Intelligent Design Media Science

Science mag goes bonkers on abortion, and related stories

Spread the love

At The Scientist, we are informed, “Scientists Predict “Brain Drain” From States That Ban Abortion: Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, numerous researchers have announced plans to either vacate or decline career opportunities in states where abortion is or will soon be illegal.” Well, if the right to [ … ] live babies matters so much to them, the rest of us might think the bargain worthwhile. Although, later in the article, we read:

It’s unclear how many scientists will follow through with their stated plans to leave and avoid abortion-banning states or to leave the country altogether, and it may take years for the effects to emerge in enrollment and hiring data. Many may find such declarations impossible or infeasible to act upon. Amanda Meshey, a cancer biology graduate student at the University of South Florida who tweeted in 2019 that she would leave the country if Roe v. Wade was overturned, tells The Scientist over email that, despite the great personal risk she now feels, she and her husband don’t have the financial freedom to pack up and leave. Additionally, she says that doing so would mean abandoning both of their PhDs altogether.

Dan Robitzski, “Scientists Predict “Brain Drain” From States That Ban Abortion” at The Scientist (June 30, 2022)

Stop and think about what’s being said here… The person who contacted The Scientist, giving her name, wants to live where she can [ … ]

By the way, the vast majority of biologists believe that human life begins at conception (though the researcher who did the study got into trouble for asking).

Okay. As noted earlier, at least one pundit believes that the abortion people did not state strongly enough that they do believe that abortion is killing. “When “pro-life” forces agitate against feticide on the basis that it is killing, pro-abortion feminists should be able to acknowledge, without shame, that yes, of course it is.”

U.S. President Joe Biden apparently acknowledges that very thing:

However, some abortion advocates still think that emphasizing the “child” part is a mistake: Their colleagues may have gone a bit overboard on that theme. At Unherd, a writer mourns the demise of Bill Clinton’s formula for appealing to the center: Abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare”:.

And yet, in the past 10 years, “safe, legal and rare” has fallen out of favour, as arguments emerged in the more language-obsessed corners of the Left that the “rare” part was unduly stigmatising. “It posits that having an abortion is a bad decision and one that a pregnant person shouldn’t have to make”, one activist wrote last year, in an essay demanding the phrase be retired.

It’s hard to overstate the utter self-sabotaging lunacy of this argument, which not only undermined one of the most popular lines of party messaging in decades but is also farcically nonsensical: “safe, legal, and rare” are surely a solid and desirable set of criteria for any medical procedure that is both unpleasant and unplanned, as abortions (but not only abortions) invariably are. And yet, the argument prevailed: by the time Hillary ran for president in 2016, the word “rare” had been excised from the Democratic party platform.

Kat Rosenfield, “The Left killed the pro-choice coalition” at Unherd (June 29, 2022)


“Rare” is apparently not a Woke value, even if it is a selling point with the culture:

Goodbye, “rare”. Goodbye, “women”. Goodbye, “choice” — the beating heart of the movement, now categorised as “harmful language” — and goodbye to the allies who favoured these terms, now severed and drifting away from the movement like Inuit elders who have outlived their usefulness, cast onto an ice floe to die.

Kat Rosenfield, “The Left killed the pro-choice coalition” at Unherd (June 29, 2022)

Given the rapid advance of euthanasia, the “ice floe” image Rosenfield provides of allies like herself is more apt than she probably realizes.

Time will tell but the current trend to sever the relationship between “women” and “pregnancy” altogether (which Rosenfield goes on to discuss) does not sound mainstream.

One group we don’t hear much from, of course, is the children who survived abortion and lived to grow up. Theyare an awkward problem. The natural instinct of an abortion supporter must surely be to wish that they had just been quietly killed despite their demonstrated viability. But the advance of euthanasia in jurisdictions favorable to the Woke point of view will doubtless take care of that.

You may also wish to read: The Woke without their makeup… After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Roe (abortion on demand everywhere) unconstitutional, the elite Woke have been rampaging generally – but against one judge in particular. Mr. Justice Clarence Thomas is black and, wouldn’t you know …

6 Replies to “Science mag goes bonkers on abortion, and related stories

  1. 1
    EvilSnack says:

    We all know that like much of what Clinton said, the “rare” in “safe, legal, and rare” was a lie.

  2. 2
    relatd says:

    A brain drain was the response with same-sex marriage. If you don’t legalize it, we’re moving to the Liberal Belt.

  3. 3
    jerry says:

    Good riddance!

    Does this mean the University of Texas will be forced to hire conservatives? Somehow, I doubt it. Marxists love their consumer bennies too much. Especially when they have more than the average poor Texan.

  4. 4
    relatd says:

    Jerry at 3,

    Hire Conservatives? Unthinkable. Only those on the Officially Approved List of Leftist Causes will be hired. Take over higher education and keep the bad propaganda machine going.

  5. 5
    Fasteddious says:

    This “we’ll move if you don’t [X]” rhetoric is almost always empty threats. I recall the mass of people who said they’d move to Canada if Trump got elected in 2016. How many actually came? Not enough to count as I understand it. Now we have Canadians wanting to move to the USA if Trudeau stays on as PM, but that is another issue…

  6. 6
    Silver Asiatic says:

    One group we don’t hear much from, of course, is the children who survived abortion and lived to grow up. Theyare an awkward problem. The natural instinct of an abortion supporter must surely be to wish that they had just been quietly killed despite their demonstrated viability. But the advance of euthanasia in jurisdictions favorable to the Woke point of view will doubtless take care of that.

    This is one of the saddest and most tragic things in our society as a result from abortion. If the abortion is “successful” then the children are just lost in silence. They’re disposable and they disappear. But for those who survive, it’s like they’re bringing us all a message.
    I’m a supporter of a group of abortion-survivors and when I read their stories it’s an emotional and painful experience, but a very good one.
    These are good people who have to live their lives with the knowledge that their mother (and father perhaps) tried to kill them. It’s only by an accident that they’re alive. In one case, a brave nurse saved a child who escaped abortion but was left to die outside the womb.
    These are also people who have forgiven their mothers and they find joy in life.
    In spite of all of that, as the OP remarks – there are pro-abortionists in our society who still think it was an unfortunate accident that the child survived and is still living to talk about it.
    That’s the culture of death at work. Wishing that other people would have died, because they were inconvenient or because they are an embarrassment to one’s political party.

Leave a Reply