Is it Murder

Stages of development of a human fetus.  Source.

Amongst the most popular of debate topics of all time must be the topic of abortion.  While this topic elicits a wide range of responses and feelings from people around the world, it remains a hotly contested issue here in the US.  It is never far from any political debate and entire political careers have been made or broken on it.  People running for office at all levels from the local to national are often voted in or out on its basis and even Supreme Court justices are scrutinized on their position.  I even heard a prominent activist state that "(he) does not care about fiscal or foreign policy as long as the candidate is against abortion."  Of course, this debate gets completely muddled up because religion gets involved in it.  Fair enough, for religion purports to explain human life and what better place to start than the very beginning.  I through this medium would like to weigh in, and hopefully in some small way add to the debate.  Of course, those who know me (both personally and through previous posts on this blog) know that my views are not based in any way, shape, or form on any religious teaching.  If it confirms to one, then great.  If it does not, then too it does not matter.

We (this is a big collective 7 billion+ we) like to have our issues be black or white.  It does not matter what the issue is, for we want it simplified into a yes or no, it either is or isn't.  Perhaps our simple minds cannot handle nuance, or perhaps we have just learned from millennia of experience that it is simpler to make a decision when the matter falls neatly into one bucket.  So it is with abortion, where simple statements like the following attempt to put the issue cleanly into one camp or another:

All abortion is murder.

Only a woman should control her own body.

Life begins at conception.

You cannot take away a woman's right to choose.

Well, it's not that simple unfortunately - or at least I do not think it is.  Regardless of how binary we may wish to make it, the fact is that life is a gradual progression from conception to birth.  Trying to pin down exactly when a fetus becomes a human is an ad hoc and futile exercise.  One just has to see the image at the top or read about the stages of fetal development on the umpteen number of medical and parenting sites out there to know that a child goes through stages of development during the pregnancy.  After all, that is the whole point of spending nine months in the womb.  So I argue that if an embryo immediately after conception is Life = 0 and the birth of a child is Life = 1, then the period in between is Life = "some decimal number" < 1.  Whether the progression from 0 to 1 is linear or some curve with a change in slope at crucial stages (e.g. when the heart starts beating or the brain is developed) is immaterial.  The fact is the fetus is not a full life but neither is it just a collection of cells.  It is something in between.  And if we are to debate whether aborting the fetus is murder, then we must appreciate this nuance.  We can appreciate this concept by looking at a miscarriage.  Any miscarriage is a tragic and unfortunate event, but I think everyone would agree that an early term miscarriage is less tragic than a late term one which is less so than the death of a baby.  This is the painful truth and though we may not wish to assign a value to life, the fact is we implicitly do.  (As an aside, I would argue that we continue to do so throughout a person's life and therefore find the death of a 20 year old more tragic than that of an 80 year old)

In keeping with this nuance, we must deal with each situation on its merits, no matter how difficult it makes it to write laws or pass judgement.  To make my position clear, I am strongly opposed to abortion as a means of birth control.  Abortion cannot be a solution to a choice made on some random night.  For those who are completely Pro-Choice, I say this - "You had a choice, and you made the choice when you decided to have sex".  After the fact you may not be killing a child, but you are certainly taking some fraction of a life.  An abortion simply as a substitute for contraception or abstinence is immoral and wrong.  However, there are situations in which an abortion is justified, and these are situations where a full adult life is in question for 1 is greater than some decimal number.  Such situations (not a complete list) may be where the mother's life is in danger, rape, incest, or a baby's health condition where the child is unlikely to survive (admittedly this last one is tricky).  In such instances the act of abortion is not akin to killing a child, but it is not a benign act either.  It then becomes a woman's choice whose body it ultimately is.

Of course, there are many facets to this debate and I have only scratched the surface.  My point is this - we cannot clearly delineate a point where we go from No Life to Life.  It is a gradual process with shades of gray.  These shades of gray must be appropriately weighed against the clear black or white that exists on either end.  I recognize that this post does little to formulate an enforceable policy or legislation.  It also does little to help you pick a side on the ongoing debate on abortion.  But I suppose that is my point - there cannot be sides and I for one find myself sitting in the middle.

The Point

I saw the following written on a colleague's board today:

Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil.  It has no point.

So I got thinking about this quote, the analogy it is drawing, and what it means.  Of course, the analogy is just meant to be cute and the real purpose is to say that God is the point of living.  I find that rather sad, that someone would need the support of an unseen and unproven entity to justify or find meaning in life.  That all of the tangible, measurable, and identifiable beauty around this individual is not sufficient to make life worth living.  So what is it about God that all of a sudden gives life meaning?

The following is not by any means an exhaustive list, especially since I have not reviewed it with anyone with a sharp pencil like life, but it's a start.  God gives meaning to life because:

1. He (see note below) created us and therefore alone has the right to define our purpose.  This would be similar to say an architect deciding how a particular building he created would be used.
2. It is God's mercy and love alone that has provided us with all that we have, and without him, we would have nothing.  This is perhaps like a young child loving, honoring, and respecting his parents because they love him and provide him with everything.
3. Our ultimate purpose is to celebrate the glory of God.  In fact this is why God created us.  He was sitting around one day, bored, and said, "I need some people to sing my praises", so He created Man.  This is kind of like circular logic - God gives us meaning because we were created as something for God to give meaning to.
4. When we die, we will go to see God, and He will judge us by how much we believed in the idea that He alone gave life meaning.  This is somewhat cynical since it assumes the person believing this is doing for an ulterior motive.  Of course, the truly devout hopefully have really internalized it since an omnipotent God would know that they are just putting on a show.  They dont really mean it, but want to make sure they can convince God of it when they meet him in Heaven.
5. I cannot explain all that happens around me, so surely there must be a God that controls it and therefore provides meaning to not only my life but all of this Universe.

