Why Is Big Science Pro-Death?
Big Science and Big Media support abortion and assisted suicide for no scientific reason.
What Trump’s US Supreme Court pick means for women’s health (New Scientist). To understand this headline, one needs to understand that “women’s health” is not about pap smears or cold medicine. It’s code for abortion. So is “women’s healthcare.” So is “reproductive rights.” Now we can understand what reporter Christina Cauterucci is talking about. She makes it clear further down, anyway; the whole article is about abortion, scaring readers about mean old Republicans who might restrict it.
Neil Gorsuch (pictured), US president Donald Trump’s nominee for the vacancy on the country’s Supreme Court, is a consistently conservative judge who would enter the court at a critical moment for reproductive rights.
Though Gorsuch, a federal judge on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, has never ruled on an abortion rights case, his record shows him to be hostile to women’s healthcare and willing to give broad leeway to institutions that want to discriminate against them….
Anti-abortion advocates believe Trump and his pick will lead their fight to overturn the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a strong, if imperfect, safeguard of abortion rights. A recent report from the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York found that 22 states would be likely to roll back abortion rights immediately if Roe were overturned.
Abortions in US drop to lowest level since 1974 (Medical Xpress). This article pretends to be a balanced presentation about statistics. Why, then, does the first photo of “anti-abortion activists” show them lying on the ground in a “die-in,” their placards unreadable in the distance, but the second photo a picture of enthusiastic protestors with T-shirts and signs clearly reading, Protect Abortion Access, United for for Abortion Coverage, My Decision, and the like? Look carefully for bias, and you will see phrases about states “that protect abortion rights” spoken of favorably. In fact, abortion rights (loaded words) appears five times, but “pro-life” only once, in scare quotes. Elsewhere pro-lifers are described as “anti-abortion” or “anti-abortion rights” activists.
Women’s access to birth control and abortion fading under Trump (New Scientist). This is another fearmongering article about mean old Republicans wanting to “discriminate” against women who just want the freedom to kill their babies. “Faced with the prospect of losing control of their reproductive rights,” one sentence begins. Doesn’t the unborn baby have any rights? Is not the right to life the first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Half the unborn babies are females who, once aborted, have no reproductive rights at all. What’s this doing in “New Scientist” anyway? Where is the science? Where is the logic? This article goes far beyond journalism, too, by advocating resistance against Trump and his policies.
Abortion rate halves if women have to go extra 100 miles (New Scientist). Despite what pro-lifers may think, this is not a celebration. It’s a lament. For instance, “because some healthcare providers were forced to stop offering abortions, some women could not get the services they were seeking,” Chelsea Whyte reports. Services? Since when is killing a human being a service? Try that logic on any other form of life-taking: because some gun stores were forced to stop selling guns, some hit men could not get the weapons they were seeking. Whatever does this have to do with science, anyway?
Official abortion rate declined in Texas after law restricted access to clinics (Science Daily). This is another article pretending to share statistical information about causes and effects without bias, but the bias is there: the Texas law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges to hospitals presented “substantial evidence of negative effects on women’s access to care,” the article says. Care? What kind of logic calls killing a human being “care”? And why is this on “science daily”?
More providers of safe abortion care can save thousands of women’s lives (Karolinska Institute). This has to be one of the most illogical headlines in recent memory. Abortion kills women in the womb: baby girls, that is, who will become women, along with baby boys. “Unsafe terminations claim tens of thousands of lives, particularly in the poorer parts of the world,” the press release says. So is the solution to kill even more? The death toll is the same or higher with abortion than without it. Why not tout the ideal solution? Improve prenatal care, so that mother and baby can live happily ever after.
The Big Science culture of death doesn’t stop with abortion.
