Abstract painting of a person by Paul Klee

I’ve been thinking about the idea of personhood a lot lately. Last summer, there was some election-year debate about whether corporations are people. This summer, the issue is abortion, where people of good will can’t agree on when personhood–and the rights that go with it–begins.

There are different ways to define a person–theologically, morally, legally–and it is possible to hold multiple views depending on your purpose. For instance, you can hold on theological grounds that a person is a single, natural human being created by God and, at the same time, believe on legal grounds that a social group or corporation is a person that can sue and be sued. Science is even opening the discussion of how much a person can be changed by artificial parts and technology and still be considered a person. If you have an artificial brain with human memories, are you a person?

Regardless of where you start and what decisions you make, the determination of personhood is philosophical, not scientific. Science can tell us if a being is human or alive, but it cannot tell us under what circumstances it is a person. There is a difference between the two. To be overly general, “human” is what you are, the DNA you have, and “person” is what you are capable of, the rights and responsibilities you hold. Attributes like agency, self-awareness, and emotion are considerations when conferring personhood. In the U.S., persons are recognized by law according to their possession of rights and duties.

I believe my children are human persons (even if they don’t believe it about each other)  but they don’t have the same rights I do as a legal person–they cannot vote or have free assembly or engage in a host of other civil activities. On the other hand, they can inherit money and property and have a right to due process if they ever get in big trouble. So, even among persons, there are differences.

And that is just right now, here in the U.S. during the 21st Century. The idea of personhood varies across cultures and history. My own forebears believed that personhood was only granted to white, male, property owners. There are cultures in which moral and legal personhood can be ascribed to animals and other non-human beings.

So all of these thoughts have been swirling through my mind as the women and men in Texas and around the country have been shouting back and forth about the rights of women and the rights of fetuses, about medical procedures and murder, about responsibility and privacy. Is it possible to determine a standard by which a fetus is a legal person? And whatever the answer, how do the rights of a pregnant women–a person–fit with the rights of a fetus she carries? What happens when the rights conflict?

Of course, the law can be guided by not based on theological standards of personhood–not least because our nation includes a vast array of religious traditions with differing points of view. We can be informed by science and ethics, tradition and other areas of law. Does personhood begin when a human ovum is fertilized? or when a being has the ability to feel pain? or the ability to survive outside the womb? or draws its first breath?

It would seem important that whatever standard we use be consistent across the range of personhood rights. Are there different stages of personhood–just as we now withhold the right to vote until adulthood? Should the standards used to determine personhood for a fetus be the same as those for born human beings? If so, do they have access to all the legal rights of a born human being, or just some of them? At what point does a person gain rights to health care and nutrition? (In my state, access to both have recently been significantly cut for pregnant women.) What happens when the rights of two human persons conflict? How should the law arbitrate between them? There are some people who think pregnant women should not be allowed to eat raw fish or raw milk cheese. Japanese and French women think that’s going too far.

Perhaps, since a pregnant woman can be considered by some as two united human persons, they are the ultimate corporate person. What would the law say about that?

My Stand-With-Texas-Women shoes

A week ago today, along with a bazillion other people across Texas and the world, I watched the filibuster heard round the world. I knew I’d be angry about the content of the legislation being blocked (really, how do you protect women’s health by limiting care?) and inspired by Wendy Davis, who spoke for more than 11 hours and gave voice to the  experiences of women across the state. What I didn’t expect was the level of disgust I felt watching sworn members of my state government flagrantly violating rules and procedures. And the level of disrespect they showed their female peers in the Senate was shocking.

Lawmaking is like sausage making. It makes many people (including me) want to turn away. But this time, instead of making me the equivalent of a political vegetarian, the meat grinder in the Texas Senate woke up my inner activist. I headed down to the Capitol yesterday with more than 6,000 other sisters and brothers clad in orange to make our voices heard.

I also didn’t expect that last week’s filibuster and this week’s rally would give me some new heroes. I guess I had become too cynical–politics is seeming less and less like a public service for so many politicians. I never tell a child that s/he can grow up to be president because I am not sure that is a compliment anymore. I felt different watching the filibuster and participating in the rally. The Representatives and Senators who spoke inspired me and woke me from my cynical political slumber. (I realize that anyone who knows me might think that slumber was awfully restless, given as I am to the occasional rant. But talking is not the same as acting.)

There was one last thing I didn’t expect. Among the ralliers and speakers, it was clear that the issues at hand went beyond abortion and women’s health–and also beyond political affiliation. It was clear to those of us there that what used to pass as pro-freedom is really an intrusive set of public policies that limit human flourishing (except for the most wealthy and politically connected). Those who claim the “moral high ground” are willing to lie, cheat, and insult to get their way. Oxymoron, anyone?

