Sunday, November 2, 2008
For the last several weeks, we’ve been using the Scientific Method to talk about the pre-born child. I’ve received a couple of emails on this topic. One thanked me for covering such a topic and the other asked why bother. “Why is such a topic important?”
I’ll address that question at the end of this posting, but I’d like to continue my original theme first. This week’s posting deals with the fourth aspect of the Scientific Method called the Experiment. It tests the hypothesis. In our case, we are testing the following TOPIC (or question): "Given the scientific data of what it means to be human, does the pre-born child qualify as a human being?"
According to the scientific method website
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html , the experiment “is the most important part of the scientific method. It’s the logical process that lets scientists learn about the world.”
(I don’t know about you, but I don’t think you are required to have a degree in science to learn about the world.)
We know that DNA exists for each individual from the moment the first cell is created from the sperm and the egg. For nine months, that individual grows and matures inside the mother’s womb without the world “looking in.”
So what’s our experiment? So many experiments out there touch on human life. Which one do we choose?
I’ve actually chosen something completely different. Why rehash all the old arguments?
Therefore, my experiment is an exercise for our imagination and logic skills.
Let’s say that the human race is visited by an alien race whose technology includes reducing all human life to its basic individual signature. In one instant, we are all turned to dust, but our DNA still exists in that dust. Going along their merry destructive way, that alien race continues through the galaxy.
Later, another more peaceful alien group, determined to undo the damage caused by the first alien race, visits earth. They have a method they use to “reconstitute” the DNA back into a living being. Based on individual DNA they go about undoing the destruction, giving humans back their bodies.
Question: If the alien’s method relies on DNA, will they be unable to reconstitute the pre-born child?
Since that child had its own DNA, it is reconstituted as its own life form. Why not? Everything that defined that person existed from time the first cell came into being.
As human beings, we are very short sided. We claim that because the pre-born child isn’t “fully formed”, it is not human, but that is incorrect by all scientific standards. Its DNA identifies it as human, not the maturity of its lungs, heart, brain or any other organ.
Our society has taken the “don’t see, don’t believe” stance. In other words, because we don’t “see” the life outside the mother’s womb, we as a society think we have domination over it.
Not only is this a fallacy, but it reeks of an elitist attitude that is selfish beyond the core. We did not choose our own life; it was a gift. We have no right to “choose” life for another—that is also a gift.
So back to the email I received that asked the question on why I would view the pre-born life a discussion worth “the time of day.” The very basic value of life is under discussion right now.
Amendment 48 makes that clear. Do we have a right to take another’s life simply because they cannot voice their opinion? No. As soon as that line is blurred, we will move on to the next line. Can an infant defend itself outside the womb? No. Then it has no right to life. Can an elderly person defend himself? No, then he is not needed. Can physically or mentally challenged people defend themselves? No, then they need to make room for those who can.
The list will never stop, the lines blurred forever.
We have a “no tolerance” bullying policy in our schools, so why can’t we have a “no bullying” policy on those who cannot defend themselves in life?