At CPAC (the Conservative Political Action Conference) last week, Senator Marco Rubio made a rather profound statement:
Just because [you] believe that life… all human life is worthy of protection at every stage in its development does not make you a chauvinist.
In fact, the people who are actually closed-minded in American politics are the people that love to preach about the certainty of science in regards to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception.
Indeed. While not all pro-choicers or all pro-lifers fit into the same box, many pro-choice people do believe in global warming and caring for the environment – and their views on these issues are usually rooted in science. Why, then, do some of these same people reject the decades-old scientific fact that human life begins at conception?
Even though the debate on abortion is shifting (as science is recognized more frequently), the problem remains that many Americans fail to acknowledge that, at the moment of fertilization, a new, unique, human individual has been created. This is basic science, folks. How can we care more about the science of the earth than the science of human lives who inhabit the earth? It’s a puzzling contradiction. If science truly matters so much, why do we pick and choose when it matters and, in our picking and choosing, leave out the science that would save the most lives?
If nothing else, we must be consistent in our beliefs. For the pro-choicers who want to fight global warming so that the lives of people in third-world countries aren’t placed at risk, please stop disregarding the science that tells us the truth about the tiniest and most innocent humans among us. They deserve no less protection than poor people hundreds of miles away. How easy it can be to forget those in our own backyard for the sake of those across the globe.
Let’s take my arguments one step down. Say you’re a pro-choicer who does acknowledge that human life begins at fertilization. Say you’ve read and believe the science. While I wish it would be clear to you from the science alone that every human life deserves protection, regardless of environment, dependency, intellectual capacity, self-awareness, or size, there’s another smaller step I hope you would take if you can’t make that leap quite yet. Here’s something I hope we could agree on.
Medicine and medical care are part of science, yes? Well, why are pro-choicers urged to fight against medical and health restrictions placed on abortion clinics? If we truly care about healthy science – and the lives of women – why can’t we all agree that abortion clinics ought to be held to appropriate safety standards?
What’s really so evil about requiring these clinics to have broad enough hallways so that they match the standards of other surgical facilities, especially considering the apparent rise in life-threatening emergencies at abortion clinics across the nation? What’s so wrong about regular inspections by state health departments? Is abortion truly so precious that pro-choicers can’t stand for their clinics to be evaluated and held up to scrutiny that would save the health and lives of women?
And what about restrictions on abortion that relate to science? Ultrasounds provide an accurate, scientific depiction of an unborn child to women. (I won’t even get into the facts on how any competent abortion clinic would be providing an ultrasound anyway.) Why should women be shielded from a scientific image?
Why should women not be told scientific facts – like those on fetal development? Don’t we usually all agree that any woman, any man, and any person deserves all the facts before he or she makes decisions? Why should abortion be any different? Why do some pro-choicers feel the need to adamantly oppose laws that would force abortion clinics to inform women about accurate scientific facts – like those found in embryology textbooks?
And why did Planned Parenthood feel the need to sue South Dakota when the state passed a law requiring doctors, among other things, to inform women of this fact?
That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being[.]
The South Dakota law in question had defined “human being” as:
[A]n individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.
Pure science. That’s what that is. Thankfully, the 8th Circuit Court agreed that this law provided women with “truthful, non-misleading information relevant to a … decision to have an abortion.”
Sadly, it’s pretty apparent that Planned Parenthood cares more about business than science. If a statement or a regulation might lead a woman to choose life instead of abortion, Planned Parenthood won’t stand for it. If health code changes or regular inspections might lead one of their abortion clinics to be shut down, Planned Parenthood won’t support them. What’s even sadder is that many vocal pro-choicers seem to side with Planned Parenthood instead of science.
The business of abortion shouldn’t hold sway over the minds of Americans any longer. Science is science, no matter what Planned Parenthood says.