There are several “hard cases” that advocates of abortion find difficult to justify. In the recent, The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice (New York/London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge Annals of Bioethics, 2011), author Christopher Kaczor identifies these contradictions of reason as 8 “hard cases.”  The first two cases he treats, 1. murder of pregnant women, and 2. sex selection abortion, I will consider for this essay and elaborate with material of my own.

WASHINGTON, D.C., APRIL 6, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: The Catholic Church teaches that in vitro fertilization (IVF) is always wrong. I understand this to be the case when embryos are made and destroyed. But my doctor said that IVF could be used in a way that wouldn't create and destroy "extra" embryos, even though it would lower our chances for a successful pregnancy. If this is true, why is IVF wrong when used by husbands and wives? K.M. -- Denver, Colorado

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: The question rightly identifies the wrongness of creating and destroying (and we should add freezing) human embryos in and through the process of IVF. But even if IVF was chosen only by married couples, and those couples intended to create only as many embryos as they implant, and they rejected the eugenic screening and destruction of disabled embryos, IVF still would be gravely wrong.

Butterflies, blushing, giddiness, throbbing heart, are all symptoms of…..(drum roll)  yes, those bothersome, endearing, often dangerous yet exciting experiences we so commonly call “love.”   But can and should this sudden onset of attraction be worthy of the title of love?  What’s more, is it necessary to romantic marital love or is it something to be discarded as mere play of the emotions, a stoicly held distraction from virtuous love?

Surely, all of us can remember an instance, likely in our youth, where someone struck us with Cupid’s arrows.  Maybe it was the “bad boy” who came to land in our circle.  He was tall, lean, broad–shouldered, rugged and a fitting candidate for Michelangelo’s model of David.   Shameless as it may sound, many of us must admit that our ‘David’ made us tingle all over and left us acutely aware of his every flinch. 

In light of the Obama Administration’s recent announcement that it will no longer defend the constitutionality of DOMA in the courts, the following questions and answers have been compiled in order to clarify the position of the Obama Administration and to inform our readers of the basic facts and issues relevant to the current situation.

1.    What is DOMA?

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Pub. L. 104-199, 100 Stat. 2419, is a federal law which (1) defines marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and defines spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife” for purposes of federal law; and (2) affirms the authority of the states to deny recognition of any “relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as marriage under the laws” of another State, as granted by the Full Faith and Credit Clause,  Article IV of the Constitution.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH 23, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Could you please clarify the concept of a "savior sibling"? Some argue that a child conceived to save his older brother or sister is "conceived to be used." But the child per se is not used at all, only the child's umbilical cord. Please clarify. Sincerely, D.V.M -- Bellflower, California

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: Lisa Nash, mother of the world's first "savior sibling," said she would do "anything" to save her daughter's life.[1] Her daughter Molly was diagnosed at birth (in 1994) with Fanconi Anemia, a serious genetic disorder in which patients can suffer bone marrow failure, birth defects, developmental abnormalities, a heightened risk of leukemia and premature death. Lisa and her husband Jack were told that the best way to help Molly was to give her a blood and marrow transplant from a genetically matched sibling. But Molly was an only child. Her parents had been considering conceiving again, but decided against it because of the high probability -- about 25% -- that the child would suffer the same illness.

Surgery of this kind in the 1980’s
Spina bifida is a developmental congenital disorder caused by the incomplete closing of the embryo’s neural tube. Some verterbrae overlying the spinal cord are not fully formed and remain unfused and open. This can cause long term mental and physical crippling to the child and at times death in the womb due to the build up of fluid and swelling in the brain.

