One more day to close our January budget gap—$7,737 short of our expenses. Your support needed NOW!
Click here to advertise on

Don’t Kill Those Who Can Feel Pain

By Dr. Jeff Mirus (bio - articles - email) | Mar 11, 2011

I couldn’t help but notice last Wednesday that Oklahoma has followed Nebraska and Kansas in attempting to pass a law which protects unborn children capable of feeling pain. In Nebraska, this has become law, but in Kansas and Oklahoma it has thus far gotten through only one of the two legislative bodies. This is another example of the peculiar stratagems pro-lifers must employ to protect the unborn, in this case babies 20 weeks or older. They have been proven to be able to feel pain.

It is what I was talking about in late February (see Virginia’s Attempt to Close Abortion Clinics). In politics, we must try all sorts of techniques to gain objectives which, otherwise, might be out of reach. On the whole, since we live in a very imperfect world,I would have to be in favor of this law were it to come up in Virginia. But it carries an interesting danger.

Have you ever heard of animal rights? I have gotten some heartfelt messages from those who believe it is morally wrong to do anything to an animal which causes it to feel pain. The ability to feel pain is also seen as a differentiator for some animal rights activists (and others, who simply love mammals) between those animals we ought to take special care of, and those we don’t need to worry so much about. Certain aspects of this position are seriously wrong.

The presence of pain cannot serve as a moral determinant of an action. Not only is pain morally neutral (it is not always even a natural evil, since it is a protection mechanism for those creatures which can feel pain), but it can also be perfectly moral—even morally required—to inflict pain for appropriate reasons, such as when we perform an operation to save someone’s life. So the presence of pain only draws attention to the need to have a rationale for determining when we may properly inflict it, and when we may not, and on whom.

Now the desire to inflict pain, or avoid inflicting it, has its own moral trajectory, either good or evil, based on what it says about the moral character of the person who entertains such a desire. The little boy who tortures cats tells us far more about himself than he does about cats, and he even offends against his own humanity more than he does against the being of the cat, since (though it is an argument for another day) the boy is a person and the cat is not. Cats are ultimately disposable (hold your emails) in ways that human persons are not.

But can we honestly expect twenty-first century Western men and women to sort all this out, when they are so culturally closed to the transcendent dimensions of personhood which all other embodied creatures lack? I think not. And I would hate for an argument to be developed that suggests it is perfectly all right to kill someone if only we will take the trouble to anesthetize him first. And, of course, we know (or at least we think we know) that there are many ways to kill without inflicting pain at all.

An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:

Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!

Progress toward our January expenses ($7,737 to go):
$35,000.00 $27,263.12
22% 78%
Sound Off! supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 3 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: wolfdavef3415 - Mar. 13, 2011 10:35 PM ET USA

    To add to the mayhem that the pro-abort argument causes, consider that when you only cite science as an authority on when a life actually begins, the moment a fertilized egg begins reproduction it becomes its own life form. To continue your analogy about animal rights activists, consider the fact that it is a crime to destroy, say condor eggs. They are not hatched yet, so it is analogous to an abortion, yet the two are afforded totally different treatments in the legal system. But why?

  • Posted by: mamato085337 - Mar. 13, 2011 7:59 AM ET USA

    Re the comment as to the Tower of Babel, I was wondering the same thing about the catastrophes in Japan. That's a heck of a whack, and I can't help but wonder when America will get hers!

  • Posted by: bkmajer3729 - Mar. 12, 2011 11:54 AM ET USA

    Dr. Jeff, Thanks very much! I can't help wondering about the Tower of Babel. We tried to build a tower to be like God and, He clobbered us - inflicted pain to wake us up. Sometimes, I wonder if we just keep trying to build the tower over and over again. He does desire Mercy but I guess the only way to get through sometimes is a good whack; I prefer to leave that to Him and try to do my part as his follower. Please keep up the good work.

Subscribe for free
Click here to advertise on
Shop Amazon

Recent Catholic Commentary

The Human Mix of Good and Evil 20 hours ago
Conscientious objection to vaccinations 23 hours ago
Can Islam confront its problem with violence? 24 hours ago
On the failure of history—and historians—without Christ January 29
Salvation? No matter who we are, one price. January 28

Top Catholic News

Most Important Stories of the Last 30 Days
Pope Francis names 20 new cardinals CWN - January 5
In ‘state of the world’ address, Pope decries ‘throwaway culture’ CWN - January 12