The New Question About Life

The stem cell debate has forced us to ask a different question: when is life sufficiently precious to preserve?

BY: Steven Waldman

For years, the abortion debate has focused on one question: when does life begin? If you believe that life begins at conception, you should oppose abortion. If you believe life begins when a fetus can live outside the womb, then you should be pro-choice.



In his address to the nation Thursday night, President Bush also said this question was central. "Are these frozen embryos human life?" he asked.



But the stem cell debate--and Bush's own decision--has actually moved us to focus on a very different question: when is life sufficiently precious to preserve?



That may sound like a soulless question. Surely, while we may not agree on when life begins we can at least agree that once it does begin it should be protected. But to a degree not fully acknowledged by activists, Americans already approach the question in that more nuanced way -- and President Bush has now implicitly joined their ranks.



More on the
Stem Cell Debate

The classic pro-life view says, in effect, that "a life is a life is a life." But most Americans make far more distinctions about "life."



Almost everyone considers plant life less sacred than animal life. Even vegetarians kill asparagus plants, though they had an active life system that took in nutrients, secreted waste and emitted energy. Most of us also distinguish between forms of animal life. Few think it murder to step on a bug; most view it as horrendous to eat a stallion.



Kosher Jews and Muslims who follow laws of halal are implicitly creating yet another class of animal--those that are precious enough to require a compassionate death (unlike, say, a mosquito), and yet not so noble as to be off-limits (like humans).



Most important, we make distinctions about human life. Though there are some who believe that if one opposes abortion, one must also oppose the death penalty, most Americans separate the issues and deem executing a murderer to be, in the abstract, permissible. The reason, of course, is that that particular life is not "innocent."



Continued on page 2: »

To comment on this content you must be a registered user:

Sign-Up or Log-In

About Beliefnet

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness. More about Beliefnet.

Help

Media Kit

Subscribe

Legal

Copyright © Beliefnet, Inc. and/or its licensors. All rights reserved. Use of this site is subject to Terms of Service and to our Privacy Policy. Constructed by Beliefnet.

Advertisement
DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook