Is there any logical or empirical reason why science journals and secular reporters should always take the pro-abortion position?
Pardon, Big Science, your bias is showing. When it comes to abortion and other ethical controversies, secular journals and science editors almost always throw in their lot with the leftist, progressive, liberal crowd who chant for abortion on demand, unlimited access to embryonic stem cells, funding for Planned Parenthood, and other Democrat Party platform positions. Why is that? Don’t they realize they themselves could have been aborted? Do they have any scientific evidence that an unborn baby is not a person? No. The bias is clear; any restrictions on abortion are viewed as bad. Any limits on access to human embryos and fetal tissue are presented as a step “backward” for society. Here are some examples.
One-Sided Coverage on Abortion
Lawsuits challenge abortion restrictions in 3 states (Medical Xpress). David Crary’s story from Nov. 30 opens with a photo of a crowd of pro-abortion protestors holding signs that stay “Stand with Planned Parenthood.” His first sentence sets the tone: “Taking the offensive after Election Day setbacks, Planned Parenthood and its allies filed lawsuits Wednesday in North Carolina, Missouri and Alaska challenging laws that they view as unconstitutional restrictions on abortion.” Setbacks? Some people see them as overdue correctives. Does Crary provide any balance? Lower down one finds the only mention of “pro-life” – “They realize the sense of urgency to head to the courts now knowing that the judicial landscape will change under a pro-life President Trump.”
Denying Abortion Access May Harm Women’s Mental Health (Live Science). Reporter Agata Blaszczak-Boxe displays bias right in the headline. Her concern is only about the “mental health” of the woman, an extremely subjective measure. She shows absolutely no interest in the mental health, physical health, or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of the child, or the pain it feels as it is ripped apart or burned alive in saline solution. The reporter’s interest only concerns the woman’s feelings. “The new results show that denying women an abortion may have more negative effects on their mental health than allowing women to get the abortion,” she writes, quoting a “study” about it. She tries to equate abortion with science, even: “The findings also suggest that doctors should provide women who are considering an abortion with the most accurate scientific information to help them make decisions related to their pregnancies, the researchers said.” Why could not the “most accurate scientific information” show ultrasound of the baby with a beating heart, emotional expressions, responding to its mother, and other indications of personhood? Another story on Medical Xpress illustrates the same bias, concerned only with the “negative psychological outcomes” of those who have been “denied” abortion. Now watch Gianna Jessen, survivor of a saline abortion, talk about the arrogance of those who ‘determine that the stronger should dominate the weaker, and should determine who lives or dies.” She may have disabilities because of her experience surviving premeditated murder by an abortionist, but her passion for life speaks volumes about the worth of a human being.
Ohio pulls license of 1 of state’s last few abortion clinics (Medical Xpress). Julie Carr Smyth writes, “Ohio has revoked the operating license of one of the state’s few remaining abortion clinics on the grounds that it failed to obtain a required transfer agreement with a nearby hospital for emergencies.” This article at least quotes some pro-life spokespersons, but quickly quotes a NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) spokeswoman asserting, “We will not let politics get in the way of health care.” Health care? No health care for the baby (see loaded words: euphemism in the Baloney Detector). Politics? The unborn baby didn’t get a vote. Smyth further portrays “anti-abortion” groups as if they are engaged in underhanded tactics to restrict abortion. Once again, she shows absolutely no interest in the rights of the unborn child.
Human Embryos as Science Toys
It’s time to relax the rules on growing human embryos in the lab (New Scientist). Ask yourself if Sam Wong’s quote of a researcher provides sufficient justification for dissecting a human embryo: “It’s one of the most critical phases of our early development and we don’t know anything about it.” Sure, science wants to know. But try that reasoning on killing a child right after it is born – or even an adult human, for that matter, because science wants to learn more. Try this quote: “We shouldn’t think that somehow 14 days was a line at which Parliament had previously decided the embryo was sacrosanct.” Isn’t Sam Wong admitting that anything after fertilization is arbitrary? Sacrosanct means sacred, untouchable.
It might be too soon to shift the 14-day line, but it’s worth beginning the conversation, says Rossant. “There are lots of inputs that need to be considered, ethical, legal, societal, as well as the scientific.”
