Why Evolutionists Are Obsessed with Abortion
Simple answer: they’re materialists and leftists who hate God.
That’s obvious in the completely one-sided articles they write.
Evolutionists were almost uniformly left-leaning radicals from the beginning, from Darwin himself on. Exceptions are few. The leading lights of Darwinism in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries are almost all political radicals (e.g., communists), atheists, anti-Christians who mock the Bible. They are intolerant of intelligent design or any form of theism. Go ahead; write us and tell us of exceptions. Good luck finding any.
As leftists, they tend to conform to the whole platform of the Democrat party, which includes support for abortion, including the most radical views that support it right up to the time of birth. Some, like Peter Singer, support it after birth—infanticide. And why not? Life is cheap to an evolutionist. Death is the means of evolutionary progress. As materialists, they disbelieve in a soul or spirit that gives a human being any kind of exceptional nature beyond the mammalian traits. So sure are they of their atheism and moral relativism, they will express moral outrage at anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Let’s prove that with some evidence from the recent news posted on “science” sites. These sites are all pro-evolution and intolerant of any creationist or intelligent design viewpoints. While reading, ask what “science” has to do with advising the killing of the unborn.
White House braces for ruling on abortion pill’s fate (Medical Xpress, 24 Feb 2023). How did a site like “medical express,” a website that amalgamates news on health care, become so pro-abortion? Amanda Selz says the White House “braces” for a court decision about the use of abortion pills. Sounds scary! “The Biden administration is preparing for a worst-case scenario if a conservative federal judge rules in favor of a lawsuit seeking to restrict access to one of the two drugs typically used to induce a medicated abortion.” Oh, those nasty conservatives are at it again! Liberal Democrat Biden must come up with a plan to rescue abortion pills!
US lawsuit threatens access to abortion drug: the science behind the case (Nature, 23 Feb 2023). The science. Ah, yes, the science. A lawsuit “threatens” access to an abortion drug. Who choose that word “threaten”? Why not say, ‘Finally, a lawsuit to end the wholesale murder of unborn human beings with a pill is being heard in the courts’ instead?
What will happen if medication abortion challenge succeeds? (Medical Xpress, 23 Feb 2023). Lindsey Tanner warns her readers that options to abortion might be limited if a federal lawsuit restricting the use of abortion pills (mifepristone and misoprostol) succeeds. No pro-life arguments given at all. “Studies show medication abortions are safe and effective, though with a slightly lower success rate than ones done by procedure in a clinic,” she writes.
Texas lawsuit threatens access to abortion pill nationally (HealthDay, 13 Feb 2023). What a terrible thing to restrict abortion pills, and to stop pharmacies from becoming dispensers of death to innocent babies. That’s the tone of Cara Murez’s article. The Alliance Defending Freedom is presented in a bad light. After Dobbs overturned Roe, “being able to provide medication abortion is very, very important,” a pro-abortion spokesperson is quoted saying.
Commentary: Restricted abortion access will cause psychiatric harm (Medical Xpress, 9 Feb 2023). This article from Northwestern University mentions “harm.” Any concern about harm to the child? None. If the mother is depressed, kill the innocent baby. Some solution.
State Abortion Bans Based on Sex, Disability or Race Aren’t Remedies Against Eugenics (George Washington University, 1 Feb 2023). The convoluted reasoning in this article requires some dissection. The authors of the “study” didn’t study very hard. They argue that Clarence Thomas’s opinion that abortion was a form of modern-day eugenics isn’t true, because denying abortion actually hurts the usual victims of eugenics: “minorities, women, people with disabilities, the LGBTQ+ community, and immigrants.” Let’s think this through, shall we? What is the best way to eliminate these victimized groups? Kill their babies. That was simple, wasn’t it? Do these eggheads at GWU know that Margaret Sanger’s main purpose in setting up Planned Parenthood was to eliminate people of color and others this radical racist and eugenicist deemed less fit than whites? Isn’t that why PP puts their clinics in minority neighborhoods?
Study: Abortion Views Closely Tied to Views on Race, Religion (North Carolina University, 8 Feb 2023). This “study” supports abortion by playing the race card. If you oppose abortion, you must be a religious racist. Did these shallow debaters consider the obvious logic that killing the children of people of color is a quick way of reducing their numbers? Hmmmm?
Medication Abortion TikTok Videos Tend to be Accurate and Reliable (Duke University, 1 Feb 2023). Oh great. Get your advice from the TikTok, the Chinese communist app that monitors your activities. What is “accurate” information, to the Duke “health” scientists? Why, it’s any source that supports “reproductive health care” (euphemism for abortion). Anything else must be “misinformation” by definition.
