Who's 'anti-science'? The pro-choicers

[Valin]

Baptist Press:

Kelly Boggs

Mar 22, 2013

 

ALEXANDRIA, La. (BP) -- Many in the media tend to characterize conservative Christians as anti-science. But when it comes to the issue of abortion, it would seem that those who truly reject science are many of those same media members -- and their ideological allies -- who affirm abortion-on-demand.

 

 

(Snip)

 

When an abortion is performed on a preborn baby in its early stages of development, the procedure tends to be more clinical. However, when abortion occurs in the latter stages of pregnancy, it is brutal and gruesome.

The only element that is controversial about abortion -- the only "other side of the issue" if you will -- is whether or not a woman should be allowed to terminate her preborn child's life and at what stage of development.

 

(Snip)

 

Science has so well established that the preborn baby in the womb is a living human being that most pro-choice activists have conceded the point. Today, those who advocate for legal abortion want to debate when the child in the womb actually can be said to have achieved "personhood." They talk solely about "choice," not wanting to mention that the choice involves a living human being in the womb.

 

The argument about personhood is scientific. However, since the abortion proponents have lost the science argument, they are now advocating an existential one.

The development of medical technology, such as ultrasound, has enabled the scientific method to be applied to the fetus during pregnancy. As a result, science has confirmed and validated the presence of a preborn human being in the womb.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

[Valin]

Not sure what this means, but....Its something I never knew!

 

[Valin]

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry On Unborn Human Life: What It Costs To “Have This Thing Turn Into A Human”…

 

MELISSA HARRIS-PERRY: Oh, no. That might be bad. I seemed to have popped open the fertilized egg. We’ll put that back together. But the very idea that this would constitute a person, right? And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this. Look, I get that that is a particular kind of faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?

 

(Vid At Link)