Clearly, some scientists are eager to cut up human embryos. Let’s review the reasons: (1) they don’t know much about them, (2) the date is arbitrary, so what can we get away with? and (3) adult humans (including scientists) are the bestowers of rights, because an embryo has no inherent personhood until we bestow it. “This is not a decision for scientists,” says Brivanlou. “It’s a decision we must make as humans.” Sounds good, but it leaves out any thought of a Creator’s will. Thomas Jefferson famously said (speaking for all the American founding fathers) that we are “endowed by our Creator” with rights, including life.
Mexico proposal to ban human-embryo research would stifle science (Nature). Reporter Sara Reardon equates cutting up human embryos with “science.” That’s why Nature’s editors allow her to decry any kind of “ban” (a loaded word) on unrestricted access to human embryos. “They want to eliminate an entire area of research in Mexico.” Oh, those poor scientists! That’s the implication. Try that rationale on Nazi experiments. Astonishingly, Reardon finds “Human-rights groups have joined scientists in opposing the proposed amendment,” leading pro-lifers to shake their heads in disbelief. Human-rights groups?
Researchers turn back the clock on human embryonic stem cells (Phys.org). Here’s another example of fear-mongering in the biased media. Any ethical restriction on the freedom of scientists to use human embryos as research toys is called an effort to “turn back the clock.” Yes, let us all make progress toward the death of personhood! But why even play with ESC’s (embryonic stem cells) when adult cells can be induced back to stemness, providing a resource without the ethical qualms? Scientists try to make arguments that ESC’s are somehow better. Other reports, though, have indicated that is not the case (e.g., 6/12/16).
Science and Personhood
Popular animations of human reproduction show embryos undergoing a seamless transition from zygote to baby, clearly an irreversible process set in motion at conception with the goal of bringing another human being into the world. Live Science reports that soon it may be possible to give the mother crystal-clear 3-D images of the baby in her womb. Is Taylor Kubota glad that this may provide more reasons not to abort? Not entirely; “Aside from its potential to give parents an extra-special sneak peek at their bundle of joy, this imaging technology could provide new options for evaluating the health and development of a fetus, the researchers said.” What happens if a health problem is found in the womb? If you want to know what Big Science thinks about that eventuality, connect the dots with the previous stories. Notice the word fetus instead of baby, a common euphemism in Big Science reporting.
2017 list of emerging ethical dilemmas and policy issues in science and technology (Phys.org). For those interested in the mindset of science in the new year, the University of Notre Dame lists ten points where scientists are set to clash with ethicists and policy makers. For more in the fallibility of scientists, see Darren Curnoe’s admission on The Conversation, where he calls the classification of humans into separate races “The biggest mistake in the history of science.” Historians know, regretfully, that many leading scientists, many of a Darwinian stripe, lent pseudo-scientific support to “scientific racism” and eugenics that shamed the reputation of science for a century. Have today’s scientists learned their lesson? Don’t count on it. It’s not difficult to imagine future historians looking back and wagging their heads at some of today’s “scientific consensus” positions.
As we have been showing recently, Big Science has corrupted itself. Its institutions, universities, labs, and science media act as special interest groups for the Democrat Party and other leftist progressive secularist liberal pressure groups. Nowhere is that more evident than in the issue of right to life. Where do they report scientific evidence that a human “fetus” or “embryo” is a person? They always downplay the personhood of the unborn, focusing exclusively on the so-called “rights” of the mother to kill her child for any reason, even if she just feels uncomfortable. Please watch Gianna Jessen’s testimony to see the horror their worldview has produced. It’s a modern-day holocaust, blessed by Big Science!
Our concern is not the politics, or the very real issues pregnant mothers feel, which deserve compassion and care. Our concern is to show that science has abandoned any claim to objectivity, except in the realms where worldview and ethics are minimal (e.g., how many moles of solid precipitate out of solution when two liquids are mixed in a test tube). You cannot understand today’s lofty pronouncements about evolution, climate change or “reproductive health” coming from Big Science without recognizing this corruption. Look at them the same way you look at labor unions, lawyers, and mainstream media. Most of their institutions have gone so far left they are wacko if not dangerous. Big Science is not objective. Scientists are capable of much good, but must be reined in by righteous citizens wielding informed logic and evidence when their institutions unmask their political biases. Feyerabend, C.S. Lewis and other thinkers warned about the dangers of out-of-control scientists. Keep Mad Scientists under control or you could have Frankensteins on the loose. They are especially dangerous when operating from a materialist worldview that makes ethics merely a consequence of power.