Determining Value of Life

Let me preface this post by saying that I believe that certain events, though unrelated, happen because they are trying to tell us something. They are signs.

"A long way from the gallow"as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle about the ethical issues surrounding postponement of Michael Morales' execution.

"S. Dakota targets abortion ruling" reported by Indianapolis Star regarding South Dakota's passing a law banning virtual all abortions, with the exception to save the mother's life. This story basically kicked yesterday's story about the ban on partial-birth abortion into dead news space. Although, they are, in a way, similar and both tie in with the death penalty issue.

I believe these two unrelated news stories are really related in a factually abstract way. "Fabstractually" if you will. No, wait. "Factstractually." There's a difference. Fabstractually, would be an abstract fabrication, something George W. Bush would say if he were talking about WMDs in pre-war Iraq.

The death penalty and abortion issues are about the value of life. These issues will be the proving ground for George W. Bush's stance on life. Whose existence is worth continuing? Whether it be a fetus in the womb, a brain-dead woman on life support, an Iraqi insurgent, a combat soldier, or a man convicted of murder on death row, there are philosophical and ethical questions about the value of life that we as a society must face and solidify in our thinking and in our laws.

When does an individual existing become a true, bonafide human? When does an individual's existence cease? Those are existence issues. Sure, a fetus exists. But, when does it achieve rights and responsibilities of a human existence? How do we define a human? When a fetus completely exits the mother's womb? When the fetus is viable outside the womb? When the fetus takes its first breath?

Then, when it takes its first breath, how do we as a society value that life through the years? What is the true value of its life? How do we define the value of a life? How do we react and respond to that life? We do place value on the lives of others daily in our own lives by the way we react and respond to the lives around us.

We devalue people when we offer devaluing comments to them, do mean and spiteful acts against others, and ignore those who most need our attention. In a way, our devaluing is a way to kill the value of another's life and we are extinguishing a bit of that life by every act or negligence we place on that individual.

Does devaluing others' lives by the act of murder, devalue the life of the murderer as well? To the point that the murderer's life is no longer valued by society? That is how our society views it today. Should those who devalued the murderer before he committed his crime be held to be devalued in society as well? Our society places great value in those who can strategically manipulate and devalue others while being able to assert and persuade that they are doing the right thing.

Life as we know it has various levels of value or worth. Many of us see our worth in our paychecks and/or benefit plans at our places of work. Some of us see our worth in our families and how they appreciate our existence and contributions that we make as a member of the family. Some of us see our worth in other social or working groups that make us feel our existence is valued and in some ways justified. In most cases it is what we do that gives us our personal sense of worth, and also a social sense of worth, as well. (And in my case, my true worth far exceeds the amount of my paycheck, as many others could also claim, too.)

Some lives find value, satisfaction, and justification by devaluing other lives. Should we continue to value that individual, even if they devalue us?

When a devaluing person is punished for a crime, what is cruel and unusual punishment for any crime? Is confining a criminal in jail cruel? Is detaining someone without judgment unusual? Is execution by injection cruel? What did they mean when they wrote cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution?

Then, we have other circumstances where a human life has declined by physical or mental decay. These lives may continue to bring value to others, even if they do nothing but exist. But when do we say that life fails to provide value or worth and should not truly exist?

When should ideals and ideology trump life itself? What is worth losing a life? What is worth taking a life? Is life really worth living?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When does life take a back seat to liberty or the pursuit of happiness? These are the tough questions.

We think it is the courts, and especially the Supreme Court that should answer these questions. No, these are definitions that need to be answered by our legislators both at the state and Federal level. These are definitions that we need to answer to our legislators so they can do their jobs and write (or rewrite) legislation according to our definitions of life that can be applied, enforced, judged and upheld.