Let's Go Kill Baby Seals!

In an outrageous post to the New York Times Opinionator blog titled "Can Neuroscience Challenge Roe v. Wade," William Egginton, Professor of Humanities at Johns Hopkins University, argues that science has no role in the development of public policy, particularly on matters involving essential human rights. 

At issue are the initiatives in several states to end or restrict abortions, especially late term abortions, based on the human fetus's ability to feel pain.  Eddington argues the impossibility that a fetus is capable of feeling “reflective” pain.  Neuroscience suggest that a fetus can feel pain which forms the basis of the proposed laws and, by extension, that the fetus is truly a person.  Eddington argues that this science is inadmissible, even should the conclusion be that a fetus can experience pain.

His argument is that such pain is not reflective pain.  "Reflective pain" means experiencing pain in the manner of a mature human.  The core of Eddington's argument is that as fetal pain is not reflective pain, then whatever pain the fetus may feel does not count as pain - and certainly not as a pretext to grant personhood status to the fetus which would undermine Roe v. Wade. 

A pro-choice advocate on vacation?

Now isn't that interesting position to take?  The experience of pain should be dismissed when it is not experienced in the same way a mature person would.  This begs the question, of course, about when the "reflective" pain experience kicks in?  At birth?  One day after birth?  One month?  One year?  Of course, there are so-called ethicists who argue for the legitimacy of "after birth abortions." That's after birth as in completion of the full gestational cycle resulting in a live, healthy baby. 

By this reasoning (a word which is clearly inappropriate in this context), there is nothing to prohibit the killing of baby seals.  Never mind their cute, doe-eyed looks or mournful sounds as the club or axe cracks their skulls.  They don't feel reflective pain - lacking self-awareness, no animals feel pain in the manner of "mature human beings."  Or, go shoot puppies and kittens.

Cruel words.  Crueler acts.  Let me be clear: cruelty to any animal is wrong - evil - and should be roundly condemned.

Except, in the view of Eddington and others, when that cruelty is directed toward an "animal" in the form of a infant human - whether in the womb or, apparently for some, out.  I am often perplexed at the pro-choice (read: pro-abortion) advocates stridently defending both Roe v. Wade while, at the same time, pleading for animal rights.  Poor seals.  Poorer humanity.

Reflect on that.