The problem, as the Los Angeles Times reported this week, is the scientific evidence for the capacity of the unborn to feel pain is not settled. As a 2005 paper stated, the evidence is “limited,” but it is “unlikely” that the child perceives pain prior to the third trimester.
One might think that if the scientific evidence is limited and uncertain, then debate would cease. Would we not all agree that such anesthesia should be made available?
No, evolutionists insist that such relief not even be an option. It is reminiscent of laws that deny rights to children who survive abortion attempts. As advocate Elizabeth Nash put it, “We’re seeing more unsubstantiated science. The problem is that legislators are buying into it and using it.”
It is difficult to fathom this level of cruelty. And as always, the perpetrators are certain of their righteousness.
It is equally difficult to fathom this level of absurdity. Unsubstantiated science? The premise that an unborn child is not a human being is the height of unsubstantiated science. Of course such children are human beings—from a scientific perspective that is beyond question.
William Jennings Bryan famously opposed evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial. He was concerned that evolution was dehumanizing and was undermining morality. Unfortunately he seems to have been correct.