So far we have discussed in Part I that an honest and consistent attribution of value to human life, one that allows for the best functioning society, requires it to hinge both on one's ability to exist mostly independent of external support and to be self-aware.  Now I will attempt to make the case that although many secular people may find these two criteria sufficient, more is needed. To begin with, we need to bring into the calculus not just the actual consciousness of human life, but the potential for same.  Without this addition, the contradictions abound.

First let's start with an illuminating example.  Many people may say it is moral to pull the plug of a human in a persistent vegetative state, because his consciousness or independent existence is no more.  Yet what if you were told, as Judge Bork's wonderfully insightful hypothetical presents, that in 4 months that human will awaken to be a vibrant and fully consciousness human being? Is it still moral to pull the plug?  I hope this hypothetical and the contradictions and inconsistencies it brings to the forefront at least give one pause.

Equally unsettling, however, is another conclusion we must come to if potential for consciousness is not part of the moral equation to affording value to human life.  For those who have even seen a newborn, despite loving them with all your heart, even a parent of one must admit they have less consciousness and self-sufficiency than a 6 year old dog.  So if we end the inquiry where many secular people wish we would, to what extent are we willing  -- or in the long run, able -- to turn a blind eye to what our morals will compel us to value more?  How do we account for our presumed greater valuing of the baby who has less consciousness than that of a dog whose consciousness is, in almost every way, greater and more profound? Is it not the potential consciousness of a baby that gives it more value? These are serious questions that, I think, deserve serious and honest thought.

Nevertheless, even if we include the potential for consciousness in our analysis, we still come up short if creating a functioning society -- one whose principle underpinnings are intellectually consistent and honest -- is our ultimate goal.  Think about this: is the life of severely mentally retarded person, who presumably will never have as much consciousness or self-sufficiency, less valuable?  Hitler thought so.

Still missing, therefore, is the acknowledgment that all human life is valuable, if for no other reasons, because we are all created in God's image.  Only when we take this belief, together with the above criteria, can we drive the final nail into the coffin of those who wish to rid human life the profound and lasting value it deserves.  In addition to the inconsistencies set forth above, two pitfalls await a society that does not subscribe to the belief that human life is sacred because God said so. 

First, all that we put forward prior to the invocation of God is based on what I hope is a collective belief system held by most good human beings.  But bad human beings do exist. And without a divine and thus objective source for human life's value, there is nothing to say the belief of those humans which we label as "bad" is any less moral or right.  Put differently, if human life's value is just a rational human construct, created by humans and for humans, it can be broken down, diluted or even destroyed by those same humans and for those same humans.  Say what you wants of the pitfalls of divine and dogmatic belief, but such belief sure does provide a far stronger foundation to the few beliefs we would like impervious to human manipulation and destruction. I submit that human life is one of those beliefs. 

There is also a second, or at least corollary, pitfall that is averted by invoking God.  If just a construct of man, human life's value can more easily be compromised and may even be viewed as not supreme to anything.  That is to say, even if we meet a person who does in fact subscribe to this rational analysis establishing human life's worth, there is little to stop them from valuing something like the environment or animals just as much, or more.  True, they will need to find new criteria to reason out why those things have value, but nothing in the above analysis says that which is conscious and  self-sufficient is of greater value that all the trees in the world?  For that we need an additional belief, one which is best supplied by faith in a God who lovingly created us in his image.

In the end, my point is not to say that without these three criteria, a person or society is bad -- however one defines that term.  Rather, my point is that without these three foundations, the value of human life is too arbitrary and more easily discarded.  It is surely not as strong as it could be -- or should be.

            Based on what do we afford value to human life?  In most cases, answering this question is of no moment.  The fact that human life has great value is or should be axiomatic. Therefore, defining by what criteria we actually find human life to possess worth does not deserve much of our intellectual efforts.  But, especially on the margins of the human experience, pinning down what exactly we find worth preserving is of great import.  That is to say, when discussing the many situations in which people find it permitted to extinguish human life -- such as abortion, war, capital punishment or euthanasia -- establishing what gives human life its worth is an intellectual exercise well worth our time. 

            It appears that if a society's value of human life is to be both intellectually consistent and honest, said value must be found from three sources: independent existence, consciousness and divine gift.  Many find that one, two or a superficial collection of same are sufficient to sustain a good and functioning society.  But, as shown below, this belief is misguided and naive.  Without all three, society's value of human life is doomed to either exist at a teetering and arbitrary level or one whose double standards are detrimentally legion, or both.            

The self-esteem movement of the 80's got something right. There is something to say about knowing your own worth before expecting others to acknowledge same. It stands to reason, therefore, that an entity who can sustain itself independently does not have much worth if it is not even aware of its own self. A plant can exists independently, so to speak, but because it is not self-aware, its value is infinitely less than that of a human.  Consciousness is therefore a fundamental requirement to affording value to human life. 

For many secular people, here ends the inquiry. For example, when an unborn baby - or more affectionately called, fetus -- reaches a certain level of consciousness and independence from the mother, it is magically and abruptly imbued with immeasurable value; thankfully, for now, the baby is given more worth than the fingernail-like value some grant it prior to its birth or viability.  Significantly, though, the fact that an unborn baby has, if left alone, the likely potential for the full consciousness of an adult human is of no concern to these progressive minds.  Yet the double standards that surface as a result of subscribing to this belief should persuade any fair-thinking mind to abandon it, for it is fundamentally flawed.

            In the Part II we will explore these contradictions.  

Under such an understanding of Equal Protection, no law encouraging any form of marriage would remain. Is a single individual not a "person" within the same "jurisdiction" as couples, yet still not deserving "protection" that is "equal" to that of those couples? Who are we to make distinctions based on the conduct of this class of the citizenry? Just like democratic channels are too stupid to figure out that heterosexual behavior is not more deserving of government sanction than homosexual behavior, so, too, the democratic public is too stupid to be trusted with determining that monogamous and committed sexual behavior is more deserving of government sanction than is the sexual behavior in which single people frequently engage.