Ok, so this is not a comment on the views of those in favour or not in favour of women being ordained to preach and minister the sacraments, but rather a comment at a frustration I have with the way the argument is structured. (I have problems with both sides at different times)

My questions is this... Some people see a major injustice with teaching that a women is in someway supposed to submit to a man (usually her husband or pastor). They ask questions like, "Are women fully human?" What they mean is that if you hold the view that a women should submit to men and restrict them from some roles then they are somehow not fully human because that means they don't have the same opportunities as a man.

So my questions is this. Why is it that our opportunities are the things that make us fully human? Is there a list somewhere of all the opportunities someone should have in order to be fully human? Does a person need to be able to walk or talk or hear or have access to a computer, or read, or be educated in order to be fully human? What makes us fully human? Is fully human even a real category? As opposed to those half human half horse men I sometimes see...

My point is this, I'm not sure the argument is or should be about someone's ability to be fully human, because I think that our humanity is not about what we can or can't do, but about who we are and our relationship to God. I really think if you take the fully human question to it's logical conclusion you would have to say disabled people are not fully human because they don't have the capacity to teach or lead others? Or that the poor child in Africa is not fully human because her poverty denies her certain opportunities. I am uncomfortable with that.

Does this make sense? Why am I wrong? Or right?