This morning we had an interesting conversation about aspects of Colorado’s Proposition 48, defining “personhood” as the moment of conception, which was (I think I read this right) defeated by a 3:1 margin in yesterday’s election.

When does “life” begin? My geneticist other half made the comment that – strictly speaking, the genetic code is set in motion at conception (or very shortly thereafter) – but it’s  . . . just a ball of cells. Is it life – well, yes, is it “alive” . . . . hmmmm . . . The other day when I first started reading and thinking about the Colorado initiative, I stumbled across some figures that showed the attitudes of people across the religious spectrum, what I found particularly interesting was the points of recognition that this ball of cells is a living being, a life, or maybe “a person” – but I’ll come to that in a minute. There were three points of reference: conception, the first detectable foetal heart beat, implantation in the womb; aside from the first I’d not previously considered the other two, the one that immediately attracted me was the first opportunity to detect a foetal heart beat. Here we start to see evidence of independent organ function, something we associate with an independent life form. Soon there are other organs including the brain – my other half suggested that perhaps a better point of reference would be a recognisable brain-stem/function.

I think too there is some confusion in our terms – what exactly do we mean when we say “life” – a single celled organism is “alive” and therefore it is a life – but it is not a human life. I think it is perhaps more helpful to change the question – when does “personhood” begin? And this is why news of the Colorado initiative caught my attention. Strictly speaking the process of becoming a human being begins at conception – when, yes, that ball of cells is “a life” – but is it, at this very early stage, when so many things could go wrong, yet a “person”? What characteristics are we looking for when we talk about personhood? My initial thoughts are that personhood is established over time, as a cumulative response to our environment – I am shaped by my culture, my friends, and family, my experiences, and I in turn shape myself filtering, and synthesising that encounter.

Perhaps in the political battle over abortion we’ve forgotten something – something very important to our identity as sacramental Christians, that is, “liminality” – throughout my life the debate over abortion in the US has been a polarised black and white, yes and no, fight but the fact is – when we are talking about personhood – which it seems to me, what is the real subject of the arguments – there is no possible definitive answer. Our time in the womb is one when each of us is in that “in between” space of being, and not being a person. The reality of what we are is being re-written so quickly that it cannot be pinned down . . . yet. Here it is perhaps helpful to reflect on the liminality of our baptism – in the moment we are submerged in the baptismal waters we exist, but do not exist, we are dead, but alive, we are being clothed in our new identity but are not quite there . . . .yet . . . until we emerge, as it were on the other side and are, in the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem – properly called Christ.

This forgotten period of liminality in our “coming into being” is one that in the context of the debates over abortion, has been overlooked, or forgotten, and it is one that many people unconsciously have struggled with when reflecting on their position on abortion – outside the cacophony of the polarised rhetoric. Perhaps – by exploring and discussing this important time in the emergence of a “person” we OC/IC folk can make a substantive contribution to the wider conversation.