Thursday, October 17, 2013
Abortion, The End of Science
The nerd in me finds this stuff fascinating. Towards the end, scientist Drew Barry says that scientific discovery is just part of the goal of eradicating disease and poverty. Now, please think about that: science is useful for discovering ways to cure disease (and by "poverty," I assume he means physical disabilities that prevent people from being able to work to provide for themselves). Who thinks that is a bad thing? No one, right(?)...we think...except that the idea of using science to cure disease and to make people well runs directly counter to the prevailing indoctrination that abortion is used to cure disease and eliminate poverty. Why pursue scientific discovery for the purpose of advancing medicine when the most efficient method of eradicating disease and poverty is abortion?
Not only that, abortion is touted as a right and classified as a right by the Supreme Court of the United States. Notice what has happened here--scientific medical treatment is not a right. Therefore, no one has a right to demand a cure or treatment for disease. As much as liberal politicians talk about health care being a "right," the truth is that has not been established by a court decision. But abortion has.
Now we come to a certain dilemma. If abortion is a right, then there is nothing about it that can be criticized. In fact, being a right means it is a state-sanctioned, superior practice to all others, including medical science. Abortion removes a major impetus for medical scientific discovery, because it is doing a much better job at eradicating disease and poverty by eliminating those that are diseased and/or poor (supposedly). Has medical science cured 90% of all Down Syndrome children from ever walking on the earth? I submit it has not. Has it successfully removed from the American population 57 million individuals who would have come into the world diseased, poor, unwanted, or otherwise useless to society? No to that too. Abortion has had numerically more success at its advertised aims than medicine, I believe (and not just in the U.S. but globally). If we took seriously all the reasons in favor of abortion, we should come to realize that abortion alone is the solution to all afflictions (be they medical or social) that can be detected early enough.
At this point, many will want to argue with me saying that medical scientific discovery cannot be compared to abortion. They will, hopefully, arrive at the conclusion that medical science seeks to cure the individual of disease, while abortion seeks to kill the individual with a disease. This is a very important distinction that dismantles the notion that aborting babies who are diseased or might be born into a life with few material resources is a necessity and a right for the sake of the ones who are not being aborted. If we want to respect the field of medical research and discovery properly, we cannot continue to accept the view of abortion as the solution to disease and poverty. Abortion for reason of disease or poverty is a logical farce.