The Sanctity of Human Life
Thursday, January 14th, 2016One of the great cultural battles of our time concerns the issue of abortion. Beliefs about whether or not a woman should be allowed to choose to terminate her pregnancy cover a broad spectrum.
On the one end there are those who believe a woman has an absolute right to have an abortion at any time and for any reason. At the other end are those who believe abortion should not be a legal option for any reason at all.
In between these two positions there are a number of modified stances that consider such factors as the viability of the fetus, threat to the mother’s life, and so forth. This article concerns one of the most important of those factors: the question of the sanctity of human life.
The issue of sanctity of life comes down to three questions:
- What is life? 2. What is a human? 3. Is human life sacred, possessing the right to life?
The first two are basic scientific questions, and the answers are extremely simple from a purely scientific point of view.
- Is it life? More to the point, what is life from a scientific point of view? How does science define life?
The answer is basic knowledge in the science of Biology, which is by definition the science of life. Encyclopedia Britannica defines life as: “matter that shows certain attributes that include responsiveness, growth, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.”* A fetus has all of these attributes. So it is alive. That is the simple scientific answer.
- Is it human?
The simple scientific answer is that species is determined by DNA. The fetus in a human womb has human DNA. Level of development has nothing to do with it. Everything it will become in terms of life stages is already encoded in the DNA.
The level of dependency also has nothing to do with it. (This relates to the issue of viability.) A baby after birth is every bit as dependent on others for its survival as it is before birth. Being alive has nothing to do with the conditions that must be met for life to continue and thrive without intervention.
So a preborn baby is alive and is human. That is the simple scientific answer.
This leaves us now with the third question.
- Is it sacred?
This is where we go beyond science to the realm of belief.
As a Christian I believe that human life is sacred. For me, it is an article of faith. If someone believes otherwise, so be it, but that is equally an article of faith, whether it is atheistic, agnostic, humanistic, secularistic, or whatever. It has nothing whatsoever to do with science!
If some people do not believe that human life is sacred, and deserving of protection (which, by the way, they generally afford to other species), they should at least be honest about the fact that this is only a matter of their belief. They shouldn’t disguise their denial of the sanctity of human by confusing that question with the science about life and species! If it is simply a question of science, the fertilized ovum is alive and human at conception.
The only question that remains is whether or not that human life is sacred and deserves protection. And this is where it starts to get interesting.
Let’s suppose that maybe we can’t say for sure that life begins at conception. There is another factor to consider, which I will first illustrate from the current controversy over climate change, and then show how it applies to the question of the sanctity of human life.
This is a very relevant illustration because most people who take what they call a “pro choice” position in regards to human life also believe in climate change. (I am not here advocating for any particular view about climate change; I am only using the debate illustratively.)
Many who believe that climate change is real and is caused by human activity also believe that, considering the stakes involved, it is valid to give the benefit of the doubt to the side that predicts catastrophic climate change. The basis of this benefit of the doubt is the question, “What if we are right, even if we don’t have proof? What if there is only a possibility that destructive climate change is taking place as a result of human activity? Shouldn’t we take action against even the possibility of that danger before it’s too late?”
My question is, why do they not allow that same reasoning to the apply to the question of whether or not life begins at conception? What if it is only possibly a human life? Considering what is at stake (the death of a human being), shouldn’t we apply the same benefit of the doubt to the question of human life that they insist we apply to climate change?
My answer is yes. My answer is that, even if there is only the possibility that the conceived, living entity with human DNA is a human life, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in favor of that possibility. It is alive, it is human, it is sacred and deserving of protection.
*http://www.britannica.com/topic/life [accessed 1-14-16]