Since the beginnings of civilization, one of the important measures of a culture has been the value that the members and leaders of that culture place on a human life. As we progress into areas of scientific knowledge that have never been revealed before, we have begun to delve into the actual mechanisms that underpin the life and health of the human organism. At this stage of scientific advances, the possibilities inherent in the knowledge we have gained begin to spill over into the public arena and become topics of often controversial debate.
In most of the major religions, the human being holds a special place above and separate from the animal kingdom, although this is not a universal tenet of all religions. There are religions that equate the lives of animals with the lives of humans, and those who hold the value of human life above any other consideration. The most easily accessible illustration of the more common view of the uniqueness of the human being in religion comes from the Judeo-Christian system of beliefs:
In Genesis, the account of creation seems to indicate three levels of creation when it comes to organisms - simple organisms, soulish organisms], and one organism with a spirit - mankind.
Author's Note: The preceeding is excerpted from an exegetical study of the book of Genesis I composed a few years ago. As I have given me specific authorization to reprint and revise my comments, I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing myself.
Secularism and Humanity
In short, this is not so simple as a religion vs. secularism issue. The spectrum of belief on the value of human life has a wide range in both the religious and secular arenas. Rather, the views of an individual or culture on these issues rely on the fundamental beliefs that each of us holds as individuals about the value and uniqueness of human life. Thus it is an issue that is fair, reasonable, and appropriate to discuss as a political and cultural issue, and not as one that pits religious against secularism
Afterward: If this article seems familiar, it is because it was added to a node later consumed by Klaproth. At the behest of the editors, who kindly encouraged me, I have reworked the article to be less specific to the prior node, and reposted it.