In the 1980s it was possible, using prenatal screening, to detect neural tube anomalies such as spina bifida and then to perform a therapeutic action on the developing unborn child in the womb.  The most common procedure to treat this anomaly was to insert a shunt  into the child’s brain to drain the fluid thus releasing the pressure and providing great benefit to the child’s neurological and physical development.  In fact, at a hearing at the US Senate sometime in the mid 1980’s, sponsored by then pro-life Senator Gordon Humphrey a couple and their physician, with the child—at the time a born baby girl resting on her mother’s  lap—gave testimony in which they described the wonderful surgery that had been done on the child while still in the womb after a prenatal diagnosis had shown that she had suffered from a neural tube defect and that fluids were building up in her cranium, exerting pressure on her brain. This timely intervention was successful in minimizing the harm this girl suffered after birth, and the surgical intervention posed no serious risks either to the child or her mother. The child still needed to have a shunt to remove fluids from her brain after birth, but she did not suffer debilitating mental deficiencies and other symptoms associated with spina bifida.

The subtitle of this essay is in quotation marks because it is the subtitle of unPlanned, the recently published life story of Abby Johnson, former abortion advocate turned pro-life.  This remarkable book tells us of: 1. Abby’s own attitude toward abortion; 2. Why she became a Planned Parenthood volunteer; 3. Her career with Planned Parenthood from 2001-2009; 4. How her eyes were opened to the reality of abortion; and 5. Her decision to resign from Planned Parenthood and cross the life line.

Are moral judgments against homosexual behavior anything more than the expressions of emotional bias or narrow religious beliefs?  Two recent and highly divisive political decisions, one in the U.S. and the other in the U.K., would have us believe they are not.  The first, of course, is the Obama administration’s recent announcement that it thinks that the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional and consequently that it will no longer defend the law in court.  DOMA was passed in 1996 in response to early political initiatives to legalize same-sex marriage.  The law defines the term “marriage” for use throughout the entire body of federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” and the term “spouse” as “only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”  The law also protects states from being legally forced to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship given legal recognition as a marriage in another state.  DOMA passed both houses of Congress by huge majorities and was signed by President Bill Clinton.  Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking on behalf of the Obama administration, harshly criticized the “moral disapproval” of homosexual lifestyles expressed by those who passed the law saying it reflected “stereotype-based thinking and animus.”  Holder also said he doubted whether “reasonable arguments” could be made in defense of DOMA.

WASHINGTON, D.C., MARCH. 2, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a questions on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: What is the Catholic perspective on the ethics of parthenogenesis to produce stem cells from an ovum without fertilization by sperm? Thank you for your insights. Sincerely, R.P. Panama City Beach, Florida, USA

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

The term "parthenogenesis" (from the Greek words parthenos, "virgin" + genesis, "birth") refers to a form of asexual reproduction, naturally occurring among some insects, birds and lizards, in which an unfertilized egg develops without being fertilized by a male gamete.

Marital infidelity is one of the most traumatic of all life experiences. However, we believe that the identification of the emotional, character and spiritual conflicts that contribute to marital infidelity can be uncovered and resolved. Such healing is not possible unless each spouse has an understanding of and a loyalty to the sacrament of marriage and to the goodness in his/her spouse.

We regularly cite John Paul II's wisdom from Love and Responsibility to couples who are struggling with this issue. "The strength of such a (mature) love emerges most clearly when the beloved stumbles, when his or her weaknesses or sins come into the open. One who truly loves does not then withdraw love, but loves all the more, loves in full consciousness of the other's shortcomings and faults, without in the least approving of them. For the person as such never loses his/her essential value. The emotion which attaches to the value of the person is loyal," Love and Responsibility, n. 135.

On Friday, February 18th, the Obama Administration rescinded key provisions of Bush-era regulations that were critical to the enforcement of the Church Amendments and other longstanding federal laws protecting the rights of conscience of health care professionals.  

The new Final Rule (1)  rescinds, in part, George W. Bush’s 2008 Final Rule (2).   The new rule purportedly does not alter statutory protections for health care professionals as established under the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service Act, and the Weldon Amendments.  The Final Rule states: “These federal statutory health care provider conscience protections remain in effect.” 

The Obama Administration claims that the Final Rule retains all existing health care conscience protections, while removing “unclear and potentially broad” language that has caused “confusion.”

