Sanctity of Life

[Brainstormy]

I know that the piñata I’m swinging at is full of angry bees, even on this forum, which has felt safe so far to me, and comfortable for expressing my thoughts. I may be risking that now, but I have to take my swing anyway. I never hear this and wonder if I’m all alone. ???????

See, I don’t believe in the “sanctity” of life. I am in awe of the evolutionary processes that have resulted in life on earth. I’m humbled before, as Dylan Thomas phrased it, “the force that that through the green fuse drives the flower.” But as a rationalist, nothing has been made “holy” to me as a result of religious superstition. Blastocyst, zygote, embryo, fetus. Normal stages of human development. There is nothing there to sanctify or to worship. Nothing there that is “sacred.”

I do subscribe to an ethical hierarchy. I give higher value in my system to higher evolutionary forms because it seems to me, rationally, that these are the ones with the most potential, not just for greater good, but also for greater suffering. And I don’t mean the simple suffering of neurological pain. I mean suffering in all the complex physical, psychological and sociological dimensions which human beings are capable of experiencing. The kind of complex, alas, intelligent, suffering that surfaces in dreams, and manifests in guilt, self-hatred and violence. The kind of suffering that no blastocyst, or zygote, or embryo or fetus can possibly experience.

I read where, in Texas, the family of a brain-dead, pregnant woman is suing the hospital that is keeping her alive against the family’s wishes. I remember the Terry Shiavo affair. I simply don’t understand. There are complex legal issues involved. But I still don’t, I can’t, understand. Why an individual human, a person, with an extended family, each of whom is capable of an infinite range of genuine suffering should be sacrificed to an iconic idea—the unborn “sacred” is simply beyond me. The “sanctity of life” seems a ridiculous notion and I reject it. Life itself—THE life, THESE lives, seem much more important.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. With the self-awareness that we have evolved...

it's easy to fall into a number of traps when we see our future as largely one of suffering and death.

One thing we do is try to reduce the suffering and put off death. This only works to a small extent and does little to eliminate the injustices we see.

The next thing we do is invent other worlds that we may pass on to, and outside forces that guide the universe. And to blame for things we don't like. And an immortal soul that makes up for many things.

Regardless of the truth, or lack thereof, of all this invention, it seems to serve us well at times-- giving some meaning to our existence and authority to our rules. And who knows, there may be some truth at the bottom of it all after all.

But, then comes a time when all of our traditional thought and mores run into the wall of changed knowledge or circumstances. We now have the ability to turn an almost lifeless woman into an incubator but still haven't fully developed the ethos to guide us in some of the awesome decisions we have to make. Thousands of years of religious and ethical thought and here we have something no one ever anticipated and no real rules to guide us.

So, while most of us try to work out a solution, some think they already have one in obsolete ethics. Ethics that worked fine for a few thousand years but can't hold up in the modern world. But, they are the only ones who claim a clear answer, so they are listened to.

[defacto7]

4. That is one beautiful reply to a very poignant post.

I wouldn't dare add to it.

[Curmudgeoness]

2. Ballsy, Brainstormy.

I would not say that I don't believe in the "sanctity of life", although that is not the terminology I have ever used. I respect life, all life, but I still will kill termites or mice that get into my house. I do not kill a bee in the house, I move it outside. So I do think all life matters, but my needs are most important. The termites will destroy MY house, therefore, they must go.

But I also agree with what you say and would use an argument for pro-choice in the abortion wars if I was as ballsy as you are to articulate it. In studying biology, I came upon the phrase "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" (one of my professors loved this one). In brief, this means that the development of a human baby goes through the evolutionary history of humans.

By studying ontogeny (the development of embryos), scientists can learn about the evolutionary history of organisms. Ancestral characters are often, but not always, preserved in an organism’s development. For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks that are identical to the gill slits and gill arches of fish. This observation supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish. Thus, developmental characters, along with other lines of evidence, can be used for constructing phylogenies.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC6aOntogeny.shtml

I know that the same people who would eat a fish are opposed to harming a human embryo at a low form in the evolutionary scale. I could try this argument, but I haven't got the guts for it.

[Warpy]

3. While I can see doing it for a fetus close to viability

this one was 10 weeks from being able to make it, barely, outside the womb and with maximum intervention. That's a long time to keep a corpse alive and considering the limitations of our technology, they're just not going to make it. If they do, the kid is likely to have some really major problems.

In any case, giving a non viable fetus more rights than the woman in which it resides and the family of that woman when she is no longer capable of enforcing her own decisions is grotesque.

One would think that fully living people would be able to outvote a nonviable fetus. something wholly dependent on another creature's body, but such is not the case in Texas or other states that are infested with fundamentalist governments.

If I were a woman living in Texas, I'd leave.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. You might be interested in this discussion...

on NPR's Here&Now last Thursday where the director of medical ethics at NYU agrees with you

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/01/09/pregnant-life-support

One pertinent part of the interview...

<...>

YOUNG: Well, and we should say that there might be families that would agree to this process. Jeffrey Spike, he's professor of clinical ethics at the University of Texas, says there have been cases of brain-dead mothers being kept alive on respirators to pump oxygen to a fetus because that's what the family wants.

CAPLAN: Absolutely, and I've had one here at NYU. But that woman unfortunately was in a bad car accident, but she was eight and a half months pregnant. She was on machines a little bit, a day or two, and then a C-section was done. That's a delivery from a woman who's pregnant and had died.

