The definition of human life is not without controversy, and especially with the arguments surrounding the proposed Constitutional Amendment 2 in Missouri, it’s important to examine.

Definitions of human life or personhood proposed in this debate can be categorized into particular deadlines (e.g. implantation, a certain fetal age, fetal viability outside the womb), collectively Time, particular circumstances (e.g. actually living outside the womb or not), collectively Location, or particular abilities (e.g. ability to breath without assistance, ability to have a heart beat), collectively Abilities. All of these definitions suffer from one fallacy: arbitrariness.

First, time. Impassioned arguments can be made for personhood beginning at conception, beginning within a few weeks with the beginning of embryonic heart or brain activity, at the point where the fetus is viable, at the moment of birth). But if personhood is based upon (always someone else’s) standard of time, what abuses do we see? We see late term abortion, where healthy, viable babies are delivered halfway, then murdered with scissors before they take their first breath. We see euthanasia, where families sue each other to decide whether an elderly family member should live or die. Time is an arbitrary standard, always defined chiefly in terms of someone else’s convenience.

Next, circumstances. What can be more arbitrary than the location of the baby? If a baby is partly in the womb when it is killed, it is legal abortion, but if the baby is completely out of the womb, it is illegal murder. Mere inches - and absolutely nothing else - span the gap between one and the other.

Finally, and most sinister, is the standard of abilities. What abilities make a person? Who gets to decide? What happens when someone grows old and doesn’t have the same abilities - whether that is being able to clean their house or being able to breath without assistance? One of the first eugenics programs run by the Nazis used this standard to justify killing the insane, the chronically ill, and the elderly. Unfortunately this story isn’t often told. For more information, I recommend the book Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation by former President Ronald Reagan (interestingly, this book is the only book ever published by a US President while in office).

I am strongly pro-life based upon two standards. First, the Christian view of life is that all human life is created in God’s image, and therefore all human life is to be protected. Second, I think the most responsible response to the arbitrariness of the foregoing standards is to err on the side of the protection of life (the “principle of maximal life”). If there is any doubt as to the reliability of any standard, be it Time, Location, Ability, or anything else, then the most responsible choice is to choose the version of each standard which protects life the most. Therefore, we should treat human life as sacred, no matter how young or old, no matter where it is (in uterus or in hospice), no matter what it can do (breath or cry or feed itself).

The greatest risk that arbitrary standards for personhood run is that there will be a time when human life deserving personhood will not be given dignity and justice. Whether or not you agree that human life is created imago Dei (in the image of God), the priniciple of maximal life is still the principle most likely to grant personhood to everything which is actually a person, and therefore it is the most just standard we can ever apply.

Related posts:

1. The Inner Life of a Cell Anyone who is interested in biology or chemistry has...
2. An alternative to embryonic stem cells In case you haven’t heard the news, there is a...
3. Christian Ethics and the Right to Vote The issues of abortion, euthanasia, the war, and political and...

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 31st, 2006 at 11:40 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.