Following The Science

In contemporary America, we have devolved to the point that leftist dogma is supposed to be swallowed whole and at face value.

In just one of many examples, it is now “conventional wisdom” that climate change is unprecedented in world history, will render the planet a barren wasteland within the next few years, and is the fault of human beings. This is now the officially approved belief system in the media, academia, and popular culture, and those who dare question it are labeled “science deniers.”

This cult-like attitude ignores the fact that, by its nature, legitimate science is always questioning itself. Any area of thought that must be isolated from scrutiny has less to do with science than it does with superstition or murky political agendas.

The interesting thing is, this “pro-science” cult is dominated by people who throw science out the window the moment it comes to abortion and the unborn child.

All of a sudden, “choice” is all that matters and science is irrelevant. In this alternative universe, two people can see an unborn child on a sonogram screen, and one can argue that it is indeed a human being while the other can claim that it’s nothing more than an a clump of cells – and somehow both of them can be right! Obviously, nothing could be less scientific than that.

Consider this: It is increasingly common for babies to be treated for diseases, and even operated on, while still in their mothers’ wombs. This raises two questions. First, who is the patient? After all, in most of these cases, the medical procedure is being done to treat a condition the mother doesn’t have. That means she is not the patient, so who is?

Second, the pro-choice argument is that the unborn are not persons because they are in their mother’s wombs. So when a baby is taken out and placed on the mother’s stomach to be operated on, do they consider that child to be a person at that point? And when this baby is returned to the womb after the surgery, does it lose it’s personhood? And if so, what is the scientific basis for that argument?

These are just two of the hundreds of issues these people will never be able to reconcile with their promotion of legalized abortion.

In the final analysis, they have to either sell the idea that the unborn are not living human beings, or they have to convince the public that – even if they are living human beings – it’s still okay to butcher them by the millions. Of course, the first position is scientifically unsustainable and the second one is morally indefensible.

The point is, the same people who are constantly lecturing everyone to “follow the science” when it comes to climate change, or Covid vaccinations, or mask mandates, demand that we ignore the science when it suits their political and financial purposes.

Don’t forget, there is far more scientific proof that unborn children are living human beings than there is scientific proof that climate change is caused by human activity. In fact, the claim that abortion takes a human life is no longer even debatable. Modern science and technology have proven it. So any way you cut it, the worst science deniers on earth are the people who continue to defend legal abortion.

---