__________________?

Have you ever wondered what your offspring would be like if you had married someone else?ⁱ What would theyⁱⁱ look like? Would their intelligence be different? And what about personality? Chances are there wouldn't be that much of a difference. You'd probably have chosen a mate with some similarities to the one you did – physical, intellectual and personality ones – and that means the children wouldn't be all that much different from what you have. Your parenting techniques would probably be much like the ones you used or are using now, so nurture, like nature, wouldn't vary all that much from what's currently the case. Of course you'll never know. If that had been the case you'd have other offspring and there would be no one available for the comparison with them.

But there would be one major difference – _____________ [fill in with your children's namesⁱⁱⁱ] wouldn't exist. The ones you love dearly, simply wouldn't be there. And you'd never know the difference.^iv Nor would they. Not existing, how could they know the opportunity lost to them? And whatever impact they would have had on the world won't come about, but no one will ever be aware of that. And their children – the images of your beloved sons and daughters – will never be known to you. That, though, is life. Or, more to the point, that isn't life. And, of course, there's always the possibility that you might never have existed.

Abortion is like that – the child^v lost will never be known by us, nor ever self-aware. But there's one important difference, because no other would be born in his place. The first situation – a different child because one of the parents is different – represents a kind of zero-sum exercise, even if the gain and loss can't be compared because they won't both exist. In the case of abortion, it's all loss. It's not zero-sum, but all negative. The starting point – the fetus – will never mature into a human. It will be ablated before it is fully developed. Almost the same as contraception, except that the latter is more passive than active.^vi Almost the same, but not quite. There's no need to destroy what never existed. In that way, it's more zero-sum than negative.

What is the meaning of life? That's what it all comes down to, even if I have no idea what is the answer to the question. I don't even know what the question is.^vii It is clearly a matter of concern to the general population though. Just as the question of abortion^viii troubles society, so does the use of capital punishment in American society.^ix And there are numerous vegetarians and their “extremists,” vegans. Where they all stand on the treatment of bacterial infections, which require the killing of bacteria, I don't know. Perhaps, because they consider vegetables fair game, this doesn't bother them.^x,xi But what about killing tapeworms? And even if they believe the use of leather should be proscribed, what's the status of wool? Is there a single answer to the question of life or do individuals and society have to draw their own lines?

I don't recall the invention of fire. Nor do I remember Socrates, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, or Woodrow Wilson. I hadn't been born. I didn't exist. Suppose you never existed. Of course you wouldn't be aware of it. Nor would you be aware that you weren't aware. Nor would you be. You would certainly have no memory of those past events I mentioned. Or anything else. But, unaware, you wouldn't care.

That's all philosophy. The good thing about being a philosopher is that you can ask unanswerable questions and, if you come up with any kind of a system to account for the problems you raise, you can use terminology so arcane that it won't be understood. The only person who can come close is the clergyman. His questions, however, even if answered by unprovable assertions, are usually followed by an understandable explanation – but one that often ends with a declaration of faith.

So what's the point? There are no answers. The “ultimate question” will always be around and no one will be able to answer it. All we can do is imagine. And as you're considering questions of life and death – as you're formulating a position on the issues raised here – imagine, for example, that _____________ had never been born.

Next episode: “There She Is, Myth America?” – A conventional solution to an unconverniotnal problem.

i     Read on even if you're not married. The points are the same.

ii     For a single child make the appropriate pronoun substitution here and in later references.

iii     Or, if you have no children, the name or names of whoever is dear to you.

iv     You'd love whoever was there and not give any thought to what might have been.

v     Make substitution(s) here if needed. This is the last time I'll mention it. From now on you're on your own.

vi     Intra-uterine devices (IUDs) are abortifacients, not contraceptives.

vii    For Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything was 42. I guess that's as good as anything, even if the saga's computer had decided that the question was to find the product of nine and six. By the way, it words in base thirteen – however neither Adams nor the computer was working with this base.

viii   Viewed by the courts as an issue of privacy.

ix    Ignoring the question of whether mistakes may be made, there is a real argument about whether it is ever justified to take a life. Some pacifists don't even consider that war justifies such action. And self-defense is not an adequate reason. Life was given by G-d and only he is justified in taking it away. In the final chapter of Samuel II (24:14) David says: “... let us fall into the hand of the Lord for his mercies are great; don't let me fall into the hand of man.”

x    Some claim that vegetables are sensate and we should feel their pain.

xi    I'd view that as a facetious question except that I know that pacifists might not consider “self-defense” as a satisfactory reason for killing, and that some religious believers may prefer to leave all healing in G-d's “hands.”