Evangelical response to my Facebook post...

[yeswecanandwedid]

So, I made the following post this am on my Facebook...

"Collective bargaining rights protected, "personhood" amendment defeated, penguins coming to the KC Zoo. It was a good day for democracy around the country it seems."

A few hours later, one of my Facebook "friends", we're friends with their family, sent me a message...

"Hey Jonathan,
I was going to post this on your status you left earlier but thought it may be more appropriate to do on a message.

It is sad that we have to argue over personhood. A person is a person when he or she is created. It is sad that many believe that a person's rights are more important than a human life. Especially when over 90% of the time, the choice for abortion is only for convenience of the mother. Sorry Jonathan but I find it sad that you cheer for this. There will be something to cheer about when/if we stop thinking our "rights" are the most important thing and that abortion is not only selfish but murder. I love you Jonathan but I think you've got this one all wrong.

I am trying to understand where you are coming from so please don't think I am attacking you personally. It is not about you but only about your opinion in this matter.

Aaron"

Here was my response, that took me quite some time to compose...

"I think it's healthy to debate and discuss all topics, its how we grow and learn new things.

"A person is a person when he or she is created." Maybe, maybe not. I mean, If a person is a person at the exact moment of conception, then the mother would not be needed, the kid would just be dropped of by the stork the next day and start crying for a bottle.

That's the dilemma, and one that's been debated for years, you have another person involved here who has rights as well, the mother. The difference is that one "person" would not exist if the other wasn't around, period. No mom, no baby nine months later. I think the majority of people see that difference. They understand that there is a difference between what's inside of a woman the day after she has sex, and the child that arrives 9 months later.

If you think you have the right to tell another individual what they can or can't do with their body, then you're over the line in my book. That's been the long standing sticking point of these debates, when you try and legislate rights for one "person" the other is going to get them taken away. My point of view is that it's not my place to judge, or push my beliefs on someone else. What right do I have? How arrogant must I be to think I have the right to judge or make rules about you and your body (and yes, the child inside of you)?

To be clear, I'm not cheering for abortion, I think abortion is a very emotional topic, and a topic that as a man, I can only try and do my best to understand. I am cheering the fact that the majority of people thought that this particular law had gone too far. It was attempting to reach too far into our bides, a place where I feel the government has no jurisdiction.

In regards to 90% being out of convenience, if that's a factual number, it's a sad one. But what about the 10%? The rape victims? The oddities of the human body that cause other bad things to happen during pregnancy? Car accidents? The list of what if's can go on for days. Regardless, I still don't think it's my place, or the place of anyone else to judge another person or try and legislate controls over them due to MY personal feelings or those of a book I read and happen to buy into.

I love you too Aaron, I think you are a smart man, and a stud for actually trying to have a civil conversation. I agree that we will disagree on this topic, but I don't mind one bit sharing my thoughts and opinions with you. I'll never pretend to know all the answers, because I can't. But I will always be willing to at least discuss and learn."

So DU, what do you think. Did I handle that appropriately?

[Richardo]

1. Yes.

Good job.

[dtexdem]

2. If a person is a person at fertilization, then when identical twins are born ...

which one is the person?

Is either one a person?

Or was the fertilized egg two persons from the start? If so, how did it know to be two persons?

;-)

[JanMichael]

3. Is he basing his beliefs on the bible?

When God smited folks, the bible makes no reference to him saving fetus' or pregnant women. There is another reference to a woman being given some sort of "potion" by a priest that caused her to miscarry. (Numbers 5, 11:22)...

There is nothing in the bible, zero, nada, zilch...that says abortion is a sin.

[gratuitous]

4. Big cheers for a measured and balanced response

The other part that I might have mentioned would have been that, should we as a society decide to grant full citizenship and person status to a fertilized egg, what are we to do about the thousands of instances every year where a fertilized egg fails to implant in the uterus, or where it implants but for any number of reasons, is spontaneously aborted? First off, who among us would be heartless enough to add a criminal charge for homicide on a grieving couple who lost their baby that way? Second, in order to be 100% sure we're not missing any persons, the state would have to minutely examine and inspect the menstrual fluid from every woman in the state. I can't speak for everyone, but that's not a job I'd take at any price.

There are very good reasons we don't grant full personhood status to fertilized eggs or even fetuses. Each and every one of these reasons needs to be fully addressed if we're going to make a change.

[lunatica]

5. You both handled it well. I hope you remain friends.

[JoePhilly]

6. Well done. nt

[targetpractice]

7. One of the better responses to the argument I've read...

I usually reply something along the lines... "I agree that a fertilized egg represents a one-time only opportunity for a particular human being to be born. However, that potential possibility is not the issue... No one or no government should be able to force a woman to be pregnant."

[yeswecanandwedid]

8. Thanks! nt