Questions of Morality, part 2

I’m always a person to push the envelope, to push an issue past where it probably needs to go. I want to find more answers, to question more, to focus my attention and make myself think. I’ve always said that someone that can excite and stimulate my mind is more valuable than any other quality to me, and I’m drawn to it – perhaps like a moth to flame. And sometimes I get burned. Sometimes I stand a bit too close to the heat and get singed by it. But sometimes I discover new and exciting parts of myself that I love learning about, diving deeper, instead of being content treading water or floating just because it’s easier. I always go one step further.

That being said, yesterday out of nowhere, my friend asked me if someone I loved were a zombie, and I wasn’t, if I would be able to shoot them in the head. Well. Barring zombie apocalypse, I find it to be a low probability of actual events. But I don’t know if I could, honestly. She asked me if I could do it to protect my family or another loved one. I find it interesting to note that I am more willing to commit an act of violence on behalf of someone else, and not for myself. To save myself, I don’t know if I would be able to, even in that out-there scenario. To protect my family, my children or my spouse? I’m more likely to. Her arguments for it were basically that person that you care about isn’t really there anymore – it’s a disease, a zombie and a danger to yourself and those around you. I get that. But would I be able to live with myself, even in self-defence or the defence of others, after pulling that trigger.

But of course, I wasn’t content to just let the question end there. Why would I do that? In return, I asked her if she would be able to shoot me if I came down with an incurable, severely infectious disease. Her quick answer was no, she wouldn’t. To me, though, it’s a similar scenario, and more medically likely than zombie-hood. What’s the difference? I am a danger to her life, and the lives of her family. I’m still myself, I suppose. Maybe that’s the only difference. I asked her, given her answer, if she would be willing to shoot me if I was in a severe amount of pain in the same circumstance. Her answer was only 1) if there was no hope of a cure or recovery and 2) if I asked her to, and it would still be hard. But that begs the question, how do you know for certain that something is incurable. What if she shot me, then the next day, a cure was announced. Then what?

I asked the same question to Devon later last night, with similar response. We continued our discussion I mentioned yesterday, and I got a little more clarification on her position, which was nice and less shocking. I think we came to an understanding about it. And I guess I agree – if faced with that situation, I would be forced, despite the difficulty, to err on the side of caution.

A note that I received on the last entry brought up a couple valid points to me that I hadn’t originally considered. One was on the question of the Soul – when you believe a body is ensouled, and that would be the question to debate over choosing to go ahead with a high-risk or multiple birth pregnancy, or to try to maximize the best possible chances. Is the idea of the Soul just a Christian thing? I’m not sure. I know there are other names for the “essence” that resides in each human being in other cultures and faiths, so I suppose not. But when are we ensouled? When are we considered alive? Devon believes that human consciousness begins when we have brain function, so in the case of a fetus or embryo, it would be around 12 weeks or so. She believes that before that, it’s a possibility or a person. I pointed out that the embryo was still alive prior to that, and she conceded that’s true, but pointed out that sperm is alive too, but we don’t consider them sacred because of it. We consider sperm as a potential for life. So until the embryo has established brain function, it’s a continuation of that potential. I can see her point. I have also heard it argued before that a fetus should be considered a baby once it is viable – by that, it was argued to mean that it was capable of surviving on its own outside of the womb. I have slight problems with both ideas. For Devon’s idea – what about born people who cease to have brain function? Do they cease to be “human” or alive? What about babies that are born with brain defects, and have no brain function – are they not babies or real children? And it’s a similar debate for the other side – a lot of babies that are even carried full term are not viable, they have other medical problems and need treatment in order to sustain life. And even if a baby is viable, it’s hardly self-sufficient. Not like most of our animal kingdom compatriots. I know a zebra and wildebeest can run, find their own food and survive within an hour of being born. They are processed that way out of necessity. Humans are different. I can honestly say I don’t know where I stand on the issue of ensoulment, what spot that it begins, where it ends, or where a human embryo should be considered a baby or child. It’s something I’ll have to think more about.

The other point the note made was the quality of life issue, which I am in full agreement with, and I believe the church/the right doesn’t take into account. In the Grey’s Anatomy scenario from yesterday, all five of the babies were born with health problems due to the multiple birth and several had to have surgery in order to correct them. They are going to have complications and health issues for the rest of their lives, if they survive. What quality of life is that giving a child? Yes, you brought them into the world and gave them a chance, but if that chance is full of nothing but suffering, is it worth that choice? At the same time, that brings up the debate about terminating pregnancies where there are medical problems or congenital birth defects. Should you have an abortion just because there’s a chance your baby has downs syndrome? If it would be a special needs child? At what point does that stop? What if you really wanted a baby with blue eyes, and a test in the womb can tell that the baby’s eyes are brown. Is terminating the pregnancy an option there? I see this as a vicious cycle that could quickly go way downhill into selective breeding. Like the Spartans, inspecting newborn children, and any that were disfigured or unhealthy were simply killed – discarded. What’s to stop someone from killing a newborn child because they don’t like the eye color? Where is the line in our culture today? Why is terminating a pregnancy in the womb okay, but killing a born child is murder? Where does that line begin?

I don’t claim to know the answers to any of these questions, but I want to learn. I want to hear other opinions, to get it out in the open. I agree with my noter – it should be discussed openly more. Maybe that’s the only way we as human beings can begin to understand each other and develop a true sense of human tolerance, accepting and embracing different ideas and broadening our minds and our perceptions to truly reach out to others. I think the world would be a better place that way.