However, this statement is only partially true and is dangerously misleading.

Is It Moral to Sell Contraceptives, Abortifacients?

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 16, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.



Q: Is it morally permissible to sell something immoral to some one else, for instance, working at a pharmacy and selling Plan B pills and contraceptives? -- D.K., Oxford, Michigan, U.S.A.



William E. May offers the following response:

The question posed is broad. This answer will be limited to the moral obligations of pharmacists to sell contraceptive and abortifacient materials to their customers. We begin with a brief overview of Catholic and pro-life principles on the issue.

Introduction
Men and women are able to have sexual intercourse and to generate new human life by doing so. But non-married men and women are not fit either to have sexual intercourse or to generate new human life, nor do they have a right to have such intercourse and generate new human life. Each human life, no matter how generated—through non-married sexual union, artificial insemination and other new “reproductive technologies,” or through the marital act—is a great gift of God, made in His image, with inviolable rights that must be respected by others and by civil law. But generating this life non-maritally is morally wrong because it violates the child’s right to a stable  home rooted in the life-long commitment of the child’s mother and father where it can take root and grow “in wisdom and in grace before God and man.”(see Luke 2,52). There is, however, one exception to this; it occurs when a child is generated by a married couple not through the marital act or “maitally,” but through in vitro fertilization (IVF). In this case the couple, who are the child’s mother and father, can provide the child with a stable home. A married man, now the woman’s husband, and a married woman, now the husband’s wife, also have the inviolable right to educate their own children, a right that others and, in particular, the civil government is obligated to recognize and protect.

“The Social Costs of Pornography: A Statement of Findings and Recommendations” is a booklet, edited by Mary Eberstadt and Mary Ann Layden and published last year by the Witherspoon Institute. The booklet summarizes a consultation of 54 scholars held in Princeton, N.J. in December 2008 sponsored by the Witherspoon Institute and co-sponsored by the Institute for the Psychological Sciences. A sampling of participating scholars includes Hadley Arkes of Amherst University, Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame University’s Law School, J. Budziszewski of the University of Texas, Mary Eberstadt of the Hoover Foundation, Jean Bethke Elshrain of the University of Chicago, John Finnis of Oxford University, Robert George of Princeton University, William Hurlbut, M.D., of Stanford University Medical School, Mary Ann Layden of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Psychiatry, Margarita Mooney of the University of North Carolina, David Novak of the University of Toronto, Roger Scruton of Oxford University, Gladys Sweeney of the Institute for the Psychological Studies, and W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia.

WASHINGTON, D.C., FEB. 2, 2011 (Zenit.org).- Here are two questions on bioethics asked by ZENIT readers and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Can the adult stem cells or eyes or other organs of a murder victim be used for the benefit of others, if the person was not murdered for the purpose of harvesting his or her organs? -- Sister C., Lincoln, Nebraska

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

A: Persons who wish to donate their organs when they die may formally designate themselves as organ donors. This intention is often indicated on some document such as a driver's license. The intention is not only legitimate but can be praiseworthy (as John Paul II suggests in "Evangelium Vitae," No. 86).

If persons have designated themselves as organ donors, then executing their wishes after they die, even if they have been murdered, is perfectly legitimate.

***

Introduction
It is useful to begin by citing the teaching found in the 1987 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Donum Vitae (Instruction on the Respect Due to Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation). This document addressed the morality of both pre-natal screening and the use of therapeutic procedures on human embryos. Regarding pre-natal diagnosis it affirmed: “pre-natal diagnosis makes it possible to know the condition of the embryo and of the fetus when still in the mother's womb. It…makes it possible to anticipate earlier and more effectively certain therapeutic, medical or surgical procedures. Such diagnosis is permissible, with the consent of the parents after they have been adequately informed, if the methods employed safeguard the life and integrity of the embryo and the mother, without subjecting them to disproportionate risks. But this diagnosis is gravely opposed to the moral law when it is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion depending upon the results: a diagnosis which shows the existence of a malformation or a hereditary illness must not be the equivalent of a death-sentence.” Concerning therapeutic measures applied to the human embryo it taught: “[O]ne must uphold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it but are directed towards its healing, the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival. Whatever the type of medical, surgical or other therapy, the free and informed consent of the parents is required…The application of this moral principle may call for delicate and particular precautions in the case of embryonic or fetal life.”

