Zoe Sozo: Why Abortion Is Anti-Science

[Terri4Trump]

Zoe Sozo: Why Abortion Is Anti-Science
In the tenth episode of Turning Point USA’s ‘180’ series, Zoe Sozo convinces us that Abortion is Anti-Science & ENDS a unique, individual life.

ME: I am a woman, posting a video by another woman, saying that a woman has no right to take the life of a child. I dare some man to tell me I am wrong about what I know is true.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost
Advocates are tracking new developments in neonatal research and technology—and transforming one of America's most contentious debates.
Science Is Giving the Pro-Life Movement a Boost

Activists like McGuire believe it makes perfect sense to be pro-science and pro-life. While she opposes abortion on moral grounds, she believes studies of fetal development, improved medical techniques, and other advances anchor the movement’s arguments in scientific fact. “The pro-life message has been, for the last 40-something years, that the fetus … is a life, and it is a human life worthy of all the rights the rest of us have,” she said. “That’s been more of an abstract concept until the last decade or so.” But, she added, “when you’re seeing a baby sucking its thumb at 18 weeks, smiling, clapping,” it becomes “harder to square the idea that that 20-week-old, that unborn baby or fetus, is discardable.”

Scientific progress is remaking the debate around abortion. When the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, the case that led the way to legal abortion, it pegged most fetuses’ chance of viable life outside the womb at 28 weeks; after that point, it ruled, states could reasonably restrict women’s access to the procedure. Now, with new medical techniques, doctors are debating whether that threshold should be closer to 22 weeks. Like McGuire, today’s prospective moms and dads can learn more about their baby earlier into a pregnancy than their parents or grandparents. And like McGuire, when they see their fetus on an ultrasound, they may see humanizing qualities like smiles or claps, even if most scientists see random muscle movements.

These advances fundamentally shift the moral intuition around abortion. New technology makes it easier to apprehend the humanity of a growing child and imagine a fetus as a creature with moral status. Over the last several decades, pro-life leaders have increasingly recognized this and rallied the power of scientific evidence to promote their cause. They have built new institutions to produce, track, and distribute scientifically crafted information on abortion. They hungrily follow new research in embryology. They celebrate progress in neonatology as a means to save young lives. New science is “instilling a sense of awe that we never really had before at any point in human history,” McGuire said. “We didn’t know any of this.”

 

[Terri4Trump]

Abortion is anti-science
April 10, 2019 by Jack Wilkie
Abortion is anti-science - Focus Press

Christians are routinely mocked by skeptics and ideological opponents as being “anti-science,” whether it’s for believing in God and the miracles described in the Bible, or especially for believing in the flood and a created, younger earth (for those who do).

Meanwhile, it’s often the same two groups who find themselves at odds on the issue of abortion. In this case, though, there’s no room for debate. The pro-life cause has all the science on our side. Take a look at a few of these arguments offered by abortion advocates and see how they hold up. CLICK HERE

 

[Seawytch]

Climate deniers talking about science. You can't make this stuff up.

Science and education are the ONLY two things that will reduce the number of abortions performed. Both are the antithesis of the Trump Republican.

 

[Terri4Trump]

Climate deniers talking about science. You can't make this stuff up.

Science and education are the ONLY two things that will reduce the number of abortions performed. Both are the antithesis of the Trump Republican.

You are too stupid to address the actual content of the OP.

Shut up moron

 

[Seawytch]

Climate deniers talking about science. You can't make this stuff up.

Science and education are the ONLY two things that will reduce the number of abortions performed. Both are the antithesis of the Trump Republican.

You are too stupid to address the actual content of the OP.

Shut up moron

No, I'm not going to "shut up". You see, unlike you, I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world and I know prohibition isn't the way to do that. You do it through science by building better birth control and education on the proper use of birth control. Those are the only two things that are proven to work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Zoe Sozo: Why Abortion Is Anti-Science
In the tenth episode of Turning Point USA’s ‘180’ series, Zoe Sozo convinces us that Abortion is Anti-Science & ENDS a unique, individual life.

ME: I am a woman, posting a video by another woman, saying that a woman has no right to take the life of a child. I dare some man to tell me I am wrong about what I know is true.

I'm glad for her that she has found her own position and justification for her own decisions.
And that's the end of the discussion.

 

[jwoodie]

I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world

Please explain WHY you want to reduce the number of abortions.

 

[Seawytch]

I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world

Please explain WHY you want to reduce the number of abortions.

