SERMON

When does a life begin? The protesters outside women's health services clinics clearly believe that it happens at conception. Just in the instant when the sperm penetrates the egg a human being is formed. Just as an acorn completely describes the tree it will become, the soul of the new person begins existing. Any termination of that process is the moral equivalent of murder.

When does a life end? Those who oppose physician assisted suicide believe that it must end with the natural process of dying as the heart stops and the breathing process begun at birth ceases. Both sides agree that the dying person has a right to pain control and the ability to refuse treatment. Yet the exact moment of death must come at a minute controlled by the divine timetable. Any attempt to hasten that moment is wrong.

Rarely though, does the discussion turn to what is beginning or ending. When a human life begins -- does a soul all of a sudden get beamed into the fertilized egg? If it wasn't there at conception, where did it come from? Does the soul physically leave the body upon death as some of the near death experiences suggest? (Pseudo-scientists have put dying people on scales trying to see if upon death their weight changes. Using this method they estimated the soul's weight at about 2 ounces which seems pretty substantial.) If there is a separate soul, where is it? If my leg is amputated, is part of my soul diminished? What if half my brain is removed as has been done to some epileptic patients to control their seizures, am I less of a person? And by the way, how do you feel about perhaps having your body inhabited by this soul creature? Are our bodies parasitic hosts? Or, as I believe, are our bodies really complex biological systems which have consciousness as a byproduct of their functioning? And if consciousness has a biological as opposed to a metaphysical source, are we any different (beyond our superior brain capacity) from coyotes, vultures, dolphins, whales, and perhaps even live oak trees. Is there anything more than our bodies which begin and end?

These were questions we used to let theologians and philosophers decide. When a child was conceived, most women didn't think they had any option but to give birth. Abortion was a risky procedure that threatened the life of the woman. On the other end of the course of life, people just died. We didn't have the incredible medical technology we have today to sustain life. We have choices today we have never had before to stop and even jumpstart the beginning of a life and to sustain and continue a life far beyond its ability to function on its own. Without the assistance of medical technology, how many of us would be sitting in this room this morning? The further we advance in technology, the more choices we are given in controlling the course of our lives. Soon we may be able to take an unwanted child out of one womb and transplant it in another one. We already have the ability for a couple to have their child conceived in a petri dish then grow in another woman's womb. On the other end of life, we may have to make terribly difficult decisions about a father or mother on a respirator decide for ourselves how much chemotherapy is enough. How much medical intervention into the course of my life will I accept? How shall I advise my friend about this treatment or that therapy? Having these new kinds of technology gives us new choices about living and dying. With these new choices come new responsibilities which cause us to revise our methods of finding moral solutions. Central to that decision making process of finding moral solutions is how we view the meaning of life and the meaning of death.

I believe life can neither be created nor destroyed. In a way this is obvious as one watches the endless cycle of living systems all around us. What begins and ends are individual expressions of life. An individual human body begins and ends. Life expresses itself through and is clearly independent of our individual existence. And death is our constant companion. Not only does birth and death happen outside of the individual--but inside as well. Throughout our bodies, the process of life and death is continually going on. Cells are constantly dying and being replaced. Except for the young, we are all gradually losing brain cells. The immune system is constantly seeking out pathogens to kill. Our bone marrow is constantly birthing new blood cells. We have no choice but to participation in the continuous cycle of birth, life and death. The Buddhists refer to this irremovable dilemma of living as the wheel of dependent origination, the endless cycle of cause and effect.

In this continuous cycle of birth, life and death, the conception of a human child is exceptional. In the East where reincarnation is taken for granted, having the opportunity for human birth is very precious. Every day countless lower life forms come into being, the viruses and bacteria, the bugs, the birds, the rats, mice and rabbits, who will never have the opportunity to awaken to our capacity for self-awareness; never have the opportunity for moral freedom. To allow life to express itself as human celebrates a wonderful triumph of evolution.

Given this tremendous reverence for human life all of us feel, it is difficult to grapple with the issue of voluntarily ending a human life. I believe it can be moral to voluntarily end human life. I believe we must come to grips with the reality that all human life does not have equal value. Worth and dignity, yes, but not equal value.

It is self evident that a 40 year old minister has a value different from a 1 day old zygote. We may share the same potential for someday having a home, a family, beneficial employment within the society, a white Toyota Corolla, and enjoying homestyle carrot muffins from Publix but our contemporary value is different. At the center of the abortion debate has been the question of whether a zygote is a person or not. Putting aside the value of a 1 day old zygote just for a moment, a potential person is not the same as a real person. They are different. Beyond being able to feed and clothe myself and regulate my bodily functions, I have something very unique in life forms we know about. I have moral agency and the ability for self-reflective thought. I have the ability to make moral choices. A 1 day old zygote does not.

I believe the debate about the personhood of a zygote is a red herring. It isn't the real issue to be grappled with. Yes, let us agree that a zygote is a potential human person. And if you accept that a potential person is not the same as a real person, we can focus on what I think is the real issue: What is the value of the fertilized egg. There are many distracting highly emotionally charged side issues in the abortion debate which detract from this central issue: What is the value of a human life.

Let me pause here and say that this is scary stuff. This is frightening territory to enter as it forces us to sit in judgment on the value of another's life. We seem to be usurping divine authority. Yet this is what the doctor asks when we are called in to decide whether to keep a family member on a respirator or not. This is what a couple must struggle with if a doctor tells the woman she is carrying a severely deformed child. We need intellectual tools to come to grips with these new situations and choices.

