In an Aug. 25 article, The Daily Gamecock announced that a federal complaint was to be filed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine regarding the USC School of Medicine’s use of pigs in medical training. The Gamecock reported that “according to the organization, the emergency medicine training program might be engaging in questionable practices by using pigs to teach surgical practices.”
The Public Health Service policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals instituted a policy requiring facilities funded by the Public Health Service that were using animals for research or medical training to submit protocols for review by a five-person committee composed of a “Doctor of Veterinary Medicine responsible for animal care at the institution,” a “scientist experienced in animal research,” a professional in a field that is not scientific," an "unaffiliated representative of the community" and one other person unaffiliated with the institution. Protocols submitted to this committee must justify any pain and discomfort the animal will be experiencing, as well as attempt to find alternatives to such procedures or, if there is absolutely no alternative, reduce animal suffering as much as possible.
The complaint filed by the Physicians Committee claims that the use of pigs by the USC School of Medicine should have been discontinued after review by the Animal Care and Use Committee. In its coverage of the incident, the article draws attention to the growing trend away from the use of live animal experimentation and suggests that the USC School of Medicine may be ethically backward in its continued use of pigs. I have no problem with our society being concerned with animal suffering, but it is inconsistent to champion the rights of animals yet ignore those of humans.
I find it somewhat ironic that as our culture becomes more concerned with protecting animals from suffering and harm, one of our two dominant political parties is moving in the opposite direction on protecting humans, albeit unborn ones, from suffering and harm.
The Democratic party entrenched their support of abortion in this year’s election cycle party platform, stating that they “will continue to oppose — and seek to overturn — federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion.” Gone is the 2004 plank that “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” and Hillary Clinton’s restatement of that policyLJ in her 2008 bid for the presidency. This year’s platform is as expansive as it sounds, leaving it clear that the Democratic party platform is to oppose all laws that reduce abortion availability. But the Democrat leadership is profoundly out of touch with the 64 percent of the U.S. population who believe second-trimester abortion should be banned and the 80 percent who believe third-trimester abortion should be banned. They apparently feel confident that their radical position on the issue will not turn away the 28 percent of Democrats who think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.
This political trend represents a disturbing new stage in the war for "reproductive rights." Proponents of abortion are now avowedly aiming to add America to the just four countries worldwide that have no legal restrictions on abortion, alongside China, North Korea, Vietnam and Canada. (Yes, three of the four are communist authoritarian states.) We don’t have to appeal to a higher power or holy scriptures here. All we have to do is agree to treat human suffering with at least equal concern as we treat animal suffering. Wouldn’t it be ideologically consistent to apply some of the same rules we apply to animal experimentation to a procedure that takes an innocent human life?
A consistent law would mirror the animal welfare law, requiring justification for an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, ban abortions past the time when fetuses can feel pain and require alternative pregnancy options like adoption to be discussed.
And what about the standard fetal viability, which is considered to be between 24 and 26 weeks? Will that go out the window if Democrats have their way, despite the fact that only 12 states have policies that allow abortion later than that range? Surely anyone with a shred of decency or conscience can see that if the fetus could survive outside the womb, it should not be legal to end its life inside the womb.
As author Michael D. O’Brien argues convincingly in his book Theophilos: “There are some who believe that a child is not a human being until he passes through the body-gates into the light and becomes visible. There are others who consider him disposable until he can speak. As for myself, I hold with neither of these ridiculous opinions, since it would be as well to say that a man does not exist as long as he is inside his house and cannot be seen, then suddenly exists when he puts his head outside his door and say good day to you.”
He goes on to say that “one who despises a hidden face is blind to his own face, or if he does see his own, he fails to value it.”
That I even have to argue for the same rights we grant to animals to be applied to humans shows that our culture has failed to value human life for what it is: unique, precious and possessing intrinsic worth. I pray that we will soon come to our senses.