I really didn't think that required an explanation. We have an unwanted pregnancy problem, not an abortion problem. Abortion needs to be safe, legal and as rare as humanly possible. We do that by fixing the unwanted pregnancy problem.

 

[jwoodie]

Please explain WHY you want to reduce the number of abortions.

I really didn't think that required an explanation.

It's called INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. You should try it.

 

[Seawytch]

Please explain WHY you want to reduce the number of abortions.

I really didn't think that required an explanation.

It's called INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. You should try it.

I'm personally opposed to abortion. It's not that difficult to figure out. Nuance, you should try it.

 

[jwoodie]

I'm personally opposed to abortion.

Why are you "personally opposed" to abortion? This is a serious question because people like Nancy Pelosi also say that but support the legality of abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. Do you believe that abortion constitutes the killing of a human being, or not? You can't have it both ways.

I believe that an abortion does constitute the killing of a human being, but also that the definition of the crime should be left to individual states. Personally, I would prohibit abortions after a detectable heartbeat. Do you think abortions should be prohibited at any stage of a pregnancy? If so, when? Would you make exceptions for the "mental health" of the mother (i.e., she doesn't want to through with the pregnancy)? I would not.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm personally opposed to abortion.

Why are you "personally opposed" to abortion? This is a serious question because people like Nancy Pelosi also say that but support the legality of abortions at any stage of a pregnancy. Do you believe that abortion constitutes the killing of a human being, or not? You can't have it both ways.

I believe that an abortion does constitute the killing of a human being, but also that the definition of the crime should be left to individual states. Personally, I would prohibit abortions after a detectable heartbeat. Do you think abortions should be prohibited at any stage of a pregnancy? If so, when? Would you make exceptions for the "mental health" of the mother (i.e., she doesn't want to through with the pregnancy)? I would not.

I also support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Prohibition does not work. Education reduces abortion, banning them does not.

 

[mamooth]

ME: I am a woman, posting a video by another woman, saying that a woman has no right to take the life of a child. I dare some man to tell me I am wrong about what I know is true.

You're wrong in that zygotes aren't children.

That was easy.

That's the primary reason why pro-life is anti-science, of course. Zygotes aren't children. In all ways, science is very unkind to the pro-life position. The more we learn, the dumber the pro-life position looks.

If you disagree, have the guts to argue your point in your own words. Any "But look at my link!" arguments will be ignored, being that such evasions are sleazy and cowardly.

 

[jwoodie]

I also support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

So why are you PERSONALLY OPPOSED to abortion?

Are INTELLECTUALLY HONEST enough to answer that question?

 

[Seawytch]

I also support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

So why are you PERSONALLY OPPOSED to abortion?

Are INTELLECTUALLY HONEST enough to answer that question?

Because I am. I never saw myself ever wanting one. I briefly considered a selective reduction when I was a surrogate and the potential to carry five babies existed. Fortunately nature made the decision and I didn’t have to. If my daughter got pregnant, I would support whatever personal decision she felt was right for her. Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor, period.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world and I know prohibition isn't the way to do that

Is it MURDER? If it isn't, then it's none of your business. If it is, "prohibition" is REQUIRED

 

[Seawytch]

I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world and I know prohibition isn't the way to do that

Is it MURDER? If it isn't, then it's none of your business. If it is, "prohibition" is REQUIRED

Except it isn’t. The law doesn’t see it that way. Your (or my) personal views are immaterial. If you want to reduce abortions as I do, banning them is not the answer.

 

[jwoodie]

I also support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy.

So why are you PERSONALLY OPPOSED to abortion?

Are INTELLECTUALLY HONEST enough to answer that question?

Because I am. I never saw myself ever wanting one. I briefly considered a selective reduction when I was a surrogate and the potential to carry five babies existed. Fortunately nature made the decision and I didn’t have to. If my daughter got pregnant, I would support whatever personal decision she felt was right for her. Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor, period.

So your "personal opposition" to abortion is complete BS, used as a defense against having to answer hard questions about this gruesome procedure.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I actually want to reduce the number of abortions performed in the world and I know prohibition isn't the way to do that

Is it MURDER? If it isn't, then it's none of your business. If it is, "prohibition" is REQUIRED

Except it isn’t. The law doesn’t see it that way. Your (or my) personal views are immaterial. If you want to reduce abortions as I do, banning them is not the answer.

The "law" doesn't define murder. It was ok to kill Jews by the millions according to the German government. Is it not murder because nazis say it isn't murder?

Here is THE definition of murder:
"The taking of an innocent human life"