believe that these "pre-born" are legitimately people already.
I myself am a Christian, but I don't believe that Christians can push their beliefs on those who don't believe in our morals. Christians simply cannot say, "This is right, because it's what I believe, and thus you also must live by it despite your lack of belief." We, as Christians, cannot expect those who don't believe to live up to "Christian morals" when we are divided amongst ourselves to this issue.

Anonymous states that Desmond Tutu cannot possibly respect all life the same, but once again not everyone is in concurrence with when life begins. I would like to state as well that Desmond Tutu never laid claim to perfection, and that is what it would take to 'respect all life the same.' No one respects all life the same.

Yes, this letter consists of Reding's opinion, and she has every right to voice it, especially in the Opinions section of the Murray State News. I, however, also have a right to voice my opinion via lovely text response, and I simply cannot justify your criticism of someone who has dedicated his life to humanitarian efforts solely because of his lack of pro-life agenda.

Fight your own fight for the pro-life campaign; don't bring down others while trying to do that.

If I have inferred your meaning incorrectly at all, I apologize.

Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 00:58
Actually Tutu in his speech labeled those who speak against abortion as willing killers. At this point I lost respect for this man. While it is true that a few people have killed a few abortion doctors; it is also true that the nation's abortion doctors have killed millions of babies. If you deprive a person of their right to life no other right is worth much.

Desmond Tutu made abortion an issue when he interjected that cheapshot into his speech. By time his speech was over he had wandered all over the world. He, not this letter writer, chose the topics he was going to mention.

Anonymous
Tue Mar 2 2010 00:51
Desmond Tutu openly supports Planned Parenthood, a business that thrives financially off of abortion. That, in and of itself, speaks volumes about his 'give or take' respect for the lives of pre-born persons. It's not that he didn't talk about them, but if he had, what could he have said that would have fit into the way he was uplifting other oppressed people? His speech that night doesn't take away that fact in the real world, he does not respect all life the same. That allows for some questioning, no matter who you are.
Casey
Mon Mar 1 2010 23:29
I found this to be a very well put together piece of writing, although it reads a bit "holier art I than thou" and "let me pull out my thesaurus." Crestfallen, really? Regardless, the actual letter format somehow seems fitting.

Yes, this is your opinion, Ms. Mary Reding, but it is also an agenda, an agenda which Archbishop Tutu did not find fitting to mention excessively in his speech as you would have him do. He has not forgotten these unborn, but in his own culture it is probably not as big of an issue as we US-Americans make it out to be. Thus you, despite all his humanitarian work, decide to criticize him on one issue, because he has not found time for those unborn amongst all his incredible work to help those who have been born. Well, good for you, because you found one way to criticize Desmond Tutu.

If you feel the need to promote your pro-life agenda, then do that freely, but you do not have to bring down another person in order to do that. He has devoted his life to his own causes and not yours. For that he is beyond your criticism.

Anonymous
Sun Feb 28 2010 20:07
His speech was about reconciliation. Abortion didn't really fit within that topic. You can't expect someone to address every single issue on each person's mind in one speech.
Anonymous
Sun Feb 28 2010 19:00
It wasn't just one girl. And he is pro-choice. This is what she was addressing. Many, many people agree with her about his speech. just not you. hence why this was put in the "opinion" section.
Sara
Fri Feb 26 2010 23:27
Pro life vs.pro choice is another agenda if you ask me.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 22:22
Pre-born babies are not an agenda. They are people.
Anonymous
Fri Feb 26 2010 14:26
"Your words, though both wise and endearing, are but words now to me." His powerful speech were but words to her because he did not mention unborn babies??!?!?! That is very dramatic and very sad that this girls limited perspective will not allow his strong words to resonate because he did not metnion unborn babies. I cannot believe a letter like the was published in the newspaper just because one girl did not feel like HER agenda was being addressed.

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In