Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg apparently believes it’s “anti-science” to be against abortion. He is sorely mistaken, though.
The mayor of South Bend, Indiana, made the assertion while visiting Montgomery, Alabama, where he claimed the majority of Americans are in favor of abortion access and accused pro-lifers of “ignoring science, criminalizing abortion, and punishing women.” He made similar comments in May:
The reality is science is actually on the side of pro-lifers.
Research has shown over and over again that life does, in fact, begin at the moment of conception — the second a unique strand of DNA is established, one that has never existed in the past and will not exist in any human being in the future.
Those who favor abortion, at least some of them, have even conceded this fact, while adding that it’s “not the point,” as did one writer for Rewire News.
You can tell science is on the side of the pro-life community by simply looking at the movement in the age if viability, which for some abortion advocates has served as a marker for when it’s morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.
As science and technology advances, the age at which an infant can survive outside the womb becomes younger and younger. And with that, the moral marker moves.
Others still have said it’s morally acceptable to end the life of unborn children because they can’t feel pain, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. For example, earlier this year, the Cleveland Clinic performed its first-ever surgery on an unborn baby. And who participated in the procedure? Pediatric anesthesiologists. Their job was to protect the unborn child from experiencing pain, meaning it’s possible for a child in-utero to feel pain.
The truth is, Buttigieg can make whatever claims he wants about why he thinks — despite science — abortion should be legal. But he can’t use research and technology to make his case.