To conform to modern times, today we boast of pre-implantation embryo genetic testing that leads to discarding defective embryos or giving them up for scientific research.

Often, it is hailed as offering a lower risk of miscarriage and increased chances of having a healthy baby and a lower probability of going through several IVF cycles. Most people would not openly admit to believing that unborn children have a negative value. But with all the efforts supporting their destruction, the subliminal message has been woven deep into the fabric of our society.

Since the Enlightenment, many secular ideologies have contributed to the devaluing of human life by arguing that human life is the product of chance processes. This has led to the erosion of the Christian sanctity-of-life ethic, spawning the present ‘culture of death’, where many intellectuals advocate abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia.

While some will feel disappointed, even dismayed, when human life is considered so expendable, we do not need to be shocked that such things happen in today’s society.

In the midst of a culture that congratulates itself on being enlightened and progressive on matters of human rights, perhaps it is high time to decelerate this rapid progression and reflect for a while on what questionable consequences we have brought about.

Modern debates on abortion and euthanasia are a symptom and leading edge of something more profound and insidious, an entire view of our society that will lead us to forsake our ideals of human dignity and equality.

What is the evidence that some kind of consistent ideology is taking hold of our aspirations for human progress and tainting the discussion of very different issues affecting human life? And what kind of challenge does this pose to supporters of social justice and to believers? Just consider recent developments on two issues that, at first glance, may seem quite different: human embryo research and assisted suicide.

These appear different not only because they deal with opposite ends of life’s spectrum but also because they involve very different claims. With human embryo research, the question that seems to need answering is: is this really ‘human life’ at all?

Even if we can all agree to respect human life, is not this little product of conception really just a conglomerate of a few cells, too undeveloped to have human status? Can the uncertain status of this entity really outweigh the needs of many persons for the life-saving treatments that embryo research may provide?

At the other end of the spectrum, we seem to have almost the opposite argument. Sick and elderly people, it is argued, are full-fledged persons whose rights do matter.

The term ‘pre-embryo’ has become simply ridiculous- Mark Said

These are the very people whose need to receive treatment (for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, for example) outweighs the merely potential interests of the embryo. And because they are persons who deserve respect, goes the argument, their wishes regarding how to end life deserve our respect and even our assistance.

Our line of reasoning today is based on the premise that being human is not enough. It is for that reason that the two above-mentioned issues seem to have little in common. But we need to look more closely. The human status of the early embryo has become more and more difficult to deny.

Not long ago, there were those who tried to claim that the first two weeks of human development involve a ‘pre-embryo’, a largely disorganised mass of cells with no individuality. But scientific data have caused serious problems for this claim, showing that later landmarks in embryonic development are only manifestations of events occurring much earlier. Indeed, human development is a continuum from the one-celled stage onward.

The term ‘pre-embryo’ has become simply ridiculous.

Yet, such development does not seem to have slowed down the juggernaut for warped thinking and concepts. Rather, today we have proponents resorting to arguing that some human lives are not worth valuing or protecting, especially when the life or health of undoubted “persons” may be at stake. Because of modern social conventions, society can no longer say that certain things must never be done to fellow human beings.

For example, what about those sick and elderly people who can no longer be kept active and healthy? If they want to end their suffering through assisted suicide, is that not respect for their personhood and autonomy that should drive our society’s efforts to grant them their wish?

Perhaps not. If autonomy is really the issue, why do we not respect every disabled or suicidal person’s wish for death? Regardless of health condition or life expectancy, there are always people who wish to die, for reasons that seem compelling to them.

Many of these people undergo great suffering that is comparable to the pain of a terminal illness and may afflict them for a much longer time while being less amenable to treatment by drugs like morphine.

Most of them are clinically depressed but, then, so are most suicidal people with terminal illnesses. Why continue to insist on suicide prevention and enhancing the rights of the disabled for all these other people while offering suicide assistance to the terminally ill?

It is a disturbing trend in our society that the value of a person’s life comes down to nothing more than a cost-benefit analysis. With that logic, it is easy to understand how the culture of death is gaining such a stronghold in our culture.

Mark Said is a lawyer.