I begin with an apology to my readers. I had planned to present the case against the radical environmentalism of the Left in this article. That is still coming so stay tuned.
However, the desperate attempts by Democrats to stop the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court suggested a change in the order. The vehemence of this opposition has an explanation that is part of the leftist war on science.
The Left fears that Kavanaugh will tip the court against legalized abortion. This drives the hysteria displayed by their minions and politicians.
In that hysteria, the Left pushes against the science of human reproduction and basic biology. They deny facts showing the humanity of the unborn for their devotion to ‘choice.’
The Left’s Utter Devotion to ‘Choice’
The Left is maniacally devoted to the concept of being “pro-choice” on abortion. It is the main motivating factor in the determined, if clownish and disgusting, efforts to stop the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.
Some could dispute that observation by saying that hatred of President Donald Trump is the real energizer of the Left. After all, Trump has been a large focus of leftist hatred since his nomination as a presidential candidate.
However, it should be noted that Kavanaugh is not the first Supreme Court nominee to be so fervently opposed. Both Robert Bork and current Justice Clarence Thomas are prominent examples of leftist character assassination attempts.
The case of Bork ended with his nomination failing to be confirmed and a new popular leftist term, being “Borked” came to notoriety. Justice Thomas survived the false allegations of sexual misconduct to make it to the Court.
However, in all of these cases, a common denominator is a perceived threat to the hallowed ideal of the ‘right to choose’ abortion. The tactics may differ a bit from time to time, but that factor is consistent.
This complete and utter devotion to abortion on demand is based on a false claim. It is the claim that equality among the sexes means that women must be free of bearing children they had not planned or chosen to bear.
Thus pregnancy by the ‘right to choose,’ can be halted per the mother’s wish up to and including the delivery. Since legalization, there have been Supreme Court decisions which upheld it yet also allowed individual states to place some restrictions on abortion practices.
Despite these, there remain places where the child can be killed at nine months old if the mother wishes or consents. As long as the delivery is not fully completed, the federal law allows it, and the taxpayer is on the hook for the cost.
The False ‘Science’ of Roe v. Wade
In 1973 the Supreme Court decided the case of “Roe v. Wade” which effectively legalized abortion in all 50 states and at any time of pregnancy. This was easily the worst decision since the infamous 1857 “Dred Scott” case which enshrined a right to own slaves as property.
Dred Scott was later overturned. However, it helped fuel a bloodbath known as the Civil War costing over 600,000 lives before its work was done. Roe itself is not simply ‘bad’ law, it is fantasy law, a made-up tale with no basis in the Constitution.
It was much more a decision of idealistic commitment than it was of interpreting the Constitution. Shamefully, a hundred times more deaths have resulted from Roe than from Dred Scott and the Civil War. Worse, Roe is still in effect 45 years later.
There is a part of the decision which bears scrutiny for scientific purposes. Within the maze that is the actual text of Roe, is this statement.
We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
The portion which begs attention is the claim that those in the medical community cannot come to a consensus “at this point in the development of man’s knowledge” about the unborn as a human life.
The accuracy of that claim was suspect even in 1973. With the passing of time, more biological knowledge has made the claim obsolete.
The philosophical and theological views on abortion have been partially addressed in previous TIL Journal pieces. A more thorough treatment will follow in future articles.
The late Dr. Jerome Lejeune was a world-renowned geneticist in the late 20th century. He was the discoverer of the genetic cause of Down Syndrome.
Moreover, he was insistent that the child in the womb was a living human being from the point of conception onward. He despised the fact that some have used his discovery to urge abortion of Down Syndrome babies.
Scientifically, Human Life Begins at Conception
In the years following Roe Dr. Lejeune was called to testify before congressional committees concerning ‘pro-choice’ versus ‘pro-life’ legislation.
In one unusual instance, he was asked to aid in a 1989 divorce proceeding in Tennessee. The question put forth was whether embryos frozen for implantation later should be adjudicated as property or under the rubric of child custody.
…if I can say a word as a geneticist, I would say: An early human being inside this suspended time… cannot be the property of anybody because it’s the only one in the world to have the property of building himself. And I would say that science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”
The argument in favor of humanity at conception has only gained plausibility with the continued progress of medical science since 1973. The advent of imaging technology has allowed viewing of the entire human gestation process.
