Just kidding. We, for the time being, have not found life on Mars. However, what if we had? What, on earth, would change? Our curiosity and ingenuity would kick into gear. Our thirst for discovery would be unquenchable. But, imagine we found life here. We discover new species every day. Humanity discovers roughly 15,000-18,000 new species yearly—many of them being insects. Furthermore, according to The Huffington Post, “Scientists estimate that 150-200 species of plant, insect, bird and mammal become extinct every 24 hours.” We are surrounded by death. Moreover, 99% of “living space on the planet” call the oceans home. And we have only explored 10% of it. However, what if we discovered life even closer? Inside of us. No not pinworms, tapeworms, or parasites from that disgusting French snail cuisine. Think deeper.
With the recent death of Norma McCorvey, Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade, the decisive Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion, I’ve decided to write a brief but personal reason for being pro-life. Or anti-choice…You choose. *wink wink*
I remember sitting down in my General Zoology class and opening the dreadful two-inch thick textbook with eight point font rife with scientific terminology no normal person could ever understand. However, on this one occasion, it being my first official Honors class, I decided to be a good student and read…just the first few pages. However, these first few pages cemented my pro-life sentiments.
The first question of this public-university-issued textbook asked, “What is life?” Understanding science is the interpretation of data, the constant quest for discovery, and the undying humiliation of our infinitesimal existence as well as the falsifiability of various hypotheses after years and years of research and experimentation, the answer wasn’t so clear. It basically said, and now I’m paraphrasing, “We don’t know.” People can observe life and its functions (e.g. reproduction, response to light, organic makeup, etc.); however we cannot pinpoint and specify a proper definition of life. Yet, like those who discard religion, which is not falsifiable, vast swaths of society determine an embryo, which is a part of the reproductive process, as lifeless, despite meeting the scientific prerequisites for life. This baffled me.
We currently have the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Institute collaborating with NASA and the United Nations about what protocols man should pursue after discovering intelligent life. Moreover, in a 2003 essay entitled “The Search for Life in the Universe,” Neil deGrasse Tyson writes, “To declare that Earth must be the only planet in the cosmos with life would be inexcusably egocentric of us.” This hypocrisy by the most high-minded, educated individuals is perplexing. Discovering rudimentary elements or molecules on a deserted planetary surface is revolutionary, yet the biological majesty of creating a human life is irrelevant.
Overall, the double-standard convenience of the anti-life movement is an enigma. We are complicated creatures with warring ideologies. But the scientific community upholding the stalwart theses “Religion is a farce” and “A fetus is not a living organism” is antithetical to their fundamental claim in the search for truth. It is okay to search for extraterrestrial life, colonize celestial bodies, and aspire to improve our way of life, but excusing barbarism for social creditability makes them no different than the religious imposters they claim to detest.