...on being alive

So the Phoenix Mars Lander may have discovered ice just under the surface of Mars. This has the scientists and media outlets buzzing, as it may indicate the possibility of life on the Red Planet. Life on Mars! Wow!

OK, by life, I mean microbes--single cell organisms so tiny that they're only visible under a microscope. But hey, it may not have big green eyes and fly a space ship, but if it can be scientifically proven to be alive, that's good enough for me. Life is life, right?

Well, perhaps life is life on Mars, but here on earth--and in particular in the modern Western world--life is only life if the law says it's life. Life, in short, is legislated. And that's where I have a big problem.

Look, I realize this is a sensitive issue, but it needn't be overly complex. If they find a microbe on Mars, the corks will start popping all over the scientific world. They will have discovered a living creature, they'll be able to prove it, and there won't be a dissenting view to be found. Contrast that with a human fetus, which just a few weeks after conception has a heart beat, brain waves and over 3 billion lines of genetic code. The microbe on Mars is alive, but the human fetus...well, that's a bit complicate...see, if you divide by 3 and carry the 1...then...well...um...

It seems grossly unfair to judge microbial life by scientific standards and human life by legal standards, but that really is what it's come to.

The pro-choice people I know will disagree. They'll argue that it's a matter of 'viability' rather than alive/not-alive. A fetus, they argue, cannot survive independently outside of it's mother's womb prior to a certain point. And until that point is reached, it's non-viable and can be terminated.

But this argument--though compelling for those who need it to feel compelled--is both problematic and unscientific. When exactly is the point of viability? I know what the law says, but can we pinpoint it scientifically? Is it the same for every fetus? And isn't it true that the point of viability is changing with advancements in technology, and thus where you live?

And what about the independent survivability argument? Isn't it true that microbes can't survive independent of a water source, thus making them non-viable? And that humans can't survive independently outside of an oxygenated environment, thus making all of us non-viable? There are millions of people in the world who can't survive without drugs, or transfusions, feeding tubes, or pace makers, or dialysis, or help getting out of bed and over to the bathroom every day.

Would the AARP object if we changed the name from 'assisted living facility' to 'non-viable repository'? That would be a good first step to legalizing euthanasia, saving tax payer dollars and ensuring that all those who cannot survive independently can be terminated...by a more viable family member. After all, shouldn't the more viable among us have the right to choose our fate?

The bottom line is that every living creature in this world is circumstantially viable. It's simply a matter of finding the right circumstance to fit your definition.

Oh, and then getting that circumstance legislated.