We base our moral and legal principles on the belief that as a society we should have just and equitable allocation of basic rights, one of those being a right to life. But what exactly does that mean?

The "culture of life" ideology frequently promoted by social conservatives takes the stance that human life at all stages, ranging from conception to natural death, is sacred. On the surface this makes sense. Regardless of the ethical framework we employ - rights based, utilitarianism, deontology, etc. - it seems rational and ethical to preserve life whenever possible. Unfortunately however, it is hardly ever that simple.

Advocates of the culture of life and Evangelium Vitae or "The Gospel of Life" as outlined by Pope John Paul II oppose many biotechnological processes on the basis that they destroy human life. These include embryonic stem cell research, abortion, euthanasia, and contraception just to name a few. What they fail to address are the inconsistencies that make several of these stances illogical. Furthermore, even in situations where there may be actually destruction of life, they fail to address the main issue which is not merely the preservation of life but the quality of it as well. Here are a few examples.

The most basic failure in their argumentation is the idea that contraception is somehow a destruction of life. Neither a sperm cell nor an egg cell is individually compatible with life. It is common knowledge to anyone who has taken a basic biology course that the vast majority of cells in the body have a full set of 2N or 46 chromosomes. In order for an embryo to grow and develop into a full human being a sperm cell and egg cell must first fuse together in the process of fertilization. Saying that sperm or egg individually are equivalent to life is like saying a glass tank without any fish is an aquarium. Even the most liberal definition of life in any biological or medical sense could not (and should not) be extrapolated to include germ cells.

Another inadequacy in this position is the philosophy on how to treat embryos. While many proponents of the culture of life would argue that the destruction of embryos for research is wrong, there is no discussion on what to do with leftover embryos from IVF treatments. Nevertheless, the way that IVF works necessitates destruction of some embryos.

The basic steps are, first, multiple ova are removed from a woman, and then each is fertilized with a sperm cell. Next, the subsequent embryos produced must be screened for defects. There are usually several genetically healthy options at the end of the procedure and the doctor and (and patient) decide how many to implant back into the woman with the hope that at least one will come to full term.

However, there inevitably will be leftover embryos as it is neither medically safe nor prudent to implant all of the created embryos and there are therefore only a finite number of options with what to do with the excess. Either we destroy them (discard or use for research), freeze them forever, or forcibly implant them into women regardless of whether or not they desire to carry them to term.

Since the last two options are unethical and or unfeasible, there is only the first option. Either way the unused embryos will be destroyed. Why not use them for the benefit of science and future medical treatment? To be consistent with their position of preserving life at all costs, religious conservatives would have to argue that IVF is wrong, which they do not.

End of life care and treatment of patients with higher brain death is another problem under this paradigm. In 2005, the US was all abuzz with the controversy surrounding the Terri Schiavo case. In 1990, she went into full cardiac arrest and consequently suffered brain damage as a result of lack of oxygen. Doctors managing her case stated she was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. While her husband wanted her disconnected to die in peace, her parents argued that she could get better and that she would never have wanted to be deprived of food and water.

The dilemma of how to resolve the disagreement between the husband and parents continued all the way up to the top judicial and governmental bodies with the Supreme Court, President, and Congress getting involved.

The amount of attention this case garnered is perfectly indicative of how far off we are when it comes to our conception of life. We passively watch people die all over the globe from completely treatable and preventable conditions, while fighting tooth and nail for life in its most shallow and arguably weakest existence. One might argue that it is in fact these types of marginal cases that deserve the most consideration because if we cannot protect life in its most fragile sense, we are not helping those that need to be saved the most, but in reality cases like these say a great deal about our priorities as a society and nation. Basically, we care more about diverting attention and precious resources to those who have no hope rather than helping those who actually can be saved.



It is truly baffling how absolutely terrified Western culture has become of death, of any sensation of pain, and of the slightest degree of discomfort or suffering, while at the same time being completely impervious to the disastrous health and living conditions around the world. Tens of millions of people die every year from starvation and from diseases like HIV and yet the life that the Catholic Church strives to save is that of a permanently comatose woman devoid of all characteristically human traits. The implications of this are tremendous: we value the shell of life more than fully functioning human beings. How can we appropriately address inequalities and fair resource distribution when this is the predominate view for a majority of the population?

Furthermore, another flaw in the culture of life argument is the villainization of their opponents as the "culture of death." In reality, their opponents do not promote or encourage death, they merely ask others to evaluate (as they do) the value of a particular life for the individual living it. It seems the main problem affecting pro lifers is their failure to realize that there is a considerable difference between life in the biological sense, which is difficult enough to define as it is, and quality of life which encompasses many more factors, both physical and psychological.

For example, individuals who are pro-choice often are taking into consideration the quality of life of a child whose parents do not wish to raise him or her. It is amazing how much people fret over the right for a child to be born, yet afterwards are totally unaware or unconcerned with what is in the child's best interests.

So many children every year are mistreated, abandoned, or cycled through foster care. One could argue that it is better for abusive parents who will hurt, neglect, and otherwise victimize their children to abort them in the first place rather than to raise him or her in miserable conditions and torture them throughout their childhood and adolescence. Yet, somehow this way of thinking is compared to eugenics and Nazi mentality. The study of behavioral psychology has actually shown that personality, success, and happiness throughout life are intrinsically tied to experiences in the earlier part of life and interactions with our environment. This may not be perfectly applicable for all individuals but certainly there is strong indication of causality and correlation. Yet not much is done to improve the conditions for those individuals who are disadvantaged from the start.

We frequently hear talks about the dignity of an individual, especially with regards to end of life care. For many people, however, surviving only with the aid of a ventilator and a feeding tube with no hope of recovery is an undignified way of subsisting. Advocates of the culture of life do not fully consider this possibility.

Ultimately, concepts like dignity, quality, and value are subjective and will mean different things to different people. However, to fully address the wide range of values people have, we need to consider a fuller view of life which takes into consideration many more factors beyond whether or not it exists. We must consider how we define life biologically, socially, and perhaps philosophically. Furthermore, at some point we have to address quality of life and not merely life itself. Lastly, some discussion needs to take place on the implications of our views on life and how it is indicative of society as a whole.