In this particular ultrasound video, the baby is seen moving at just over 8 weeks old.
This technology has confirmed that the person in the womb is not ‘potential life,’ as pro-choicers claim, but that it is human and alive as a separate being in the womb.
However, little attention is paid to the consequences of denying this fact. Make no mistake, such denial only produces more evil consequences based on a belief that is both wrong and immoral.
The Baby at ‘War’ with the Mother
One of the consequences of the ‘pro-choice’ philosophy is that the mother should not view the baby within as her blessed offspring. Rather the child should be thought of much like a parasitical invader of the woman’s body.
The woman, it is said, is justified in viewing the baby as waging biological ‘war’ on their bodies. Their self-defense is to respond by declaring war against the invader with abortion.
In their view, any attempt to restrict the use of abortion is also viewed as an act of war. The language used by the Left clearly establishes this.
This is another case of denying the scientific knowledge of reproduction. Biology testifies that gestation is not an invasion of the female body by a parasite. For one thing, a parasite never feeds on its own species. The host is always a separate species.
Moreover, gestation is natural to reproduction for all mammalian species. Science does not view pregnancy as a parasitical condition in a female chimpanzee. There is no legitimate biological reason to do so for human beings either.
Yet, academic feminism does not accept the science. Here is an excerpt from one such academic found in Harvard magazine.
Eileen McDonagh, a visiting scholar at Radcliffe College’s Murray Research Center, seeks to rewrite the “feminine” self-sacrificing language of pregnancy and replace it with “masculine” terms of self-defense in an effort both to strengthen a woman’s right to abortion and to win universal government funding for the procedure. In her new book, Breaking the Abortion Deadlock (Oxford), McDonagh argues that doctors who perform abortions should be paid by taxpayers to stop unwanted fetuses from “kidnapping” women’s bodies, just as the government pays police officers to prevent rapists from invading the bodies of women.
Per this feminist scholars’ suggestion, this twisted view is carried to the point that it should be legally recognized and paid for regardless of anyone else’s views. In fact, this is actually played out via Planned Parenthood which taxpayers fund with hundreds of millions of dollars whether the taxpayer likes it or not.
Yes, the conditions of receiving that amount of funding include the promise that PP will not use those funds for abortion. But money is fungible and funds allocated for one project easily get moved to other priorities in large organizations.
The Push for Infanticide
When scientific facts are denied the consequences which result can be terribly destructive. The tens of millions of aborted children and devastated mothers since Roe have shown that.
Yet the evil continues to grow and foster acceptance of the grossest immoralities. It has even begun to produce a nightmarish scenario where the killing of children after birth is advocated and sometimes carried out.
If it is true that abortion is justified because of the child in the womb’s dependency, the same logic would allow the disposal of a child out of the womb until a certain age… People like Princeton ethicist Peter Singer use this to propose a waiting period of 30 days before considering a baby a human person.
“In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot.”
Be assured that Singer is not the only person who has promoted this. Moreover, he is not the only academic to push for the infanticide particularly of the disabled.
I have written previously on the subject of killing the disabled, unborn and born, and the movement in Europe to spread the heinous practice. However, the disabled infant is only a stepping stone for infanticide supporters.
The prize these medical ‘ethicists’ seek is the legalization and normalization of infanticide worldwide. Their arguments for this boil down to a couple of plainly understood reasons.
One reason employs utilitarianism to justify such killing. The same reasoning that relegates the baby in the womb to non-personhood, is applied to the infant after birth.
For example, according to influential medical publications, infants should not be regarded as human persons because they lack the qualifications to perceive life. Since the infant is not self-aware, for instance, he or she is not really a human person, and killing the born infant is acceptable.
The second reason involves economic concerns. It is extremely expensive to care for the disabled, and that cost grows as the disabled person grows. This rationale has been applied in many countries in Europe who actively seek to legalize some form of infanticide.
For whoever finds me [wisdom] finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death.” Proverbs 8:35-36 [ESV]
Sources: The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, Crossway Bibles, 2001
Featured and Top Image courtesy of thecrazyfilmgirl’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 1 courtesy of Angela’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 2 courtesy of Matt Wade’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 3 courtesy of furiousjethro’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
Inset Image 4 courtesy of Antonio Pavon’s Flickr page – Creative Commons License
All other sources linked or cited in the text