This year’s March for Life is brandishing a new tagline that is sure to rile up members of the liberal establishment. The March’s theme will be “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science,” a tagline that almost seems calculated to trigger liberals who say they “f*cking’ love science! In response, Washington Post religious writer Julie Zauzmer teed up her best, “Nuh uh, that’s not science!” rebuttal, and backed it up with more of the same tired pro-choice arguments.
Zauzmer employed the opinions of many pro-abort scientists and ob/gyns to refute the claim offered by Ben Shapiro, who is headlining this year’s march, and various other pro-life leaders like Kristen Hawkins, the president of Students for Life of America. Shapiro has insisted that there is a perfectly rational, non-religious way of discerning that abortion is wrong.
He claims, “When I speak about abortion, I don’t talk in terms of religion. I might make a spiritual appeal at the end… I always speak in terms of logic and science. I’ve never cited the bible. Shapiro also adds that there’s “no science” on the pro-abort side. “I don’t think they make scientific arguments,” he said, adding, “I think they make emotional appeals.”
He asserted that “The basic scientific definition of human begins at conception,” but for WaPo the authority of “medical professionals” who “don’t have a working definition of when life begins,” is much more credible. Zauzmer quotes Sarah Horvath of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who claims that “Science isn’t really designed to answer questions about the exact beginning of life or the moral assignations of these sorts of things.”
“Science is really more designed to teach us how things work, and then we can allow people to make their own decisions about what that means for them.” Of course, she added that “Science tells us that abortion is safe. Science tells us that abortion is health care.”
So science says a lot of things progressives want to hear, but it’s silent on the other stuff. Check.
So there’s that unobtrusive argument, along with Zausmer doubling down on the fact that unwanted pregnancies are just so disastrous for young mothers. She quoted the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated that, “Timely access to medical care is especially important for pregnant teenagers because of the significant medical, personal, and social consequences of adolescent childbearing,” i.e. Does that include the medical care they can get or be directed to at crisis pregnancy centers? Hello? Anyone?
The AAP comprises 66,000 doctors, which compared to the Academy of College of Pediatrics’ “few hundred” pro-life doctors, is enough evidence for Zausmer to consider the pro-life argument bunk. But what about the point that science isn’t designed for the “moral assignations of these sorts of things?” Clearly the authoritative belief of 66,000 scientists that abortion is one of the best options for a teen mom to keep her life intact allows her to assert that Shapiro and the fewer number of pro-life scientists are wrong in this moral area.
The left loves using scientific “objectivity” to get their beliefs out there, but of course that’s after shoving the facts into their partisan worldview and claiming that those are just the facts, baby. The same can be said for their appeals on climate change. Sure there might be other interpretations, but if you have 66, 000 “professionals” shouting those down, you might be able to get away with calling it science for a little while. The holes in the argument get even bigger when they assert things such as transgenderism is a perfectly valid state of nature, when there’s plenty of evidence that it’s an aberration. But slap the authoriy of doctors on it, and you might have a good chance in hitting the unwashed masses with a well-placed “How dare you?!”, when they try and sniff out your political motivations.
