Over at “The ‘progressive Christian argument’ for abortion in all its incoherence,” I wrote about The Rev. Rebecca Todd Peters, based on an excerpt from her book, Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice.
Prof. Peters subsequently wrote an essay, “In My Words: Trusting women to make abortion decisions is a Christian norm” in which she makes many of the same points. Strike that, she actually the same one point: ultimately abortion is, and can only be about, “trusting women.”
The College Fix is a website run by The Student Free Press Association which describes itself as “a nonprofit organization run by veteran journalists to help beginning journalists.” It is very pro-life.
So the College Fix, in the person of Ema Gavrilovic of DePaul University, reached out to Prof. Peters
with numerous questions regarding her pro-abortion philosophy, including whether or not she believed unborn human beings are actually human, and whether or not it is acceptable to euthanize gravely ill infants.
Her evasiveness is just hilarious. Her response to Gavrilovic?
“The questions that you ask…are very serious moral questions that require far more substantive reflection and discussion than I could possibly offer” prior to this article’s deadline, Peters responded. She pointed The Fix toward her book “Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice” for “a far more detailed and nuanced discussion of these questions than I could possibly offer in an email.”
What could The Fix do? How about offer to extend the deadline for the article “if Peters would be willing to explain whether or not she believed the unborn are actually human”?
Peters’ response? “As I mentioned, everything you have asked about is in the book so I think I will leave it at that.”
“Leave it at that”? What is “that”? Presumably what is in her book, Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice.
If you think about it, it’s kind of a circular—aka evasive—answer. If Prof. Peters can write an entire book about “reproductive justice,” you would think she’d have an answer, however canned and redundant, to the basic question is the being who is diced and sliced and torn apart human, yes or no?
She could try to filibuster by switching the question to whether the unborn is a “person,” which is a legal question, not a question of human biology. Instead she airily announces it’s all in my book.
And, by the way, does “reproductive justice” include “euthanizing gravely ill infants”? I’d have loved to have heard Prof. Peters’ answer to that!
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared in at National Right to Life News Today —- an online column on pro-life issues.
