ABORTION AND MORALITY

Morality exists. Morality has a foundation but no one seems to know the source of it? On what do we base morality? As a biologist, I feel ‘morality’ has a solid evolutionary basis. Every geneticist agrees all our genes work together—they work in synergy. In addition, they agree if some genetic mutation or epigenetic change is incompatible with life, the biological system in which the gene resides, will not survive. Scientists tell us we have about 20,000 genes. The only conclusion possible is that each one of those genes, working individually or in conjunction with others, is compatible with life. If this were not a true statement, the gene, in fact, the whole biosphere would not exist. Therefore, it should not shock anyone to know that the “sense” self-preservation dominates human activity, but also, to understand we can extrapolate this sense from the sophisticated human form back though mindless systems to biological zero—the big bang.

Examine the possible answer to this question, “What does it take to be a “good person?” Thou shall not kill, covet another man’s wife, steal their property among other things.  Christians have 10 answers. Ojibwa people have 21. Others cultural group have different numbers of answers. However, universal commonality centers on one answer “thou shall not kill”.  If this is true of every individual human being, then it logically is genetic—genes giving rise to cultural values. Morality would be the center of culture. However, if we base our belief on survival of the fittest, we have a moral problem. There is no question that these answers represent the projection of our feelings to others to serve our own self-interest, which makes it personal. What do you do if some one is trying to kill you? Turn the other cheek does not work when it comes to the finality of death. This introduces the concept of justifiable homicide codified in religion as sin, suicide for example, and by society in to our legal system as murder. Somehow thoughts of self-preservation must be included in our laws governing abortion, for example, as the justification for “baby killing to save the life of the mother”. The only conclusion possible is that use of the word “justifiable’ brings in quality of life issues; questions short of life or death but still important.

If Doctor told an expectant mother in the first trimester of her pregnancy, her child was a fetal monster but she could give birth to a living breathing baby but it would (should, could) die within hours of birth or would require constant care until adolescence until the child dies. Does the mother have to support the pregnancy until after she gives birth or essentially give up 10, 12, or 14 years of her life to care for a brainless child until it dies years later? Shift attention to the baby. Why should we as a society agree we should decide to kill the mother to save the baby? There is no question about it; there is a slipper slope in these answers. If you allow yourself to be on this slope and then you are obligated to ask yourself, should politicians with no medical knowledge, or priests who will have no responsibility, or the mother who makes the greatest parental investment, make the decision? If the mother, politician, peer pressure (society), or the church (one’s faith as opposed to peer pressure) makes the decision to let God decide, which for some will bring us full circle back to morality and the big bang? This circularity is not empty religious nonsense. It is biology. It is evolution. It is cruel harsh Darwinian inspired survival of individuals and survival of species but the fittest with a heart. It is the evolution of our humanization.  It is mentally driven altruism verses mindless greed. It is humankind struggling to be the best we can be.