Abortion law, suicide rate study adds to raging debate. But are we missing point? (Harvard Gazette, 26 Jan 2023). Tyler Vanderweele plays the role of expert in this interview, posing as an epidemiologist only concerned about a mother’s mental health. But any expert who uses the phrase “reproductive health” as a euphemism for abortion is himself missing the the point: he’s assuming that killing an innocent third party is a solution to mental anguish.
How total abortion ban puts maternal health at risk (Harvard Gazette, 25 Jan 2023). Jocelyn Viterna spent 10 years studying abortion in El Salvador, and documented its effects on women. Anguish over Salvadoran women “forced to carry severely malformed fetuses to term” is a tragedy; that’s what pregnancy centers and adoption agencies are for. Is killing the baby the solution? Any article that uses the phrase “reproductive justice” as a euphemism for abortion should get the gong.
Improving measures of access to legal abortion: A validation study triangulating multiple data sources to assess a global indicator (PLoS One, 13 Jan 2023). Can some study, somewhere, please think of whether a baby has a right to life? At least once? This study, once again, consider’s only the mother’s health, and signals virtue by studying how to “improve” access to abortion.
Abortion Access After the Dobbs Decision (Johns Hopkins University, 4 Jan 2023). This interview appears unemotional and factual about the laws after Dobbs, where abortion is legal and where it has been challenged. The tone of the article, though, is pro-abortion: what can be done to protect access and to protect abortionists. Pro-life views and services of pregnancy centers are (as usual) ignored.
Medical, surgical abortions are very safe: review (Medical Xpress, 6 Jan 2023). Notice the bias in this headline by Denise Mann. No arguments by pro-life organizations are offered: just assurances to mothers seeking to kill their babies with pills that it is safe. This is what a “review” found, so it must be true. Mann praises efforts by CVS and Walgreens to offer abortifacients in their stores, something the Family Research Council is trying to stop.
CVS, walgreens say they will offer abortion pills in some states (Medical Xpress, 6 Jan 2023). Notice the bias in this article by Cara Murez: two smiling women in a pharmacy, the black lady pharmacist offering advice to a customer on how to kill her baby with pills. The article mentions “abortion rights.” What about “human rights” for the unborn? Where is the outrage that pharmacies become dispensers of death to the most innocent among us?
Gauging the successes, failures, and needs of physician abortion advocacy (City University of New York, 7 Dec 2022). More talk of “abortion rights.” Photo displays “Abortion is Healthcare.” Enough said.
Do We Hear a Pro-Life Article?
Forced mass abortions are a new and disturbing phenomenon in Nigeria (The Conversation, 14 Dec 2022). Akanni Ibukun Akinyemi is alarmed about forced abortions in Nigeria, as anyone should be. In the country where abortions are restricted, some immoral fathers take advantage of women. But a new development is really terrible: Boko Haram terrorists impregnate young girls and then force them to get abortions.
There is some evidence that the decision to terminate a pregnancy may be imposed on a woman by either her male partner or some significant others, such as parents and care givers. However, the systemic large scale forced abortions in the north-eastern part of Nigeria as reported in the media are a new development. I don’t think we have recorded anything like this before.
Akinyemi is to be commended for bringing this horrible situation to light. But further reading shows him to favor abortion. He seems most concerned about “restrictive” abortion laws (which in many places are only allowed to protect the life of the mother), the “stigma” attached to abortion, and the need for “post-abortion care.” He favors the use of abortion pills, and speaks of “women who had a safe abortion in a suitable medical facility with qualified professional.”
OK, leftist scientists, or anyone else who claims our headline is unfair. We’ve shown a lot of evidence that it is true. Show us any contrary evidence: a Big Science or Big Media source that affirms a pro-life position, or even a conservative position about this important issue. We would even like to see one that restates Bill Clinton’s old position that abortion should be “safe, legal, and RARE.” Good luck.
The birth of a human child is one of the most precious moments any person can experience. But the left is obsessed with abortion! Why? Darwin’s worldview led to immorality, unrestricted sex, and selfishness. It cheapened the value of human life by describing people as mere animals, with no immortal soul, no objective moral compass, and no destiny. That’s why Darwinians are so adamant in their support of abortion. Many of the leading scientists were strong supporters of eugenics, including the elimination of those deemed unfit.
But is there anything scientific about the mad rush to eliminate human children? Is there anything logical about solving an inconvenient pregnancy by killing the innocent party? If Big Science and Big Media wish to regain some of the public trust that has been severely eroded in recent years, they could at least make a semblance of trying to be objective. How about reading the arguments of leading pro-life organizations? How about considering the good that pregnancy centers provide? How about analyzing the arguments in Dobbs objectively? How about reporting the ugly facts about abortion procedures, as shown in the videos by former abortionists? Why not talk up alternatives to abortion? How about repudiating eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and the atrocious practices in many abortion mills? How about celebrating when a mass abortion murderer like Gosnell gets caught and imprisoned? How about describing with awe the intricacy of human development? How about it?
Huh? We can’t hear you.