This coming Saturday, the first ever March for Science will take place in the nation’s capital. Science enthusiasts will march to show their support for evidenced-based policymaking and publicly communicated facts and truth. The marchers in D.C. will be joined by others in over 425 satellite locations. The March labels itself as a political event that seeks to fight back against the “war on science,” and to promote the importance of science and research in the policy-making process.
It’s clear that, at least ostensibly, this march has nothing to do with abortion. Yet many of the statements and principles listed on the official march website are amusingly pro-life. The rest of the site reads like a Leftist manifesto: using catchwords like diversity, inclusion, racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and more.
So it’s safe to assume that the event is hosted and sponsored by Leftist ideologues. And Leftist ideologues are nothing if they are not supporters of abortion. So unless this march is being organized by pro-life Leftists, we can assume that all the ironically pro-life statements on the site are accidental.
Yet as ironic and accidental as these statements may be, there is no time like the present to agree with science enthusiasts on issues as important as the beginning and early stages of human life. Pro-life advocates are always in favor of allowing science to inform policy. So let’s take a look at some of those statements about the importance of science in light of the abortion issue.
If Science Should Inform Policy, That Includes Abortion
“Science is a process, not a product—a tool of discovery that allows us to constantly expand and revise our knowledge of the universe. In doing so, science serves the interests of all humans, not just those in power.”
This is great to hear. Back when Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, we didn’t have all the information regarding fetal development that we have now. Thankfully, science has brought us an incredible growth in knowledge about the nature of the pre-born child. We now know that, at the time of conception, a unique human being is formed with enough genetic information to fill a library of books.
Given that we want this scientific advancement to serve the interest of all human beings, it is sensible that we abolish abortion. After all, abortion is nothing more than giving more powerful human beings the right to destroy human beings who are powerless. And that is exactly the type of thing this march is claiming to stand against. If we are truly allowing science to serve the interest of all humans, we should ban abortion immediately.
“People who value science have remained silent for far too long in the face of policies that ignore scientific evidence and endanger both human life and the future of our world.”
Not exactly. The pro-life movement has been fighting for decades against permissive abortion laws that endanger human life at its earliest stage. Yet while those who value human life and science have been fighting abortion since the very beginning, supporters of abortion continue to deny the biology of the preborn child. Indeed, while the people who value science have been shouting for half a century, people who despise this particular aspect of scientific advancement continue to work at drowning them out.
The irony here is morbidly amusing. If we are truly worried about endangering human life through ignorance of science, we should begin advocating that the veil of dishonesty protecting abortion promptly be removed.
Speaking For the Unborn Is a Scientific Quest
“In the face of an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus and restricting scientific discovery, we might ask instead: can we afford not to speak out in its defense?”
Great question. Absolutely not. In the face of a million human lives lost every year to abortion in this country, we absolutely must speak out. The genocide of the unborn is at the very center of our culture’s ills, and the persistent quest to deny the humanity of the unborn is the very epitome of discrediting scientific advancement.
The abortion industry has been hiding behind the “blob of tissue” lie for far too long. Science has taught us that the preborn child is just as human as the fellow sitting next to you. We should not deny this aspect of scientific advancement just because it poses an inconvenience to some people.
Speaking out in defense of preborn human beings is not just a random good cause. It is a scientifically-informed quest for justice for the smallest members of the human race.
Can We Have A Vision Of America That Embraces Science?
“Give us a vision of America that embraces science.”
Yes, can we please have a vision of America that embraces science? An America that recognizes that a preborn child is a human being? An America that doesn’t seek to cover up that truth with lies about the nature of the unborn child? This is what pro-life advocates have been fighting to support for so long, much to the dismay of abortion promoters. It is pro-science, pro-life advocates who have proposed fetal pain laws, heartbeat bills, and laws that require education about the risks of abortion and the development of the human being growing inside his or her mother.
It is defenders of abortion who fight these laws. Because they know exposing the humanity of the unborn child, and associating abortion with negative health outcomes, puts the entire abortion industry at risk. It is these proponents of abortion who are repeatedly lobbing missiles at the science of fetal development.
Here’s How Abortion Advocates Are Anti-Science
Indeed, if we are truly worried about the landmines prohibiting the spread of scientific knowledge, we should first remove the shroud of dishonesty used by advocates to cover up the reality of abortion. And if you don’t think peddlers of abortion are dreadfully anti-science, here are a few reminders:
- A few months ago, Planned Parenthood Vice President Dawn Laguens was interviewed by Tucker Carlson of Fox News. During the interview, she made it a point to claim that it was up to the mother to decide the nature of her preborn child. This is nonsense. The nature of the child is science. It doesn’t depend on the attitude or scientific understanding of the mother.
- This was vaguely reminiscent of the time when then-DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was unable to answer a question about whether her children were human beings before they were born. To be clear, yes, they were. Only someone who despises science would even attempt to claim differently.
- An article from The Atlantic earlier this year bemoaned the use of ultrasound machines. The article unbelievably claimed that ultrasound machines show something other than what they actually show: which is the unique, distinct human being growing inside the mother.
- A study published in December in the journal JAMA Psychiatry claimed to show that women suffer no adverse effects after choosing abortion. This poorly conducted, fatally-flawed study used its conclusions to advocate the repealing of all legislation mandating counseling prior to obtaining an abortion. This infusion of ideology into research is not only anti-science itself, but ignores other research that reports opposite findings. It also neglects the experiences of thousands of women who do suffer emotional anguish or psychological distress after choosing abortion.
- A few years ago, unfunny comedian Sarah Silverman went on Real Time with Bill Maher and referred to preborn children as “goo.” This is only accurate if by “goo” she means “a unique, distinct living human being in its earliest stages”.
- Planned Parenthood recently published a set of videos explaining how abortion works. The videos depict a preborn child as a white dot, and state that abortion prevents the pregnancy from developing. This is just obfuscation of language. It’s not the pregnancy that develops during a pregnancy, it’s a human being.
- Planned Parenthood also tweeted last month that it is not only women who need abortions, a fact that is disputed by billions of years of pure, unadulterated scientific evidence.
- During one interview, pro-abortion politician Nancy Pelosi was caught off guard and referred to the question of when life begins as an ideological question. How much more anti-science can a person be?
- Abortion advocate and former MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry once speculated on how much money it costs to have a zygote turn into a human being. Since a zygote is already a human being, it’s clear that her speculation is based on anti-scientific information.
We Can’t Be Pro-Science If We Pick And Choose Results
We could go on. But it’s evident that abortion advocates are among the most anti-science people out there. This unwillingness to acknowledge scientific advances in the area of fetal biology is a hallmark of Democrats and Leftists—ironically the same groups who claim to be so supportive of science.
But we cannot claim to be supportive of science while simultaneously picking and choosing which scientific advancements to acknowledge and which ones to ignore based on which advancements fit our current political agenda and which ones do not. That’s not being supportive of science, that’s being supportive of self-serving interests.
If we are truly going to fight back in the “war on science”, we should direct our metaphorical ammo toward those who continue to deny the biology of the preborn child. The March for Science may seemingly have nothing to do with abortion, but if we want science to inform policy, and if we want those policies to serve the interests of all human beings, unveiling the dishonesty of the abortion industry and abolishing abortion should be among the first items on our checklist.
