Science supporting the pro life cause

Abortion

Mr. Austin Ruse, writing in Crisis Magazine, makes an interesting claim: that while Mr. Todd Akin bungled his explanation, there is some, controversial, evidence to support him.1

They would have explained that by authentic rape he meant forcible rape as distinct from statutory rape, a distinction made in the application of the bi-partisan Hyde Amendment which blocks federal funding for abortion except in the case of forcible but not statutory rape.

On the science of trauma and anovulation, they would have consulted with one of our country’s leading bioethicists, Richard Doerflinger of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in those early days of the Akin crisis sent around a batch of links to scientific studies backing up Akin’s clumsy formulation.

Or they could have consulted with Dr. Thomas Hilgers of the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, and one of the country’s leading experts on infertility, who also backed up Akin on the science.2

Of course it would not really matter how true such scientific claims are. They will never be considered relevant to the political debate. They would never even be accepted as true, no matter how supported by research they are or may someday be.

Euthanasia

"Signs of Awareness Seen in Brain-Injured Patients" by Benedict Carey documents a study that discovers that some unresponsive patients might in fact not be brain dead, but be aware and unable to respond. This stands to reason, it is logically entirely possible to loose the ability to control muscles without loosing the ability to receive input, as the "Exercise Your Wonder" column on ARN has documented, the nerves involved with control and sensation are different, and brain mapping studies have shown much the same, though they do not really understand what is going on, they can tell where the unknown is taking place.