On January 18^th, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision not to hear a same-sex marriage case brought by traditional marriage supporters.   The case challenged the District of Columbia’s refusal to allow a voter referendum on the definition of marriage.  The Supreme Court's rejection of the case has closed the door of judicial appeal for D.C. traditional marriage supporters.  The debate will now shift to the legislative arena.  This essay summarizes the efforts made in the District of Columbia to protect the institution of marriage, and discusses the issue of discrimination in the same-sex marriage context.

The Primacy of Culture and The March for Life

This time every year, and in a special way today, the true and ever strengthened fabric of America  covers again the grounds of our Nation's capital and presents itself before the rule of law.  Media and other facets of this great Country may call this an event.  Others may refer to it as a mere protest or passing demonstration.  But with eyes of admiration I watch the growing number of young and vibrant pro-life marchers and the vision before me is so very much more than an organized appeal for truth and justice for the unborn.   It is the vision of our Culture: an ever alive, ever renewing reality of the people of America.  It is America.  What a great vision!

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a measure to repeal Obama’s health care law.  Entitled, “Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act,” the measure was passed by a 245-189 vote, with unanimous GOP approval.  Today, the House will consider H.R. 2’s companion bill, H.R. 9, which will instruct four House committees to draft new legislation to replace the health care law.  As part of the GOP’s campaign promise to “repeal and replace” ObamaCare, H.R. 9 charges the appropriate House committees with drafting a new health care law that will prohibit denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, reduce medical malpractice suits,  and “prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers.” 

Introduction

Bioethics in the United States is dominated by secularists who reject religious faith, which they believe is a remnant of a superstitious age that has no place in the public square. This is the position taken by such influential writers as Peter Singer, Daniel Callahan, Arthur Caplan, Ronald Green and many others, by scores of bioethics centers at think tanks such as the Hastings Center (founded by Callahan and Willard Gaylin, M.D.), and centers at prestigious universities.  In addition, many well-known and influential Catholic bioethicists repudiate their own Church’s teaching and for it substitute in large measure the “received wisdom” common to secularist bioethicists and institutions, among them Daniel Maguire, Thomas Shannon, James Walters, and others.

The 50s had Benjamin Spock.  The 90s had Oprah.  We have the sage wisdom of Rep. Louise Slaughter.  Concerned over the bloodshed in Tucson last weekend—who isn’t? — the democrat from New York zeroed in on the social problem with that razor sharp sagacity that only liberal politicians possess.  The real issue behind the violence in our country?  The media—it’s “what they’re hearing over the airwaves.”  

WASHINGTON, D.C., JAN. 12, 2011 (Zenit.org ).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: I would love to see some more discussion or advice on the use of vaccines. [...] If my memory served me correctly, in the United States, all of the vaccines for Chicken Pox and the standard MMR [measles, mumps, rubella] protocols are developed from aborted children. Considering the ubiquity of these particular vaccines, I believe it is an issue that needs further exploration, discussion, and guidance from the Church and her thinkers. -- C.G., Charleston, South Carolina, USA

William E. May offers the following response:

The Reuters News Agency reported on January 3 that the Federal Drug Administration had granted the Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) firm the right to try out using embryonic stem cells for treating macular degeneration, a common cause of blindness. ACT’s chief scientific officer, Dr. Robert Lanza, said that ACT would immediately recruit patients with age related macular degeneration and would use stem cells procured by destroying embryonic human beings in an effort to help these patients retain or recover their vision.

This essay will first explain what macular degeneration is and note its different forms. It will then focus on the morality of using human embryonic stem cells in efforts to cure persons suffering from maladies, and then report and reflect on relevant scientific evaluations of the therapeutic value efficacy of embryonic stem cell research.