YOUNG: Well, Professor Spike says this is the first case he's heard of of a family being forced to do this.

CAPLAN: It's certainly the first one I'm aware of. I do know instances where people have said please continue, and that's great. My point is the law in Texas or in these other states is way too broad. You have to give discretion because these situations are different. Somebody dead at 14 weeks, or somebody dead, for that matter, at two days of pregnancy, is not the same as someone who dies sadly at eight and a half months.

And to try and legislate that impose a view about what's the right thing to do when difference of opinion is absolutely there, and we're seeing it in the Texas, I think is just unethical, unconstitutional, wrong.

YOUNG: We'll see how this continues. Art Caplan, director of medical ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center, thanks so much.

[progressoid]

5. I also have a problem using the word 'sanctity'.

Because of it's religious implications (blessedness, godliness, piety, piousness, sainthood, saintliness, saintship, holiness) it is of no use to me.

[uriel1972]

6. there is no sanctity of life...

The universe shows us this every moment of every day. That said I value fellow humans above many things, but I refuse to torture another human being, just because I am afraid of death.

[defacto7]

7. We're born..

we live and add something to the planet or we live and only take from it. Then we die. We are the guests of the earth for a short time. We are not special or better than anything else. We will be welcome guests or we will be shown the door. If we're tossed out, the earth will forget we ever were, clean up out mess over a few short millennia and continue on another merry billion years. We're just a speck in time. Nothing about us is sacred. The only thing sacred is the earth itself because it harbors life and the possibilities life creates.

[Locut0s]

8. A great post Brainstormy, let's break things down a little...

I have to commend you on your writing, and I agree with all your points. Here's my opinion / reply / 2 cents.

Let's first look at what people mean by "Sanctity of Life". What does sanctity mean? Several dictionaries variously define the term as meaning:

"holiness of life and character"

"the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly."

"ultimate importance and inviolability"

Well being atheist and or agnostics here I think we can pretty much discount the first two definitions since the concepts of "holly" and "saintly" have no real meaning or bearing on the discussion. The last definition seems to get closer to the point. But even here "inviolability" speaks too much of concepts such as desecration and the like. So I suppose we are left with defining it as something of "ultimate importance". Of course understand that by throwing out the concepts of holly, saintly, and inviolable I've immediately alienated about 90% or more of the truly religious people on the planet. For those few who are still willing to follow me I'll give you that most atheists would agree that life IS of the utmost of importance.

In fact many would say that in the absence of an all knowing deity, in the absence of an afterlife, and the concept of immortality, life takes on an even greater importance. After all it's the atheists who believe that we are here for but the most fleeting of moments, as Shakespeare put it:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more [...]"

I believe a good argument can be made that, paradoxically, many atheists value life MORE than many theists. After all what's the impetus to REALLY improve life here on earth when you believe in the concept of an afterlife?

I also agree with you and find it the height of irony and hypocrisy that it's often the religious who most often prolong the lives of the dead and dying in order to hold onto the fleeting, often non-existent, hope that they will improve and return to us. One would think someone who believes in an after life, and the concept that the body here on earth is but a temporary vessel full of sin, would be the first to let go of the dead, often this is not the case at all.

One area where one has to be careful with though is in not writing off the rest of life on earth by creating the ethical hierarchy you mentioned. I don't think you meant to for one second, but I can see it being a slippery slope for some as well. From a purely evolutionary perspective there is nothing special about human beings beyond our complexity. And our complexity isn't that special either. Evolution naturally builds upon the forms that are already in existence, thus over time it's natural that more and more complex forms of life will evolve. Stephen Jay Gould used the "The Drunkard's Walk" to illustrate this. These forms are however not necessarily better in any objective way than the simplest of life. In fact a good argument can be made that the "best", certainly most successful, forms of life are bacteria, given their amazing adaptability and elegant use of their small genetic resources. This isn't to say we should adopt a cold, mechanistic view of life and our fellow man, quite the opposite, and here is where I agree with your ethical hierarchy, we just need to be careful to keep the other in mind as well.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Dylan Thomas was a genius.

It warms my heart to see him quoted here.


I agree, I don't see or perceive 'sanctity' of any sort in anything. That said, life is still precious to me. Human life is a stand-out among life forms, but I will go out of my way to help any creature, if I can. I'm not entirely consistent on this, as I do consume meat, but even at that, I go out of my way to ensure that meat suffered as little as possible, and enjoyed as normal a life as possible up to that point.

So rather than sanctity, I say it is precious, to me. I don't demand that it be precious to every other person, they are free to choose/ally themselves to whatever they find worthwhile in this world, so long as they aren't harming me or mine.

Edit: Nice post, for your 420th.

[Lordquinton]

11. All life is sacred

Unless you are a woman, then you get less rights to your own body than a corpse does. It is illegal to remove organs from a corpse if the person did not consent to it before death, even if it would save a life. You also cannot be forced to give blood, or bone marrow, or any other tissue or organs, even if you are the only person who would be able to save a life.

It's the right to bodily autonomy, and explained much better elsewhere, but it applies to pregnancy, if a woman wants a fetus removed it is her right, like the ones I listed above, to have final say over her own body, regardless of whether it would save another life or not.