On “Grey” Matter…

I must offer my sincere apologies for taking so long to respond to Steve's comments [RE: We Hold These Opinions…]. My time estimates for replacing our upstairs faucet were considerably off, among several other equally mundane excuses…

I thank Steve for offering his considerations, and I credit any man who will challenge his intellect with difficult questions. I will add that, logical and moral considerations aside, I am as much compelled by an acute sense of compassion for a class of people who are utterly defenseless, utterly voiceless, and whose lives depend wholly and entirely on others. More than being a moral debate, this is a defense of my own life, and the lives of every human being who comes into being, by whatever stratagem or mode, naturally or unnaturally, by intent or by accident.

Before getting on to that unstated major premise (where does human life begin?), it is necessary to clarify a few things that weigh heavily on properly understanding our assertions, and without which misunderstanding is apt to foul and obfuscate our endeavors.

On Principle and Value, Absolutes and Relatives

To begin, 'principle' is derived from the Latin principium, meaning 'beginning.' It is a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption, on which other things have their basis. As such, by 'the principle of inherent human dignity,' I am referring to the basis for all considerations on human life. That being said, one may inquire –as Steve has- from whence we arrive at that basis. There are two options, and only two as far as my intellectual musings have taken me. They are, respectively: Truth and Conjecture. Whether this principle is arrived at by one or the other has implications of infinite measure. I have had dialogues with professed atheists who will happily agree that there is such a principle as human dignity, but that it is one cosmically arrived at by our unanimous consensus, and that it is most suitable to adhere to in the interest of our common happiness and well-being, a logical conclusion we have arrived at thanks to eons of evolution. If, on the other hand, the principle is arrived at by discerning Truth, the unlayering of principle necessarily takes us back to an omnipotent fundament, a premise of premises, a principle to beget all principles (one that identifies itself titillatingly as I Am That I Am). The great distinction between these two is that while Truth will dictate that human dignity is inherent, Conjecture can only assert. The former is absolute, whereas the latter is relative.

The point here, Steve, is one you have suggested, in that 'we need to take a step back and reanalyze where our moral principles come from,' which will also answer the question of whether, indeed, we 'form' them, or whether they exist immutably and unchangeably outside of ourselves and our social constructs. I believe we are alluding to the same conversation we look forward to having that was prompted by one erroneous Dawkins – that adjective furtively hanging on our happy conclusion….

But saving that for another time, let us for the time being assume the premise that human beings have a unique dignity, a defining quality that sets them apart from other worldly creatures, a dignity which is deserving of the utmost respect. And let us then make the very important distinction between that principle, and that peculiarly subjective term: value.

A value is a quantitative measure we subjectively attribute to something, as in I value my own life more than I value the life of my assailant. Objectively, if the principle of human dignity is in effect, our two lives are of equal value (in that they are equally invaluable). My assailant, far from imposing a situation in which our dignity is in conflict (indeed a principle cannot contradict itself), is rather acting on a set of values – values which are in defiant contradiction to the principle. (Defiant connoting an act of the will, in that he willfully disregards the principle.)

This distinction should make many things clear. When and whether it is right or wrong to kill another human being, far from raising the question of whether the principle of human dignity is in effect, forces us to make judgments on how to act in light of the principle. To clarify, by 'action' I do not mean reflex or instinct. I am referring to volatile action, a motion of the will, and in particular one carried out physically, spatially, which involves and affects our fellow men and the world around us.

That being established, we come to justice, and here we will distinguish moral justice from legal justice, insofar as we know well how legal justice is not uncommonly at odds with moral justice. Legal justice is a construct of the will of men, hopefully arrived at by acknowledging moral principles, although far too often, not. Moral justice, on the other hand, is simply whether an act – or omission – is morally licit or illicit, and is an absolute. There are no double-standards in morality. Something is either morally licit, or it is morally illicit.

Murder, for example, is morally illicit. And there is nevertheless no contradiction in asserting that there are indeed circumstances in which it is morally licit to kill a human being. And those that are, are not murder, in spite of their common end. Murder is the intentional taking of an innocent human life.

On Self Defense and Capital Punishment

Why it is morally licit to kill a human being in self defense is logical: as a consequence of my dignity, I have a right to live, and my assailant has no right to kill me. By defying my dignity - while he cannot diminish nor forfeit mine or his one iota – he may forfeit his life - but not his dignity. That is not to say that I am not likely, in anger or disappointment, to choose to put a higher value on my own life than his, but that value has no bearing on his dignity. And if I am purely objective and devoid of emotion like a Vulcan, acknowledging the unchangeable dignity of my assailant will compel me to do everything in my power NOT to kill him, except as a last and final resort, because although he may forfeit his life, my right is to defend my own, NOT to take his. I am no Vulcan, but if I am particularly virtuous, it would be with great compassion for my assailant's life that I tried to preserve it, and with great sorrow that I am not afforded any alternative but to kill.

To answer one of your questions, this is why Capital Punishment can be morally licit. That being said, civilization and the industrial revolution have afforded us ample opportunities to establish all manner of alternatives. While capital punishment can be morally licit, I am convinced this country has had no legitimate case to use it for some time, and neither will it for some considerable time longer. Furthermore, our system of justice is greatly limited, in that we know well that persons can be erroneously convicted of crimes they did not commit. This lends a reason of caution to my assertion that capital punishment should be abolished. When anarchy and despotism have destroyed our nation, and we are faced with the prospect of those alternatives having been done away with and no longer at our disposal, then perhaps we can reinstate capital punishment. While I personally and subjectively find it repugnant to contribute to the public fund that keeps that criminal alive and fed, I also find wiping excrement from the derriere of my three-year-old at times quite repugnant. But these are conditions of life as imperfect social creatures, and the principle of inherent human dignity compels me to act accordingly in both cases.

The above cases are distinct from the following, in that the above cases involve an avoidable conflict wrought by one person willfully choosing of his own volition to defy the principle and violate another person's right to life, and in so doing may forfeit his own life - insofar as taking it remains our last and final recourse.

"This is… JEOPARDY!"

Very much distinct from an affront is a case wherein one life, by accident of circumstance and through no fault, puts another life in jeopardy. Here again, every possible effort must be made to preserve both lives, in light of their inherent human dignity – and in spite of any apparent likelihood that one or the other will inevitably perish.

Supposing a woman's life is in jeopardy should she carry the child to term. One very simple and obvious solution: carry the child for as long as possible, and deliver the child via extraordinary means (such as caesarean) and do everything in your power to nurture it to its own good health. Every case will inevitably vary, and much will depend on circumstances apparent to those qualified to determine at what point, for example, death of the mother would otherwise be imminent. Her life is of no greater value than the child's, in spite of all subjective feelings to the contrary, and in spite of her own right to life.

But you may suggest a case in which it is scientifically, physically, medically impossible for the child to survive no matter what we may be capable of. One example comes to mind: one of my siblings I never had the good fortune to know, who through no fault of his own happened to lodge himself in my mother's fallopian tube, where he attached (not knowing any better and, frankly quite outside of his control) and continued to develop [ectopic pregnancy]. There is no way around it whatsoever: do nothing, and both mother and child will perish (and then there is no Andrew Ellis to grace your presence, as this occurred before I came to be). Are we permitted to kill the child?

No.

Is there anything - anything at all - that we can do? There is.

There is nothing whatsoever at all that can be done to save the child that is apparent to us. Yet the human dignity of the child prevents us from killing it. Consider, as an analogy, a situation wherein as a consequence of a car accident, there are two innocent victims. Victim one is pinned under the vehicle and shows every sign that she will recover so long as we move the vehicle within a few hours. Victim two has been severed in two, but the weight of the vehicle, pinning the massive and fatal wound closed, is temporarily sustaining her life. (Before replying that the odds are absurdly slim, let me remind the reader that they are not so different as the odds of a pregnancy in which a woman's life is truly in imminent danger long before there is any chance or hope of the child surviving caesarean.) Certainly, respecting the dignity of victim two, knowing full well that she has no chance of survival whatsoever – she will perish no matter what we do - we are neither inclined nor permitted to simply kill her. Rather, knowing full well that she will perish as the sorrowful and unintended consequence, and that there are indeed no alternatives whatsoever, we remove the vehicle. While it is by no means a perfect analogy, victim one is the mother, victim two is the child, and the vehicle is the mother's fallopian tube, without which the mother can survive. Faced with no alternatives whatsoever, we remove the fallopian tube and sorrowfully observe the inevitable.

Before objecting that this would follow with any case in which the mother's life is in jeopardy, and that one could get round to using the intent or the indirect means as a basis to defend abortion by means of, for example, a chemical abortion that 'merely' flushes the uterus, let me reiterate that a.) there is absolutely no apparent alternative whatsoever, and b.) the action taken is no way directed at the child, and finally c.) there is no intent whatsoever to kill the child. Fortunately for us, ectopic pregnancies are rare. More fortunately still, with ectopic pregnancies being the only exception (of which I am aware), there are so incredibly few cases in which the child cannot be carried for some time before the mother's life is in imminent danger that they will hardly register at all in any statistical chart or study. Medical science has afforded us unprecedented capabilities when it comes to early delivery of a child. One recent case involved a child at a mere 28 weeks gestation. [read story here]

The case of a mother's life in jeopardy is a common appeal to our emotions. The mother's right to life doesn't in any way trump or supersede the rights of the child. They are equal. And certainly we are required to treat a mother who faces this dilemma with great compassion, and with as much compassion towards the child. As certainly, in the extremely rare cases where we are faced with this dilemma, the combination of circumstance, level and degree of danger, and alternatives and skills at our disposal will vary. There will be no cut and dry procedure that any legal system could enforce. But it can – and should – prohibit the direct killing of the child.

