By Dave Andrusko
For the last post of the day, I’d like to briefly talk about what TIME magazine’s selection as “Person of the Year” says to us. Their choice—and who could argue?—are the Ebola Fighters.
As I’ve written many times, TIME editor Nancy Gibbs is among the most graceful writers of our times. Here’s the beginning and the conclusion to her essay explaining why the magazine choose those brave, brave souls who risked their lives:
Not the glittering weapon fights the fight, says the proverb, but rather the hero’s heart.
Maybe this is true in any battle; it is surely true of a war that is waged with bleach and a prayer. ….
Ebola is a war, and a warning. The global health system is nowhere close to strong enough to keep us safe from infectious disease, and “us” means everyone, not just those in faraway places where this is one threat among many that claim lives every day. The rest of the world can sleep at night because a group of men and women are willing to stand and fight. For tireless acts of courage and mercy, for buying the world time to boost its defenses, for risking, for persisting, for sacrificing and saving, the Ebola fighters are TIME’s 2014 Person of the Year.
Just two comments. When we fight for the unborn and the medically fragile elderly, I fully understand it is not our lives that are at risk but theirs. But that does not change that as you fight peacefully, using legal means, to goad consciences out of a cloud of indifference and confusion, you are genuine heroes and heroines.
Second, pro-lifers operate on a series of premises undergirded by an abiding faith in the better angels of the American people. We believe that without our millions of individual contributions, the night would have long since fallen. Without the prodding that your faithfulness provides, the public would largely have accommodated itself to the casual slaughter.
Click here to read the December issue of
National Right to Life News,
the “pro-life newspaper of record.”
Without your witness, the prediction/hope/secular prayer of the New York Times editorial board, writing two days after Roe was handed down, would likely have come true:
The Courts seven-to-two ruling could bring to an end the emotional and divisive public argument over what always should have been an intensely private and personal matter.
As if the elimination of over 56 million unborn children could ever be reduced to merely “an intensely private and personal matter.” But it could have, without you.
You are willing to stand and fight—peacefully, legally, and with love for mother and child—day in and day out, year in and year out, decade in and decade out. And because of unswerving devotion you are buying our nation the time it needs to discover that it took a terrible turn nearly 42 years ago.
For all that and more, you are my Person of the Year, this year and every year.