Skip to comments.A Science-Based Abortion Policy Is Impossible
Posted on 06/27/2013 7:42:02 PM PDT by SeekAndFindEdited on 06/27/2013 7:44:26 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Thanks to Kermit Gosnell and various pieces of legislation, the ever-simmering culture war over abortion has yet again taken center stage. But there’s something strikingly different about the debate this time: It’s actually focused on the science of embryology.
But conservatives are making the case that an abortion after 20 weeks should not be allowed because some embryological evidence indicates the possibility that a fetus can experience pain at that point in development. In an article for Slate, William Saletan does an excellent job explaining that the science is complicated and debatable, but he still rejects the “pain standard” offered by conservatives. Why? Because he doesn’t trust them.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearscience.com ...
This issue is not about science or fact it is about an agenda which is eugenics, as Sanger said “rid the world of undesirables”.
>> “a fetus can experience pain”
So if the victim is first anesthetized, there’s no murder involved?
The stats in this article are good.
You can prove that the pro-abortion groups are not really interested in making sure that abortion is “Safe legal & rare” by offering them this compromise.
(Please note this is not something I would be comfortable with but is used as an example)
The compromise is this:
Each woman has a right to a single, government funded abortion for medical reason through the 20th week of pregnancy. Medical reasons do not include birth-control. The right is non-transferable
None of the pro-abortion groups would take that deal though it is hard to get an argument from them on exactly why they oppose it.
The abortion industry is fueled by women having multiple abortions, no questions asked. It is not about equality or safety. It is about profit.
Science? Did somebody say “science” ? Here am I, Joe Science incarnate, to pronounce the scientific view.
It is, first of all, scientifically speaking, that you can do anything that you want to do, and are capable of pulling off, and science will have nothing to say about it. So go ahead.
But second of all, don’t blow smoke up my ass.
So if the victim is first anesthetized, theres no murder involved?That's right! Welcome to the End Times! Have a seat in the back, remain quiet, and remember to take your number.
I see this repeatedly, but I don't buy it.
I doubt one pro-choice person in 100 has anything financial to gain by whether more or less abortions take place.
This is the right-wing equivalent of saying white people want black people locked up in prison because of the profitability of the prison-industrial complex.
In actual fact, most people who support abortion or imprisonment do so for reasons that have nothing at all to do with financial gain.
Why is pain the standard? I thought it was human life that was sacrosanct? To those with a conscience.
It’s time for conservatives to turn the table. Liberals always accuse conservatives of anti science, while in this case it’s obvious they are the anti-science group. Liberal feminist’s argument that the fetus is merely a part of woman’s body means that women can do abortion all the way to 9 months. It will not hold for long any more in the face of more and more scientific discoveries showing babies in their mother’s womb can not only already react to outside stimuli but also process some simple information.