The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement.
The biggest threat of all, however, is not the potential damage to a particular movement.When scientific research becomes subordinate to political ends, facts are weaponized.The idea that life begins at conception “goes against legal precedent, science, and public opinion,” said Ilyse Hogue, the president of the abortion-advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America, in a recent op-ed for CNBC.Tags: Essay About My True FriendRetail Store Business Plan SampleKindergarten Homework TemplateAppendix In Research PaperHow To Do A Simple Business PlanPhd Thesis In Online MarketingEssay On Loadshedding In Karachi
“We’re in a culture that is science-obsessed.”Activists like Mc Guire 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 Guttmacher Institute, a research and advocacy organization that defends abortion and reproductive rights, has exercised a near-monopoly over the data of abortion, serving as a source for supporters and opponents alike.
And the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric has matched its resources: Its proponents often describe themselves as the sole defenders of women’s welfare and scientific consensus.
Some believe new scientific findings might work against them.
Others warn that overreliance on scientific evidence could erode the strong moral logic at the center of their cause.
Technology has defined her pregnancies, she told me, from the apps that track weekly development to the ultrasounds that show the growing child.
“My generation has grown up under an entirely different world of science and technology than the Roe generation,” she said.
She has testified before legislative bodies about fetal pain—the claim that fetuses can experience physical suffering, perhaps even prior to the point of viability outside the womb—and written letters to the U. In addition to her work at Northwestern, Malloy has produced work for the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a relatively new D. think tank that seeks to bring “the power of science, medicine, and research to bear in life-related policymaking, media, and debates.” The organization, which employs a number of doctors and scholars on its staff, shares an office with Susan B.
Anthony List, a prominent pro-life advocacy organization.“I don’t think it compromises my objectivity, or any of our associate scholars,” said David Prentice, the institute’s vice president and research director.