Dr.s Richard P. Fitzgibbons, M.D. & Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. explain the early signs of Gender Identity Disorder, the sources of the disorder and counsel parents on strategies that can be counterproductive as well as strategies and therapies that are helpful and effective. 

Patrick McCrystal’s Who’s at the Center of YOUR Marriage…The Pill or Jesus Christ? Contraception’s Disintegrating Effect on Marital Harmony, is a very helpful book, rooted in the author’s and his wife’s personal experiences and research. In 1993 McCrystal, an Irish pharmacist, resigned his position in an Irish drugstore rather than fill prescriptions for the “contraceptive” pill.  Disappointed to find that no one would hire a pharmacist with pro-life views in “Catholic” Ireland, McCrystal’s profession led him to a new vocation. He and his wife Therese became actively involved in the Ireland Branch of Human Life International, where he served as its Director from 1997 to 2004 and decided to write this book in 2008, upon the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. The book was published in 2009 in Dublin by Human Life International Ireland.

Classical and theological discourse has always held a unique and deeply significant respect for the womb.  Indeed, the womb is the place where the human person first experiences communion with another, where it is nourished and grows under the care of maternal union, where the developing person is most vulnerable and depends upon another in all things. 

Dear Friends,

Merry Christmas to each of you and to your families!  During this time of greatest joy, the Fellows and I would like to offer to you the following greetings, wishes and Christmas reflections.  In this way, we hope to share with you just a bit of the grace found in this greatest gift...

  Jennifer, Pat and Dr. May, Maggie, Christian

Maggie Datiles wrote a Culture of Life piece in October explaining how Northern Ireland’s High Court had rejected a so-called “wrongful life” suit brought by two IVF children against the clinic where they were created. 

The bioethics website BioEdge (www.bioedge.org) just reported that an appeal’s court in Belgium recently upheld a similar suit brought by parents against doctors on behalf of their disabled son.  The Court of Appeal of Brussels ruled that because of a faulty prenatal diagnosis, which led to a disabled boy being born, the doctors “have injured [the boy’s] certain and legitimate interest in being the object of a therapeutic abortion.”  In other words, the boy had a right to be killed through abortion, and that right was violated when, because of the doctors’ misdiagnosis, he was born alive.  The news is interesting because although “wrongful birth” suits are not uncommon in European (and U.S.) courts, “wrongful life” suits have generally been rejected.  For those who could use a refresher on some legal jargon, a few definitions might be useful.

Saving a Life, or Saving Money

December 15, 2020 Atlanta Journal Constitution

Meningococcal meningitis and meningococcal septicemia are the leading cause of death by infectious disease in early childhood. Even with early detection, the disease can kill in as little as four hours. Tragically, the rate of infection from these killers is three to seven times higher in infants than any other age group.

For years, a commitment by policymakers to eliminate the disease in the U.S. has yielded steady gains. But, under the Obama administration, there are concerning signs of a shift from saving lives to saving money. Now, some in the ethics community are questioning whether federal officials will fulfill their pledge to rid us of this disease and protect kids.

Read entire article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution...

Dear Friend and Reader,

Blessings to you and your family again this Advent Season from all of us at the Culture of Life Foundation.  We hope this note finds you in good health and great anticipation!

Though the beauty and grace of the season is upon us, as 2011 comes to a close, we can’t help but reflect upon the present state of our country.  The thoughts and prayers of our Nation are sadly diverted away from the grace of the season.  We can't help but be distracted by the current ills of our policies and the hopes for our coming election.

