How Can People Who Proclaim The Importance Of Science Be Pro-Choice?
Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi, once pro-choice but now beginning to see the pro-life side of things, makes an interesting statement today in a great column about the abortion issue:
...it’s difficult to understand how those who harp about the importance of “science” in public policy can draw an arbitrary timeline in the pregnancy, defining when human life is worth saving and when it can be terminated.
It is difficult to understand if you presume that those on the pro-choice side of the debate have arrived at their stance based on logic and reason and not emotion and convenience. Logically and scientifically speaking, of course a child still in the womb at any point after conception is a life. Life is a continuum of growth and development that begins at conception and continues until death, be it in old age or before being born under the scalpel of an abortionist. Trying to choose some point in the part of that continuum which takes place in the womb to say “before this there is no life but after this there is” is as absurd as drawing that line at a point in the continuum of life that happens outside the womb. Like, say, between when the child can walk and can’t walk.
There is simply no logical basis for it. But there are a lot of emotional arguments about being pro-abortion, most of them obscuring the fact that the people making them want abortion to be legal for convenience. So that they can always get rid of any unwanted children.
Regardless, there is no scientific argument in favor of abortion.
