It's easy to poke fun at the seeming inconsistencies of those who purport to defend "The Culture of Life". Intensely passionate about life at the margins, they are relatively indifferent to life between the margins. They’ll march for the fetus, the embryo, and for those in a persistent vegetative state, but they’ll barely lift a finger for a sick child without health insurance. It’s as if they lose interest in the child the second she is born and don’t regain an interest unless she winds up in a permanent coma. Clearly, this is a peculiar point of view.
But it is not necessarily inconsistent. Defenders of the culture of life will tell you that they are guided by one simple principle: all human life is equally valuable. Or, more precisely, that all innocent human life is equally valuable. This principle puts embryos and human vegetables morally on a par with normal children and adults. On this view, killing embryos is just as wrong as killing children.
One can object to this view in at least three ways:
(1) deny that embryos, fetuses, and human vegetables are human.
(2) argue that embracing universal human equality commits one to fight for universal health care just as vigorously as it commits one to oppose abortion.
(3) reject the inherent equality of all innocent human lives.
(1) is pointless because embryos, fetuses, and human vegetables are obviously human. (2) is worth exploring but I’m going to defend (3). I think it's demonstrably false that all innocent human life is equally valuable. To see this, consider a simple thought experiment. Suppose that you had the power to determine whether the next 100 fetuses to be born would be born normal or seriously deformed. Suppose that, if you push button A, they'll all be born normal and healthy. If you push button B, they'll all be born permanently brain damaged and paralyzed. Now, if you genuinely believe that all innocent human life is equally valuable, then you should be indifferent between pushing A or B — you should flip a coin. But no sane person could be indifferent in this situation. It would be monstrous to flip a coin. Anyone who would seriously consider pushing B is so gripped by a dogma that he's beyond the reach of rational argument.
Clearly, the right thing to do is to push A, and that reveals the absurdity of believing that all human life is equally valuable. And without that principle, the Culture of Life doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Rodney Welch
Just because you believe all life is equally valuable doesn't mean you would be indifferent whether a child is both healthy or abnormal. Your argument doesn't make a lick of sense.
2 - Mike Valdman
Why wouldn't you be indifferent? If all human life is equally valuable, then the life of the paralyzed, brain damaged infant is just as valuable as the life of a normal healthy infant. And if both lives are equally valuable, what reason to do you have to prefer one to the other? You could appeal to quality of life considerations, but then you'd be denying that all human life is equally valuable. You'd be accepting the idea that a life's value partly depends on its quality.
3 - Anthony Grande
Yes, we should embrace LIFE to the fullest possible.
It is the most valuable thing on this Earth.
4 - Rodney Welch
Mike, the fact that a "paralyzed, brain damaged infant" is just as valuable as a normal infant doesn't mean I wish to see brain damage inflicted on anyone. Likewise the life of a desperately poor child is as valuable as the child of a comfortable family -- but that doesn't mean I want any child to be desperately poor.
A more successful example of your argument might be to ask whether the life of a 99-year-old man on life support is more valuable than the life of an infant.
5 - Mike
Rodney,
I don't think your point is incompatible with mine. Of course you wouldn't wish a normal person to become paralyzed and brain damaged. But why not? Presumably because such a life, though human, is not really worth living or is substantially worse than a normal healthy human life. In short, you're making a quality of life judgment. And once you do that, you're rejecting the idea that all human life is equally valuable. You are implicitly claiming that some lives are more valuable than others, and that is why you wouldn't wish paralysis on even your worst enemy (I hope).
6 - Rodney Welch
I don't wish a person to be brain damaged because it greatly reduces their capacity to enjoy life or to reach ordinary human potential. But my so-called "quality of life" judgement may not matter. People in reduced circumstances are entitled to the right to stay alive as much as anyone. Life is all any of us have.
7 - Druxxx
I was going to disagree with Mike's logic, but he is dead on.
The fact is that a person born disabled or with permanent brain damage is not equal in the eyes of nature. They will never be truely productive members of society. In ancient civilizations, they would have been allowed to die so they would not become a drain on society.
Just becuase we have the medical technology to keep more and more humans "alive", should we.
What good does it do for society?
I personally don't think we have a moral obligation to keep people "alive" simply because we can. I think medical technology is there to keep people "living" not just "alive".
8 - Rodney Welch
Are you to say who is equal in the eyes of nature, Adolf?
9 - Rodney Welch
Besides, you better think twice when you say "disabled." Look at Steven Hawking and then get back to me on how much a disabled person can contribute.
10 - Druxxx
No one is saying we should kill off the disabled.
Can we not agree that through most of human history, there was not the medical technology to keep many brain damaged people alive.
I am not saying I should be the judge of anything.
Do you think we should keep people alive simply because we can? Indefinatly?
Should a person's family be able to decide their fate?
And watch it with the Adolf remark.
11 - Temple Stark
Are we just talking human life here or animal and plant life as well?
Because I'd love to see all that oh, I don't know "life" included more in any "culture of life" discussion.
12 - Druxxx
As it pertains to this discussion, when I speak of the disabled, I mean people in an unresponsive vegitative state that most doctors would agree has no chance of becoming responsive.
With that said, people like Steven Hawking have nothing to do with this discusion.
13 - RedTard
"argue that embracing universal human equality commits one to fight for universal health care just as vigorously as it commits one to oppose abortion."
