We are being told by people who should know better that making the “morning after pill” over-the-counter is a “matter of science.” Those of us who oppose this cost cutting and convenient measure must be “anti-science.” If one cannot get a cheap abortion as easily as exfoliant, than science is being assaulted!
This is either ignorance of the Honey Boo Boo watching level or a falsehood told by powerful people who think they will not get caught.
Here is what nobody disputes: the “morning after pill” is safe for the mother’s body as such pills go. There is no reason related to the pregnant, or possibly pregnant, woman’s health for requiring a prescription. The pill performs its function of killing the unborn child, the fetus if science prefers, efficiently and well with no more harm to a mother than a natural miscarriage.
A miscarriage is the desired end and the pill brings this to pass.
The question, however is this: “Does our culture wish to make abortions cheap, easy, and quick?” This is a moral question and not a matter of science. Science, a very good thing, can tell us what will happen physically if we take an action, but it cannot tell us if we should take an action. Science describes is, but only ethics can tell us ought.
It can say nothing of what will happen to our souls if we do a thing. After all the name used in the media, “the morning after pill,” is not a scientific name or descriptive of what it does: induce a miscarriage. It is a softening name . . . an attempt to hide moral concerns most Americans might feel.
The science of killing is very advanced in the United States, but our news suggests the ethics to go with the science is not so advanced. After all, the science of killing told Herod that he could kill the children of Bethlehem easily, but good people judged him a monster for doing so.
Even Herod did not have the nerve to call Rachel mourning for her lost child “antiscience.”
Opposing the “morning after” pill is similar to opposing the easy and quick purchase of automatic weapons. The science of how each item will work or is not in dispute, but the ethics of use are. The difference is that the “morning after pill” can only be used to kill, while the firearm might be used in sport.
Science gives us the power to do many things now, but it is not anti-science to increase the difficulty in doing them.
Abortion is a serious moral choice and making it convenient creates a culture that is morally repulsive.
Should Americans even have such a choice? A plurality of Americans, at least, thinks the right to kill unborn children is not a constitutional one. Even “pro-choice” politicians like former President Clinton and President Obama want abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” Science can tell us what is safe. The law can make it legal, but the belief abortion should be rare is moral choice.
Science can tell Clinton and Obama nothing about that, so are they anti-science?
There exists an immoral minority that wants abortion safe, legal, and common. Making it easy for people to abort is part of achieving their goals.
When Christians stand against that goal, they are not attacking science, but immorality that would use sad badly. Sadly, some now use “anti-science” to hide their anti-ethics.