That having been said, the jeopardy clause is an exceptionally weak appeal. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute and Planned Parenthood's very own Family Planning Perspectives (both institutions very loud proponents of abortion), 6% of all abortions are performed "because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or the child." I won't even bother adding emphasis on that ambiguous qualifier, "potential." Neither the ambiguous term "health problems," which encompasses everything from club feet and cleft lip to far more serious problems. Nor will I point out the curious manner in which the mothers and children's lives are combined into one statistic, particularly in light of our latest perversion of human compassion, "mercy killing."

When Nature Screws Up…. Really, Really Badly

I had the great displeasure of discovering anencephaly by accident, browsing the internet for photographs depicting babies in utero. In fact, prior to happening upon anencephaly, I happened upon a video of an infant that suffered from a dramatically different, although nearly as visually disturbing condition called harlequin ichthyosis.

Neither of these two cases are known to put the mother's life in jeopardy. But the survival rate for anencephaly is zero, and only recently improved from that for harlequin ichthyosis thanks to advances in medical science. On one hand, one may argue that it is an act of mercy to end the pain and suffering of the victims of these terrible conditions, particularly considering that they stand little to no chance of survival anyhow. On another hand, perhaps one would argue that, particularly with anencephaly, the degree of deformity and extremely undeveloped brain is a case against whether the creature really qualifies as a human being, as though the aberration of nature is to such a degree and so apparent that human cells mistakenly concocted some other life form that was distinct from a human being.

Shoot off your face with some buck shot, and there is no question the visual impact will change the attitudes of those around you a bit, especially those who haven't gotten to know you beforehand. That's just to make a point about visual impact. Let's not let that deceive us, first of all.

Is a child with anencephaly a human being? Excuse me, but if we are to ask this question based on the fact that its biological development went awry by some degree and by whatever cause, one could start questioning the humanity of persons with any number of defects or deformities – and at whatever stage of development they happened to occur. Science does well enough to make it clear that a species reproduces its own species, with or without defect or deformity. The extent of any defect or deformity has no bearing on whether the offspring is a human entity, its visual impact notwithstanding. Chernobyl produced all manner of freakish aberrations, none of which produced a new species of animal.

Many anencephalic children have no sensory perception whatsoever, and no consciousness - as far as we can tell. This makes them no less human that an adult in a coma.

We empathize with others who experience suffering. We wouldn't want it ourselves, and it causes us pain to witness it. Wouldn't it be better, especially for a child who stands no chance of survival whatsoever, to end the suffering by taking their life? Is this not the compassionate thing to do?

Absolutely, 100% no. Certainly, we are rightly compelled to alleviate suffering, which we do. But the dignity of that human life, however much it may suffer, however low one might put their 'quality of life,' remains inviolable. There is no exception. On one hand, there is no dignity in violating the principle to escape suffering. We who are capable of suicide know full well how selfish and how narcissistic it is, how undignified is the act, that it is an act of selfish defiance –that it defies the principle, is an affront to our inherent dignity. Children who have not learned the skill of selective reasoning are incapable of it – no matter how they suffer, they struggle to survive while they struggle to avoid pain and discomfort.

On another hand, who are we to snuff out that life? Who are we to gauge for any person their quality of life, a subjective value judgment? What right do we have? And had we the right, why would it stop there? Where is the point at which we could no longer claim the right to make that call? How do you establish that point? What are the criteria? A six-year-old develops leukemia: poof!

Taking a step back to the car accident analogy above: do we have the right to put a bullet through victim #2's head? The chances of survival are entirely irrelevant. The degree or magnitude of deformity or defect is irrelevant. Consciousness or sensory perception are irrelevant. These are all – every one – preceded by the nature of the human entity, the inherent dignity of the human person.

If you haven't clicked the harlequin ichthyosis link above, do it now. The misguided notion of "mercy killing" would compel some, no doubt, to end this human life. Perhaps it would not survive much longer anyhow. Did Ryan Gonzalez' parents have a right to judge he were better off dead?

I shudder to think of the possibilities if the appointed Health Care Commissioner should think so.

IN SUMMARY

There is no grey but where we confuse black and white. Either a person is a person, or they are not. And as such they share the same inherent dignity. If that dignity is granted by God, it is absolute. If it is an arbitrary consensus of man, though tenuous, it cannot be but universal, or it is no principle.

In either case, the human person – a human entity apart and distinct from other human entities – starts at some point. Human life clearly has a finite beginning. Science and logic both direct us to one concrete moment at which a biological process begins, a moment in which a distinct human entity exists where there was none before. And from that point onward, there are merely stages of biological development that take anywhere from a decade to fifteen years to mature, throughout the course of which independence and self-sufficiency are only gradually attained. And until they are, it is incumbent on us to provide – and the vilest and most egregious offense against them, and against ourselves, to choose to do the exact opposite.