An Argument For Life
J.Wright
Let’s start by finding some common ground. Most people would agree that human life has greater value than a tree. That is a reasonable place to begin, since it reflects how we naturally prioritize moral worth in everyday situations.
Now consider this example.
Imagine you own an orchard with apples, oranges, or any kind of fruit you prefer. You plant a seed in rich, well-watered soil. Over time, it grows and eventually sprouts above ground, continuing its development toward becoming a fully grown tree.
One day, a gardener mowing the grass accidentally runs over that sprout, destroying it beyond recovery. You see this happen and say, “You killed my tree.”
That statement feels natural, even though the plant was only in an early stage of development. You would not say, “You destroyed something that might one day become a tree.” You recognize it as a tree, already in its earliest form.
So the question becomes, if we acknowledge that something in an early stage of development can still be identified as what it is becoming, how should we think about early human life?
If a developing organism is already a human in its earliest stage, does its level of development determine its value, or is its identity as a human being what matters most?
There will still be those who disagree, so it is worth stating the principle as clearly as possible. Ending the life cycle of a human, or any biological organism that would otherwise continue developing into its mature form, is commonly understood as killing it. When applied to human beings, intentional killing is typically defined as murder. From this perspective, the central moral question is not about stages of development, but about whether the life in question is recognized as human. The circumstances surrounding its beginning may be important in other discussions, but they do not change the basic nature of that life. The moment a life is initiated, it is a human being.