For years abortion supporters argued that the science supported their cause, that pro-lifers were functioning only from “religious convictions.” But recent developments in biology support the pro-life argument that science and theology are not in conflict.
In fact, the science is so strong that the pro-abortion crowd has lost whatever “foundation” it once claimed. Science now firmly supports the fact that the unborn baby is human, and that he/she is alive. Thus the culture of death side has become anti-science. For pro-abortionists, ideology trumps science.
Our friend Nancy Pearcey is an award-winning writer and Director of the Francis Schaeffer Center at Houston Baptist University. She has written an excellent article—“Why Pro-Abortion is Anti-Science”—which comprises a solid challenge to abortion on the basis of science. Nancy writes:
Now is the time to turn the tables and make the case that it’s the pro-abortion stance that is actually anti-science.
In the past, abortion supporters simply denied that the fetus is human: “It’s just a blob of tissue.” Today, however, due to advances in genetics and DNA, virtually no ethicist denies that the fetus is human — biologically, genetically, physiologically human. Even the arch-radical Peter Singer acknowledges that “the life of a human organism begins at conception.”
How do liberals get around that scientific fact? By denying the relevance of science!
Liberals argue that the sheer fact of being human does not confer any moral worth. Nor does it warrant legal protection. The turning point is said to be when an individual becomes a “person,” generally defined in terms of self-awareness, autonomy, or other cognitive capabilities. …
Pro-lifers have long been castigated for bringing private values into the public square. But actually it is the pro-abortion position that is based on merely personal views and values. …
… just being part of the human race is not morally relevant. Individuals must earn the status of personhood by meeting an additional set of criteria — the ability to make decisions, exercise self-awareness, and so on, depending on the ethicist setting the criteria.
When ideology trumps truth, power is the means of enforcing the argument. Read Nancy’s fine piece here.
– Darrow MillerPrint this page