Plumbline Author: Charles Adams
Date: April 1, 2005
Topic: The Sanctity of Human Life

What is meant by the phrase, “the sanctity of human life?” Traditionally it has been used as a kind of argument against abortion and euthanasia. More recently it has played a role in discussions surrounding issues such as in vitro fertilization, germline genetic manipulation, stem cell research, and cloning. Most recently it has been raised during discussions of the Terri Schiavo controversy, the case of a woman judged by medical experts to be in a persistent vegetative state, who was kept alive by means of a feeding tube.

The word “sanctity” is defined as the quality or condition of being considered sacred and therefore inviolable. We use the word to draw a line; a boundary that separates ordinary things from those that we believe ought not to be treated in the same way that we treat ordinary things. For example, Christians believe that there is a radical distinction—a “boundary,” if you will—between God and his creation. Most of us who are Christians working in the natural sciences believe that it is legitimate to scientifically investigate any part of the creation but that it would be wrong to think that we can use the scientific method to “study” God. What kind of boundary might exist between “human life” and the rest of creation that would make human life sacred and inviolable? Before we can answer that question we need to more carefully come to understand what we mean by human life.

Life is the central meaning of the biotic aspect of creation. Just as motion is the central meaning of the kinematic aspect, mass/energy is the central meaning of the physical aspect, and perception is the central meaning of the sensory aspect, so “life” describes what is central to the biotic dimension of the creation. As such, life is no more sacred than sensation (which depends on life but is not reducible to it) or matter/energy (on which life depends but to which life is not reducible). So it is that biologists have no qualms probing and questioning the nature of biotic creatures from the simplest plants to the most complex animals. Animals are subject to the laws for the sensory aspect of creation—in other words, they have feelings—and by this might be differentiated from plants. And this, no doubt, plays a role in the special kind of care with which we treat animals. There is a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals but, as far as I know, no society for the prevention of cruelty to plants. But life—in and of itself—is not a quality that renders the living creature “sacred” or inviolable. We have no misgivings about ending the life of the mold that grows in our shower stalls or the mosquitoes and flies that invade our houses. We have only a little anxiety about ending the lives of deer that overpopulate the countryside and become a threat to automobiles on the highways. We do concern ourselves with the death of fish when we see them mysteriously washed up on the shore and with the extinction of animal and plant species. But these latter concerns are rightfully rooted in the norm of stewardship, our desiring to care for God’s good creation. They have nothing to do with life per se.

Human life, on the other hand, is obviously different. When that phrase is used it means more than simply the biotic aspect of human beings. It means human existence in its totality, physical and biotic, as well as aesthetic, social, ethical, and faith (just to name six). And, I would argue, it means more than that. The phrase “human life” suggests a relationship of wholeness and totality that transcends the non-human creation by relating itself covenantally, as image bearer, to its Creator. The unique covenantal relationship that humans and no other creatures have means that human life is normed, that human life entails responsibility; in other words, that all of (human) life is religion.

I believe that it is this covenantal relationship of image-bearing responsibility to the Creator that gives meaning to the phrase “the sanctity of human life.” Thus it is not the biotic aspect of any being that is sacred, it is rather human existence in its wholeness. The inviolability of “human existence in its wholeness,” I suggest, is thus “an image” of the inviolability of the Creator. It alludes to the radical Creator-creature distinction and suggests a boundary, not equivalent to, but not unlike the boundary that prevents us from making God the subject of scientific investigation or technological manipulation. This boundary does not prevent us from scientifically investigating the physical aspect of humans, the biotic aspect of humans, the aesthetic aspect of humans, or even the faith aspect of humans. On the other hand, attempting to reduce any human being to a biotic object, an economic object, a political object, or even a faith object, crosses that boundary.

Abortion and euthanasia are wrong because they represent a community of image bearers of God treating other image bearers of God as if they were mere matter, or mere biotic things—like the mold that grows in your bathroom shower stall. That violates the covenantal relationship between God and his human creatures. But too often Christians are using simplistic arguments when they debate with those who are in favor of abortion or euthanasia. Too often the arguments are based merely on the biotic dimension of what it means to be human. And then we are just as guilty of violating that covenantal relationship because it is not life that is sacred, but that multidimensional covenantal relationship.

Finally, consider some of the new developments in biotechnology that are creating anxiety among many Christians and non-Christians alike. Too many arguments against germ line genetic manipulation in humans, against stem cell research, and against cloning are based simplistically upon the notion that the biotic aspect of human life is sacred. Well, it’s not. Otherwise we would have to argue against all kind of medical treatments. If we are to show that these new biotechnological procedures ought to be banned, we will have to do so by showing that they violate the covenantal relationship that humans have with their Creator. I’ve heard a few good arguments of this sort; but far too few. It’s time that we Christians begin studying biotechnology and giving direction to an area of life that has the potential for great good, but also for great evil if left in the hands of the secularists.

For Plumbline, I’m Charles Adams, Dean of the Natural Sciences, Dordt College