We in this day and age are witnesses to a conflict of truly monumental proportions. It is a conflict between ideas; between two vastly different ethics of life, each grounded in diametrically opposed conception of human nature and the nature of human society.

This conflict can be best described in terms of an opposition between the "sanctity of life" ethic on the one hand, and a "quality of life" ethic on the other.

The first ethic is characterized by the belief that all human life -- regardless of age, race, sex, economic status or condition of dependence -- is possessed of an utterly unique and exalted dignity.

Those who hold to this ethic of life must try to view all men and women, simply because they are human beings, as persons of incalculable value, whose dignity must be respected, and whose rights must be protected.

In the last 25 years, however, this ethic has come under increasing attack from many different quarters of our modern Western society. It is being forsaken in favor of an ethic which establishes certain external criteria of worthiness that each individual must meet in order for his or her life to be deemed "worth living."

According to this second ethic, those "defectives" who, for whatever reason, fail to meet those standards ought to be disposed of, with thrift and efficiency, in accord with the principles of "quality control."

This application of a mass production, assembly-line mentality to the procreative sphere of human life, as if human beings were but objects to be manufactured and valued as commodities, poses a serious challenge to our traditional notion of ourselves as beings who are to be respected simply for what we are, rather than for what we may be worth, in merely economic terms.

Certainly such a mentality threatens to undermine our most cherished conceptions of the family, and the broader relationships that must obtain between fellow men and women if the society is to be governed with a humane decency.

In our Anglo-American legal tradition, this human dignity has traditionally been understood in terms of certain "inalienable" rights, that is to say, rights are inherent in the very idea of what it means to be human.

Since, therefore, these "natural" rights are not bestowed by the state, but exist prior to -- and independent of -- the state, they represent inviolable limitations on the Constitutional power of the state over its citizens.

What I have called the "quality of life" ethic however, dispensing with this belief in "natural rights," subtly substitutes a more positivist notion of law and legal right.

In such a conception, the question of who is a "person," in the fullest legal sense, is a matter of definition. One's humanity, and the rights entailed thereby, are not thus recognized by the state as inherent and "inalienable," rather they exist by sheer semantic fiat.

In its decision of January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 7-2, that "the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn." The Court, in this one short sentence, simply defined an entire group of biologically human beings out of legal "personhood."

This the crux of the "pro-life" argument: all the elaborate legal protections designed to safeguard our political and civil rights aren't worth the paper they are printed on if 'personhood' is a matter of definition -- if the Supreme Court or any institution or any individual has the power to simply to define us out of humanity.

History is replete with examples of what happens when a society takes upon itself the power to define who will be included, and more insiduously, who will be excluded from the human community.

Just ask the Black Americans, the American Indians, the Jews, the Armenians and other groups who have suffered throughout history the alienating stigma of being labeled not quite "human" in the "fullest sense."

Phrases such as "life worth living," "every child a wanted child," or "every baby a healthy baby," seem innocent enough until one examines their darker implications. Who can take it upon themselves to decide for another person if their life is "worth living?" Is anyone's life "worthless?"

Although anyone would certainly wish all children to be "wanted" by their parents, since when does one's right to life depend on being "wanted" by someone else?

And what about those babies who, for one reason or another, are not "perfect?" Who sets standards? What human being has a right to make such a decision?

Should not a society that considers itself compassionate and humane, having made such great strides to integrate the disabled into its common life, accept with love and gentleness those who are born "less than perfect;" helping them to attain the fullest and most satisfying lives of which they are capable?

We who call ourselves "pro-life" have taken upon ourselves the task of convincing the society in which we live, through social-service, political action and most importantly, education, that abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are unacceptable in a country that prides itself on its respect for human rights.

The controversies that surround these issues are as notorious for their lack of factual and balanced argument as for their lack of civility. Sadly, this has at various times been true for both sides.

It is in the interests of promoting a more civilized public discourse that Penn State Students for Life invites all interested persons of good will, especially those who disagree with us, to join us during Human Life Awareness Week, March 27-31, for a series of films and discussions designed to promote dialogue that is both mutually challenging and respectful, over this most serious and politically diversive issue.

We are firmly committed to the ideal that a University must be a place where people of differing viewpoints are able to exchange ideas in a manner that is both spirited and earnest, while at the same time not destructive of our common pursuit of truth and understanding.

We look forward to such an exchange.