I am now in the fray and a little bit awed by the powerful emotions the political process elicits from people who are deeply engaged in divisive issues. When you face political and moral opposition, sometimes things get heated. Sometimes people on both sides start using words and tactics that get everyone angry and off-topic. It doesn’t help children, women, families, and the poor–those we are claiming to help. So I am committing to the following principles as I work for access to quality health care, reproductive choice, and voting rights:

1. Respect. Just because I disagree with someone does not mean I will use derogatory language or name calling about them or their beliefs. Even if they don’t return the favor. Vigorous debate yes; insults, no.
   This is a big one for me, based on a lesson I learned when I worked for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. I joined them as a volunteer before an anti-abortion activist went on a shooting spree, killing two and wounding five. I returned because they needed help in the aftermath and were too traumatized to bring in anyone they didn’t already know. For the next few years, our Executive Director and some of her colleagues met with representatives from the opposing side for a regular series of conversations. What it turned into was supportive relationships–friendships even–and some guidelines for how to hold your ground without being disrespectful. Their work was successful in bringing down the level of vitriol and violence.
   So, based on what I learned from those brave women, I will respect my opponents. I will call them by the political moniker they prefer–pro-life is that is what they wish. I will listen and have a conversation with anyone who wants to discuss touchy issues. And, because respect includes self-respect, I expect the same in return. When I am called an anti-baby anti-woman murderer, that is disrespectful. I understand clearly that you do not want to talk to me and I will leave you alone. If you describe my beliefs in disrespectful terms, I will correct you.
2. Truth. One thing about health care of which you can be sure, including reproductive health care, is that it involves science. Right? So my viewpoints and my advocacy are going to be based on scientific evidence that is widely accepted. In my opinion, if you cite scientific evidence to support your case, it should be subject to scrutiny–especially peer review. Science is a search for truth, not a tool for political gain.
   Experience is also a way of knowing the truth. I will honor the experience of people whose lives have been and will be affected by my political actions and the proposals at hand. Where science and experience can’t inform us, we are left with opinion. And opinions, can witness to the truth, but they are not truth itself. Opinions can be philosophical, theological, moral, political, social, economic, or a zillion other kinds of opinions, but they are not facts. I have lots of opinions and share lots of opinions (I bet you do too) but it is really so much easier if we can admit that is what they are.
3. Focus. There are plenty of people who can and will and need to delve into the minutia of getting a law passed or blocked. God bless them! Others of us are better at delivering care or getting out messages or raising money or registering voters. There are many ways to get involved, but for me, no matter what my task is,  it is important to stay focused on the people who will pay the highest price as a consequence of public policy actions: the poor, the young, those who have no powerful allies, and women. Sometimes it is easy to get lost in the work, so I will try my hardest to stay focused on the mission.
4. Open heart. I am willing to learn and change and grow. It is the ONLY way to be in conversation with other people. If you show me respect and are willing to have a conversation, I am game! But it has to be mutual. Who knows, maybe we can find some common ground.
5. Faith. I am a Christian who is pro-choice. I have lots of friends who are not Christians, who love their country, and are pro-choice. (I could mention a lot of other faiths here, but I am speaking for myself and how I intend to act with regard to my own faith tradition.) While I believe that there should be no establishment of religion in America (including Texas, y’all), my political motivations and decisions are informed by my faith. Did you catch that? It is possible to honor your faith and your God without dishonoring others. I won’t accept the use of religion to abuse or exclude people in the public square.

I have my orange protest shoes on and am ready to march! or email or sort mail or deliver bottled water. Whatever. My shoes are not exactly like Wendy’s, but then again my job is different from hers. I’ll see you at the altar, at the Capitol, and in the voting booth.

I wrote a guest blog for One Church One Book–we are reading Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. Check it out here.

Today, I need food for my body and food for thought. So I think I’ll have a Last Supper Bar:

I think it is already blessed.

And while I eat, I can feed my mind as well:

This will help you get through the day.

I checked and it is Kosher.

Disclaimer: This post is in no way like a Seth Macfarlane movie. At all.

A little over two years ago, my husband brought home a puppy without asking. Seriously, he called me and said, “I am bringing home a puppy.” And then he did. I do not recommend this as a way to spice up your marriage. Basically, you are telling your partner, “either I get to keep this dog or you are the cruelest person alive.”

We have two children who adore puppies. They were going fall in love. I’d have to say no and then everyone would hate me for sending the cutest rescue dog in the world to an unknown fate. I was pretty sure I had an ally in our older dog. Lucy was going on 13 and she was not dreaming of a little brother. I prepared for battle when this came home:

This is Max, fresh out of Lost and Found.

All cleaned up

lick, lick, lick

I often serve as a Eucharistic minister on Sundays…wine or bread. Our service is casual and kind of chaotic. Plenty of small children run around during the service and are welcome to take communion with the rest of us. And over the years, I have seen something that bothered me at first, and then inspired me. Crumbs.

Growing up, I was taught that crumbs of communion bread were precious and not to be stepped on. Spilt wine was quickly wiped up and any leftovers went down a special drain in the sacristy. When I began serving communion in the Chaos Service, these rules were not so closely observed. Crumbs and drips end up on the floor and the rug, played with and walked on. I obsessed about them. Could I swoop down to get them before the next person in line came with their hands held out? The body of Christ was being trampled upon by…the body of Christ.

One Sunday it occurred to me there was something poetic happening with these crumbs and drips. They were being carried out into the world on the soles of our congregation. And this congregation was particularly good about walking those crumbs into all sorts of justice-making places. They host refugees and feed the homeless. They are making our city cleaner and greener. They educate children and protect the abused.

Those little bits of bread and wine are looking different to me now. Crumb by crumb, they are feeding our hearts, helping us see and serve Christ all around us everyday. I’m not gonna drop them on purpose, but I’ll follow them out the door to see what good we can do together.