If an unborn baby in the fetal or embryonic stage of life dies as a result of a miscarriage it would not be immoral to do worthwhile scientific research using tissues taken from it. But, as Germain Grisez noted in his massive book on Difficult Moral Questions, a serious problem of conscience can frequently face pro-life scientists and researchers regarding use of tissues taken from embryonic or fetal human persons who were intentionally aborted. The quandary is the following: Suppose that it is not possible to do the research proposed by using spontaneously aborted unborn babies who miscarry.  For example, certain research may require using embryonic/fetal tissue that must be fresh and not frozen or in any way not normal and tissues from miscarried embryos/fetuses do not meet these criteria. What should a conscientious pro-life person do if his research center agreed to use biological material obtained as a result of the intentional abortion of babies in their embryonic or fetal stages of life? Grisez concluded that the scientist ought not participate in the research nor cooperate with it in any way, even by advising a colleague who would take his place but who is not as knowledgeable about the science involved as he is. Grisez, however, thinks that if certain conditions are fulfilled, he could offer this colleague some advice if it justified tolerating bad side effects that would accompany the discovery of a procedure that would also greatly benefit unborn babies (pp. 385-388).

WASHINGTON, D.C., DEC. 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Now that the media furor has subsided regarding Benedict XVI's remarks about male prostitutes and condoms, I thought a brief consideration of one relevant unsettled question in Catholic moral theology might be valuable to ZENIT readers.

The journalist Peter Seewald and Pope Benedict are named as co-authors of the book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times, published by Ignatius Press. In it Seewald asks Benedict a host of questions on such matters as these: What caused the clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? Was there a "cover up"? Have you considered resigning? Does affirming the goodness of the human body mean a plea for "better sex"? Can there be a genuine dialogue with Islam? Should the Church rethink Catholic teaching on priestly celibacy, women priests, contraception, and same-sex relationships? Is there a schism in the Catholic Church? Is there any hope for Christian unity? How can the Pope claim to be "infallible"? Is there a "dictatorship of relativism" today? [1]

Divine Revelation not only opens up truths relevant to the world to come—to the Kingdom.  It also establishes a rational basis for a worldview here and now, a point of reference—THE point of reference—from which to assess and fully understand culture and its products.  Christ as man, as ethnic Jew, as citizen of Roman Palestine, as King, and as high priest—historically as actual as the bones of my skull—provides the definitive point of reference, the relativizing dead-point on the epistemological pendulum, for assessing every human, racial, socio-political, authoritative, and propitiative endeavor.  Everything is in relation to Christ, derives its value in and through him, and will be judged and exonerated or condemned by him and in light of him.

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 17, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is a question on bioethics asked by a ZENIT reader and answered by the fellows of the Culture of Life Foundation.

Q: Is it ever legitimate to remove or withhold life-sustaining procedures from a patient in order to save excessive expenses to persons other than that patient (e.g., the patient's family, the community)? -- W.G., Denver, USA

E. Christian Brugger offers the following response:

Introduction
We have seen already that human husbands and fathers have the sublime mission and honor of “revealing and reliving on earth the very fatherhood of God” (see St. Paul, Ephesians 3:15 and Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, no. 25).  John Paul II continues by identifying  the principal things a father should do in performing “this task.” He will do so “by exercising generous responsibility for the life conceived under the heart of the mother, by a more solicitous commitment to education, a task he shares with his wife (cf. Gaudium et spes, 52), by work which is never a cause of division in the family but promotes its unity and stability, and by means of the witness he gives of an adult Christian life which effectively introduces the children into the living experience of Christ and the Church.”

Introduction
Once the date for the wedding has been set, the engaged couple must prepare spiritually and materially for the wedding, fulfill legal requirements and requirements of their religious communities, and plan for the wedding ceremony. This article centers on these matters.

The science of fetal pain remains uncertain, but we still have a duty to avoid the possibility of inflicting undue suffering.

A much-discussed new law in the state of Nebraska has banned abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy citing the contested notion of fetal pain. Of course, everyone can agree that we have a duty not to cause pain to others without a just cause. Bioethicists endorse the relieving of pain as an expression of the “principle of beneficence.” And international bodies concur that access to pain relief without discrimination is a fundamental right. As a society we even take efforts to eliminate pain from the process of executing capital offenders whose guilt is manifestly established. But how do we approach the possibility of fetal pain when the science remains uncertain?