Mindful of both the beginning and the end of life, I propose that the value of an individual human life is not constant but increases at the moment of conception, decreases as one approaches death and even swings up and down during our lifetime. I propose this morning three scales to help value an individual human life. These scales cannot determine the value of human life which can only be arrived at in the heart of our moral being. These scales can however can be helpful, I believe, to separate out the competing values and clarify our thinking. If one accepts that there are no absolute criteria for making difficult moral decisions, then we need some way to organize our thinking so the decisions we must make satisfy our moral integrity. I will describe these scales for you now and next week I will apply them to a number of moral life and death decisions to test their usefulness

My first criteria for valuing human life is potentiality. Without question, a fertilized egg has more potential than the billions of sperm who didn't make it and the eggs that are excreted during the menstrual cycle. In fact the highest potential in our entire life occurs probably at that moment. That zygote could potentially be an astronaut, a religious leader, the President of the United States. The granddaughter of that zygote may be the one who discovers warp drive so we can get off this planet and begin discovering new worlds. The great grandson could be the next incarnation of Jesus or the Buddha. And let us also remember that it could grow up to be a thief, a wife beater or a mass murderer. The possibilities are almost infinite. As we grow and mature, our potentiality fluctuates up and down depending on the events in our lives, our age and our health. Someone in their 90's clearly doesn't have the same potential that someone in their 20's graduating from college has.

It is important to measure this potentiality not just in the life of the person such as, say, their earning potential over a lifetime. Our potentiality is also measured socially. I may invent something such as the telephone or a vaccine which brings benefit to all humanity. I may write an editorial or make a political speech which persuades the county commissioners to act beneficently toward those who are destitute (hard as this is to imagine). I may raise children who become industrious farmers feeding a hungry world. Even bedridden in a nursing home, bathing me and wiping my bottom is giving other people jobs and my love for my caregivers may bring benefit to them as well. All of this resides in my potentiality. No matter what age I am, my potentiality can be enormous.

My second criteria for valuing human life is quality of consciousness. Unlike potentiality which can be imagined objectively, quality of consciousness has a large subjective component. This is how we feel about being alive. Unlike potentiality, quality of consciousness begins at zero because a single cell has no experience of consciousness as far as we can determine. Quality of consciousness is still pretty limited even in infants as their cognitive processes are still forming. Our quality of consciousness probably peaks in our young adult years and can even continue to increase till the end of our lives.

Determining quality of consciousness is extremely difficult as we cannot know what it is like to be inside another person's head. For example, if someone is in pain, we cannot know what it is like to experience that pain. We don't know how it makes that person feel about being alive. Body builders or long distance runners are intimate with pain and turn it into an ally to tell them where their physical limits are. Religious ascetics welcome pain as a way to purify their thoughts and feelings. Others will experience any pain as a profound disturbance which interrupts their lives, removing their enjoyment of living.

The absence of any quality of consciousness can be detected of course by the measurement of brain activity. While this is a useful way to pronounce death it can be deceptive. Buddhist monks are able to so reduce their brain activity so as to appear brain dead as measured with electronic instruments.

For most of us, our quality of consciousness is the most important element which determines the value of our lives. If we are mentally tormented by intense physical suffering,, diminished capacity to experience sensation and thought, and a negative self image, our quality will be low. If we are healthy and vigorous, our minds are clear, our receptivity to our senses keen and our cognitive ability sharp, our quality of consciousness will be high.

My final criteria for valuing human life is independence. The fertilized egg is completely dependent on the woman's uterus for the nourishment it will need to survive so it has almost no independence. After birth, the infant is still very dependent but can now tolerate separation from the mother which before was impossible. Independence quickly increases in early childhood as children learn to feed themselves, learn to use the potty, and learn to dress themselves. On the other end of life, as our bodies begin to wear down we begin to become more and more dependent on the support of others. Some of us will end our lives almost as helpless and dependent as the day we were born.

Together, potentiality, quality of consciousness, and independence can be used to value human life. An adult human being has close to the maximum in potentiality, independence and quality of consciousness and therefore the highest value. An individual without brain function, intubated on a respirator, with no hope recovery from a degenerative disease would probably have the lowest value

Human life is therefore valuable and merits protection if it meets at least one of the criteria of potentiality, quality of consciousness and independence. Of the three, quality of consciousness is the most important determinant of value, followed by potentiality and finally by independence. The only times we should be permitted to consider the voluntary ending of human life is if the quality of consciousness is very low, he or she is completely dependent, and be guided in the decision by the potentiality for that life.

Next week I will apply my `pqci' system to a number of contemporary moral dilemmas to test the system's usefulness in deciding beginning and end of life issues. I'm sure this system isn't the best or the worst ever devised to help guide us but it is a start toward finding a responsible way to take moral advantage of the choices technology presents us.

Some would have us regress to ancient systems of thought and renounce these choices. I feel this is a mistake. I see the benefits of technology as I look around this room. Our ability to intervene to support life, by assisting a premature child, by replacing a knee, by controlling blood chemistry with medications, or by removing a cataract are unquestionably good. And sometimes those choices are very hard to make. Should I get that pacemaker put in? Should I accept the radiation treatments? Should I have neo-natal surgery to correct a birth defect? Should I continue fighting for life even though I only have perhaps a few months to live?

Yes, we can make these choices morally.
Yes, our minds can help guide our decisions.
Yes, the spirit of life can be affirmed even if the choice brings death.

Copyright (c) 1997 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore. All rights reserved.