Pro-abortionists unnerved by how science affirms pro-life assertions

By Dave Andrusko

There’s been a growing number of stories (which we have vigorously critiqued) that supposedly tell us that pro-abortionists have assumed the mantle of being “on the side of science.” That blatantly one-sided meme only grew in intensity when this year’s March for Life adopted as its motto, “Unique from Day One: Pro-Life is Pro-Science.”

Of course, the principles of our Movement are in harmony with basic biology and specifically human embryology. Each of us began our individual lives as human being at conception when sperm and egg united to form a new single-celled organism (the zygote) — a member of our species at the earliest stage of development.

To argue against this you have to pretend that human life doesn’t really begin until implantation, which is a political not a biological conclusion.

When the likes of pro-abortion Law Prof. Mary Ziegler write (as she does in today’s New York Times )”The Abortion Wars Have Become a Fight Over Science,” she is talking about fetal pain and the eminently defensible conclusion that abortion can cause “severe emotional disturbances” in some post-abortion women or increase the chances of “sterility.”

Here’s a perfect illustration of the pro-abortion insistence that time (and science and technological advances) stand still.

Williams off-handedly writes, “Some insisted that fetal viability came earlier than the 24-to-28-week time frame set in Roe,” as if to suggest that believing preemies can be saved earlier and earlier in pregnancy is equivalent to believing the earth is flat.

Tellingly, the link in her story is to a 1979 Supreme Court decision! Has nothing happened in neonatal intensive care units in nearly 40 years?!

Williams also opines

This year’s skirmish wasn’t actually unusual, however. Rather, it was revealing of a larger shift in the terms of the abortion debate. Over the past few decades, the abortion wars have become as much a fight about science and medicine as they are about the law and the Constitution.

But, of course.

We are far more capable than we were 46 years ago of understanding the agony that a pain-capable child will experience as she is torn about. We know a hundredfold more about the unborn child’s journey to birth and the remarkable interactions between mother and child.

The science of ultrasound, once extremely primitive, is now in 4-D and in color. We can see unborn children frolicking (so much for blobs of tissue).

We know that when it comes to abortion and anything touching on it, the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and the American Psychological Association may be “well-established” but (contrary to Williams) they are anything but “non-partisan.”

A test of any scientific group’s commitment to the evidence will likely be how it handles the fact that chemical abortions can be reversed, if the second of the two drugs is not taken. If, as I suspect resistance will only harden, no amount of evidence will ever convince them this is not “junk science.”

Williams ends with this:

Jeanne Mancini of March for Life recently wrote that “the abortion debate isn’t settled, but the underlying science certainly is.” Whatever either side may wish, that could not be farther from the truth.

That is true only if you are committed to trying to make time stand still. If not, you know that we have the “underlying science” on our side and our benighted opposition does not.