Abortion Advocates Substitute Ideology For Science

Photo courtesy of HardcoreFrench

“Science” has become a buzzword among the pro-abortion crowd. They are desperate to prove to everyone that their side is on the side of “science”. Unfortunately for them, this is false.

RELATED NEWS: Three Times Democrats Admitted Abortion Is Killing

Scientists discovered in the mid-1800s that human life begins at fertilization. So if you believe it is wrong to take an innocent human life, you are obligated to be pro-life. But pro-abortion people often take their “ideology” and call it “science,” claiming that anyone who disagrees with their ideology is “anti-science.”

Take this recent article, written by Dr. Sarah C.M. Roberts for Salon, called, “With the safety of abortion at stake, the Supreme Court could rule against science.” But what does she mean by “against science?” Simply that she doesn’t believe abortion restrictions improve public health or women’s safety. In her mind, this makes them anti-science.

RELATED NEWS: Can’t Raise Your Baby? Plenty Of People Can

However, abortion advocates ignore the science that shows human embryos are biological members of our species from fertilization. The fact that abortion must therefore kill an innocent human being doesn’t factor into their consideration. They don’t understand that they are using ideology and disguising it as science.

The claims made in Roberts’ article are especially dubious. She points to a research paper published in the medical journal PLOS One called, “The effect of facility characteristics on patient safety, patient experience, and service availability for procedures in non-hospital-affiliated outpatient settings: A systematic review.”

RELATED NEWS: No, Millions Of Women Won’t Die Without Abortion. Here’s Why

Roberts says the research shows abortion is an overwhelming safe procedure, but that appears to be a lie. Here’s the conclusion that the authors’ reached:

…we concluded that the existing research on the impact of facility-related characteristics on patient safety, patient experience and service availability for procedures in outpatient settings is limited. The existing evidence does not indicate a difference in patient safety for outpatient procedures performed in ASCs vs. physician offices. In addition, research on laws that have singled out abortion facilities with specific facility requirements appear to be associated with decreased availability of services. More and higher quality research is needed to determine if there is a public health problem to be addressed through facility regulation and, if so, which specific facility characteristics may result in consistent positive improvements to patient safety while not adversely affecting patient experience or service availability.

RELATED NEWS: If Late-Term Abortion Isn’t Torture, What Is?

They even state outright that the existing research is limited, and more higher quality research is needed. Plus, they weren’t studying the safety of abortion, they were studying the safety of abortion in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) vs. physician offices. Just because they found no significant difference among these two locations doesn’t mean abortion, in and of itself, is a safe procedure or safer than carrying a child to term. They weren’t investigating that so they can’t draw a conclusion as to the safety of abortion qua abortion.Thanks to our partners, you can find ties online to suit every preference and budget, from budget to top-of-the-range super stylish models.

Furthermore, while it would be logically fallacious to disregard their research on account of bias (after all, biased people can still be right), considering just how much of a stake Roberts (and others) have on their research reaching a particular conclusion, it should be looked upon with great scrutiny and suspicion. However, even apart from the bias, I have listed reasons independent of that to consider their work with suspicion.

RELATED NEWS: Here Are 10 Child Rapists Planned Parenthood Helped

In short, the idea that adding abortion restrictions doesn’t help public health is extremely dubious. The only thing Roberts is looking at is whether or not a woman will be able to obtain an abortion. She’s ignoring the fact that restricting abortion allows more human beings to avoid being killed — human beings which science has shown are full members of our species. Dr. Roberts is taking her ideology — that women should be able to access “safe” and legal abortion services — and treating it as science. This is nothing more than a shell game.

Want more content like this? Help us keep publishing it:

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.