The Value of a Life - What Life?

Here in the good old Dis-United Kingdom the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is being hotly debated in the House of Commons, and a will move towards a vote this coming week.
The usual interest groups are hard at it - those who believe no impediment to fertilisation should be allowed, and thereafter even a fertilised egg should have the same rights as the newly-born child; and those who believe that each mother should have total and unimpeded control over each foetus until immediately after the moment of birth, when, by some strange accident of biology, it suddenly becomes fully human.
The only compromise possible between these two extremes is one based on the reluctant acknowledgement that the present phase of battle is over once the vote is taken, and will have to continue at a later date.
For neither extreme will accept the vote in Parliament as meeting their demands, and neither extreme will ever be satisfied until they get their own way.
This is very definitely seen as a win-lose contest by the more extreme participants.
Down on our little allotment in South Gloucestershire Nosher and I have been impressed by the fervour on both sides of the debate.
But, as we relaxed in our old deckchairs after a morning's gardening, we couldn't help but reflect that one of the most fundamental issues of all remains largely unaddressed, because it is not in the interests of most of the protagonists to resolve it.
'At what point in development does a foetus become fully human?' Nosher asked. 'That seems to be the appropriate starting point, given that human life is at stake here.'
'Well, there's a great deal of much scientific evidence available' I replied 'and the moral arguments are well-developed, so the issue you identify would seem to be crucial to the debate on how long into pregnancy abortions should be permitted by law.'
'Unfortunately, those who have the most extreme views are also those who most wish to influence the agenda' Nosher said 'and they are also the ones who will not, in principle, concede any ground, so it is not in their interests for the issue you identify to be debated, for it would render their own points of view redundant. Therefore they couldn't possible accept it.'
'I'm fascinated by the inconsistencies, though' I said 'because the value attributed to individual human life represents a very different challenge than the abstract commitment to the value of human life in general. Similarly, privileging the right of the mother to choose irrespective of the value of her baby's life accords one individual total power over another, much more vulnerable, individual. It seems to me that these issues can only be resolved by making a principled decision over when an unborn baby's right to life should be held to over-ride morally less fundamental rights possessed by the mother. And I don't see how that judgement can be made unless there is a judgement on the point at which the unborn child should be considered, in moral terms, a human being. Then the other issues fall into place - even though the judgements made may be uncomfortable and distressing, at least they're being made on the basis that the moral status of the participants has been taken into account to the best of current wisdom and judgement.'
'I think the moral of the story' Nosher concluded 'is that the value attributed to human life in general has very little to do with the value of human life in practice, since we live in a world where millions endure great deprivation and suffering and yet those who could do most to remedy this situation actually do very little.'
More from http://www.overthegardenfence.blogspot.com/ soon.
Find out more at http://www.paulsturdee.co.uk/
and http://www.pgsbooks.co.uk/
Paul Sturdee's book Is God a Terrorist? is available from all good booksellers. Please support your local bookshop - if you don't it may not be there next time you visit!
If you have any difficulty obtaining a copy contact the PGS Books website.