Abortion, the Science.

Abor­tion argu­ments hold no interest what­so­ever now, because it has des­cen­ded into such utter lun­acy on the pro-life side that not dis­miss­ing them makes me doubt your sanity.

For example:

In his clos­ing debate in favor of SB 1387, Sen. Chuck Winder, R-Boise, said, “This bill does not require a trans-vaginal exam. … It leaves that up to the patient and the phys­i­cian to make that determ­in­a­tion.” He said, “Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes in to a phys­i­cian with a rape issue, that phys­i­cian will indeed ask her about per­haps her mar­riage, was this preg­nancy caused by nor­mal rela­tions in a mar­riage or was it truly caused by a rape. I assume that’s part of the coun­sel­ing that goes on.”




My stance on abor­tion has now fully evolved from gen­eral apathy, to “abor­tion is okay until an poorly defined period after con­cep­tion”, to it’s cur­rent form of com­plete agree­ment that a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

That’s it. End of story. Her body. Her Organs. Her cells. Her atoms. Her life to lead as she pleases.

What I am more con­cerned about would be the safety of the woman who had to undergo abor­tion; which would indeed make me oppose abor­tion under spe­cial cir­cum­stances. This is there­fore akin to oppos­ing you tak­ing a lax­at­ive before enter­ing the cinema. It won’t hurt me, but it may prob­ably hurt your experience.

These claims against abor­tion on bio­lo­gical grounds there­fore fall under the pur­view of test­able claims. And the res­ults are in.

Spoil­ers: None of the claims stack up under sci­entific scrutiny.