Doctor-assisted suicide could save Canada up to $139 million each year, Alberta study suggests (National Post). Sharon Kirkey writes, “Doctor-assisted suicide could save Canada tens of millions of dollars annually by avoiding costly ‘end-of-life’ care, according to a provocative new analysis.” Medical ethics just had a heart attack. If society starts putting a price tag on human beings, watch out. The slippery slope has no bottom. No pressure, Grandpa, but you’re costing us a lot of money….
Update 2/08/17: Nature published an article about the miracle of child development. Claire Ainsworth writes,
Life starts with a puzzle. Out of sight in a mother’s womb, 3 billion letters of DNA code somehow turn into 3D bodies, all in the space of a mere 40 weeks. Fetuses form eyes, brains, hearts, fingers and toes — in processes that are meticulously coordinated in both time and space. Biologists have pieced together parts of this puzzle, but many gaps remain.
Juxtapose that wonderful insight into something horrific: Planned Parenthood hosting pizza parties and giving out awards to center that increase their quota of abortions. Believe it or not, that’s what some ex-employees have revealed about what goes on at these death mills (source: Truth Revolt). And do you know the name of the worst serial killer in US history? It’s Kermit Gosnell, the abortionist who was imprisoned for the filthy conditions in his late-term abortion clinic. A book about this mass murderer is near the top hardback best seller, the publisher claims in a story on Breitbart News – yet the New York Times refuses to list the book in its best seller list.
Update 2/09/17: Who could possibly be in favor of sex-selection abortions? The practice not only is profoundly anti-female, but has led to dangerous gender imbalances in China and India, where families often prefer males. Why, then, is Medical Xpress appalled at an Arkansas bill that would ban sex-selection abortions? The article favorably quotes an ACLU lawyer who says this: “Any law passed about an abortion performed pre-viability under the current law is unconstitutional. It doesn’t matter why. It doesn’t matter the method. There is very good potential for litigation because of this burden on women obtaining abortions that they want for whatever reason.” Such a statement borders on insanity, because it will certainly put a ‘burden on women’ in utero, a burden of death! Yet no pro-life rebuttals can be found in this article by Kelly P. Kissel. She writes of Republicans as obstacles out there who have an ‘”agenda” to restrict abortion.
If Big Science cared about “science,” they would support the pro-life position. A fertilized egg has the full complement of human genes for a unique person, and given the chance, will carry out its embedded program all the way to birth and adulthood. The “product of conception” might be the next Beethoven or Einstein. What gives anyone the right to decide if it lives or dies? How dare they? What if someone had decided that for you when you were in the womb? We’ve previously recommended watching the testimony of Gianna Jessen who survived a saline abortion.
We have to cringe at New Scientist’s mention of “Roe v. Wade, a strong, if imperfect, safeguard of abortion rights.” By common legal consensus, Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, legally speaking. It invented a “right” out of thin air. The Constitution’s authors would be appalled. So now Trump wants to get an originalist justice on the Supreme Court, who will render decisions based on the plain meaning of the text as interpreted by the authors. Isn’t that a cause for celebration?
The last article (above) about assisted suicide is very troubling. Years ago, Rod Serling produced a memorable episode for his series “The Twilight Zone” called “The Obsolete Man.” A dictator enjoyed making decisions about which citizens were useful to the regime, and which were obsolete. At one point, he determined a librarian was obsolete, and told him he would be terminated (YouTube). The librarian calmly read Scriptures as the timer counted down the time to the bomb that would kill him, as the dictator panicked at being found locked in with the victim (YouTube). Narrowly escaping, he recovered his composure until the Council decided he was obsolete for shaming the state with cowardice, whereupon he turned into a crybaby, calling out for mercy, blubbering “I’m not obsolete! I want to serve the State!” The council closes in on him, chanting, “obsolete! obsolete! obsolete!” (See full episode on Vimeo.) Is this not what our culture does to generations of persons yet unborn?
Recommended resource: On Evolution News and Views, Wesley J. Smith frequently writes about assisted suicide and other issues of medical ethics, anti-humanism, human exceptionalism and other topics of bioethics.