Written by Planned Parenthood’s College Outreach group, Advocates for Choice, really hates science. Don’t just take my word for it, listen for yourself (via the CCBR).
I thought it was the “wacky religious right” or the “lunatic fringe of the Republican party” that was supposed to be anti-science, but these champions of truth seem to want the anti-science crown more than anyone else. I certainly wouldn’t want to be in an anti-science contest against any of these folks!
Why might that be? Maybe because science doesn’t make abortion look very good.
Pingback: Cold-Blooded Intellectuals: Peter Singer « University of Toronto Students for Life
My take on what the pro-choice folks are asserting–in common sense ways rather than scientific–is that there is a relative value to life, i.e., that the life of the zygote is of less value intrinsically than that of the fully developed fetus. This concept of human development–based on biological science–is an important one in understanding what the pro-choice folks are talking about. As such, their position is not really anti-science.
I’m not sure how you can get more explicitly pro-choice and more explicitly anti-science than the Planned Parenthood clip above, but yes, not all abortion advocates make that argument. Some abortion advocates are perfectly fine with killing human beings and don’t need to deny the humanity of the pre-born to justify killing. But then, do we really believe in human rights if humans don’t have rights just because they’re younger than us? And, then, if value is gradual as humans age, shouldn’t we value infants more than newborns, toddlers more than infants, teens more than toddlers, etc.? When is someone valuable enough that it’s wrong to kill them?