Why? Universal healthcare could just as easily lead to decreased quality of care, stifling new medical innovations, and putting an undue burden on taxpayers, lowering their economic status which causes them more health problems. In the long run we could easily be worse off.
When you give away a product for free you never have enough of it.
14 - Temple Stark
RT, there would still be the ability, alongside such a universal heathcare system where those who wanted to could pay for expedited treatment (in non-emergencies obviously). That is how it commonly works elsewhere.
15 - Dave Nalle
Universal Healthcare leading to decreased quality of care isn't just a possibility, it's a dead certainty, based on the problems universal healthcare systems are having in other countries. And we're not just talking decreased quality of life, based on the status of European systems we're talking about massive increases in death rates from all forms of cancer which require rapid assessment and treatment, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Dave
16 - RedTard
Temple,
I'm wary of these sorts of arguments because they can be applied to anything. For example, why doesn't the government give us our food, then no one would go hungry. Same for housing, electricity, water, etc.
It seems to me that whenever the government tries to provide anything for free, whether it is flu shots or bread, it always ends in shortages, waiting lines, and creates as many problems as it solves.
17 - gonzo marx
as for the Univrsal Health care bit and it leading to declining care..
where does the US rate in quality of care/longevity/overall health?
take a look at the Nations that outrank us in these categories (way too many..look it up yerself, ya won't believe me)
all of Scandanavia...which all have various forms of socialized medicine...just one example
so spare us the chicken little bit about how it would ruin everything and has everywhere else
the facts don't seem to bear out the conclusion
now, is it the Answer for our Nation...i don't know for certain, but is there a MUCH better Answer out there than our current state of affairs in these matters?
i'm betting yes...
Excelsior!
18 - Bennett
Just today there was an article in the local rag about the high cost, and high error rate in US health care when copared to a buncha other countries.
Here's the origin of the article.
We could be doing a LOT better.
19 - gonzo marx
well done Bennett, re: the linkage...
as to the original Question of this Post...
one thing ta say here...
if you "believe" in the "culture of Life" and are anti-abortion but pro death penalty then you need to take a mental "time out" until your internal dichotomy is sorted out
nuff said?
Excelsior!
20 - Baronius
Mike - Although I disagree with your argument, I have to admit that you presented it well.
I think you're confusing value of life and quality of life. These are both loaded terms, I realize, but bear with me. No sane person would damage the foeti precisely because of the value of their lives. Their lives wouldn't lose value if unjured, but they would lose some quality. To live is better than to die [value of life]; to live fully is better than to live incompletely [quality of life]. The more apt thought experiment would be making a decision to kill or to sustain 100 foeti with birth defects.
One other point, which I've made elsewhere on these boards (sorry about repeating myself). Where is this canard from, that pro-lifers don't care about the born? How can you consider it a valid assumption? The engineer cares about the whole dam, but he is more attentive to the parts which are collapsing. If 30-year olds were being killed, those who value life would be focusing their attention there.
21 - gonzo marx
so, to flip it a bit...
how do you feel about the Death penalty, or the civilian deaths due to "collateral damage" in an elective war, for instance?
just curious...see above
Excelsior!
22 - Bill B
A few things.
First I'll get a few things out of the way.
I'm pro-choice, anti death penalty and pro euthanasia.
OK. I think your premise is a bit faulty. Lets change "A" to wealthy & wise and "B" to poor and stupid. If I choose "A" it seems to me I'm choosing a preferable condition of life and not necessarily making a value judgement on life itself. First one must make a judgement on what life is, before making a "value of life" judgement. That's an awfully big bite to take.
There's so much to be gleaned from any of life's manifestations, from so many different angles that it's virtually impossible to know for sure which, if any, life is more important than the next.
What value do you put on the lesson of patience to an impatient parent of a mentally challenged child?
To me, to say all life is equally valuable is a way of saying all life has purpose. To put a value judgement on purpose is redundant, and would also need to parse the meaningfulness of a given purpose from one person to the next. Seems impossible to me.
The "culture of life' folk use the phrase to do the old them and us routine when juxtaposing themselves with the so-called "culture of death" folk of which according to them, I'm a part.
It's propaganda and nothing more. They conveniently sacrifice the notion of free will at the alter of their simplistic concept of life.
Without the notion of autonomy, steering one to decisions, both good and bad, from which to learn, their concept of life is rendered less meaningful. An automated response to life condition 16, category B, if you get my drift.
Because a condition of life may not be advantageous does not necessarily impart value.
Value may be judged not necessarily by the status of a given life condition as much as by what that condition has to offer those who are touched, one way or another, by that life.
I don't believe I'm going out on a limb by saying there may be a whole lot to life that we
humans have yet to understand.
23 - Anthony Grande
How you going to admit that you are pro-choice and anti-capital punishment???
You murderous hypocrite.
24 - Bill B.
It's easy AG. The government should not be involved in either scenario. I (if I were a woman) would decide for myself, without government interference, whether or not to bring a pregnancy to term, and I don't want the government putting anyone to death in my name.
Not to mention that if they screw up, an innocent person is dead.
And if you would, please spare me the murderer crap. We get it, you think abortion is murder. And I know, the fetus is innocent, blah, blah, blah.
That'll be all for you and me AG unless you have something constructive and on topic to contribute.
25 - Anthony Grande
First, how can the government kill someone in your name????
Second, the government says I can't CHOOSE to kill my neighbor. So you support that???