I am sure that other reasons exist, but believing in any of this does a great injustice to everything else that exists around us.  I do not claim to know the meaning of life, but do know that I find plenty of meaning in it without having a place for God.  I choose to believe that I am where I am with what I have due to a combination of my parents love and support, my friends and family, all of society, and ultimately my own abilities and efforts.  To say that God alone has given me all of this is shortchanging not only myself but everyone around me.  Imagine how you would feel if you just wrote Romeo and Juliet and audiences went around saying that this guy named Shakespeare wrote it.  

Allow me also to address #5 above directly.  Such a rationale is driven by ignorance and fear, not reason and evidence.  I do not think that humans will ever develop the science that explains everything, but just because we do not know does not prove the existence of a God.  It's a bit like saying that I do not know what is inside that locked house, but I can hear some nice music coming out of it, so surely Mozart must be in there playing the piano.  Mozart could be in there, but that is highly unlikely.  If we must believe it should be because we have a strong reason to, not because we cannot think of anything better.

Sticking with the original analogy, perhaps Life without God is indeed like an unsharpened pencil for it still can write and does NOT have a "weapon" at the end of it that is all too often used to poke others in the eye.  But, life without God has a point.  Its point is to care for ourselves, those around us, and the planet that sustains us.  It is to do this while remembering to admire the beauty and harmony in the universe that surrounds us.  By doing so we can very well make life incredibly meaningful, both for ourselves and others.  Hopefully we can live a life that would also make it meaningful to others whom we have never met.  Regardless of the magnitude of our individual impacts, a perceived entity in the sky is not needed to provide a fulfilling and purposeful life.  To suggest a pointless existence without God is frankly insulting to all of human endeavor, compassion, and accomplishment.

Note on Gender - I have no idea of the gender of God but since common lore refers to God as a male, I will continue that here.  Of course I could just as easily use She or It.  

Yet Another Note on Gender - I have, for purely convenience, used a male human as a subject in my examples.  Apologies to feminists everywhere, but if you wish you could replace him or he (lowercase ones only) with her or she and make no other change.  

Is it edible?

One of the most fascinating things about science and technology for me is that by its very nature, it will always challenge our preconceived notions and that which we for whatever reason hold to be absolute.  In fact, this is perhaps the single unique difference between religion and science.  While many can say that an adherence to science and scientific fact is a world-view like any religious world-view and therefore the same, this is the crucial difference.  Religion teaches many things to be completely outside the realm of debate, no matter what the new information may be.  Science on the other hand continues to challenge itself and always keeps itself open to changing what it may have just a short while back held to be a fundamental pillar.

So, science has allowed a debate on another one of my favorite topics - vegetarianism.  By now, you surely have read about the lab grown burger that was sampled recently (BBC).  While this specific burger did not follow the following completely, the basic idea is that one uses stem cells from a cow (without killing it importantly) and then gets those stem cells to grow into muscle and fat in a lab.  Voila, one gets a hunk of meat without killing the cow.  Though still a long way off, one can imagine this being done in the future for a full steak, chicken wings (with bone and all), and maybe complete organs (monkey brain anyone?).  So a question I posed myself is - would I eat one?

To me, there are four reasons why someone may be a vegetarian (there may be others).

1. To not unnecessarily terminate the life of an animal, especially to only obtain a momentary pleasure at best.
2. For health reasons (their own, not the animals necessarily).
3. For the environment since it is well known that livestock production imposes significant stress on it.
4. Because they object to factory farming and the animal cruelty that comes with it.  While this is similar to 1, this group is not against humane breeding or slaughter or perhaps even hunting for meat, just not the way it is done today.

For me the primary reason why I am a vegetarian is animal rights, so reasons 1 and 4 above.  I am glad that side effects of my chosen lifestyle are benefits to my health and the environment, but the single biggest reason by far is I cannot justify killing and ending the life of a creature simply because my tongue craves the taste.

With this therefore, since the lab grown meat does not violate either reasons 1 or 4, I should be completely fine with eating it.  Actually it also does a pretty good job with #3 and can probably be tailored to make a good dent into #2.  But getting back to the fact that this burger will not cause a cow to die, it will satisfy my general condition for what I can and will not eat.  In fact, this is the reason why I am not objected to eating eggs or dairy since these products of animals caused them to work, but not die.  Full respect to the vegans out there, but I am comfortable with my justification.  The lab grown meat therefore will be no different (arguably much more humane) than milk or cheese or eggs.  

The truth is though that for me there is a fifth reason for being vegetarian, and that is I find it positively disgusting.  The thought that what I would put in my mouth was at some point blood, guts, and slimy bodily fluids makes meat in no way, shape, or form appealing.  It reminds me of road kill, no matter how nicely it may be served up on a plate or grocery store.  So for me, I will likely pass on the lab burger as it will continue to gross me out.  I just wont be able to argue against it.

All of this said, I truly believe that lab grown meat is not something we as a race should pursue or encourage.  We have screwed around enough with our food to the point where we are beginning to see negative effects.  Think for example of the number of food allergies we see today which until recently were unheard of.  I do not have scientific proof of this, but cannot help think that Genetically Modified plants do not have some relation.  It is only natural to think that once the basics of growing meat in a lab are common, there will be a push for modifications to boost production.  That is clearly going to be the push of market forces and it is near impossible to predict what the impacts of those are going to be.  We have no idea what effects such "meat" would have on us and is a dangerous path to venture.  The better path without a doubt is to simply stop eating animals.  It will be better for you, better for the environment, better for humankind, and most certainly better for the animals.