I find it humorous that John Kerry recently referred to those who argue with the left regarding climate change (and man's contribution) as "flat-earthers". The left's constant, shrill mantra that this debate is "settled science" has always amused me. If, as the so-called experts on the left argue, it's settled science why are there so many respected experts on the other side? A quick trip to the website, climate change.procon.org indicates the debate still rages.
Generally (quoting, George Will) "..when a politician on a subject implicating science, hard science, economic science, social science says the debate is over, you may be sure of two things. The debate is raging and he's losing it." So calling those who would like more evidence "flat-earthers" is somewhat pejorative, don't you think? I don't want to get into pro's and con's of climate change today, it's the flat-earthed comment I'd like to dig into.
Flat-earthers are generally regarded as those who disregard all evidence to reach a conclusion they want to be true irregardless of facts. The society has a history of denying scientific evidence and has become a punch-line for those who believe a certain issue is or should be closed for debate. I have a candidate for the flat-earth society I would like to put forward:
The pro-abortion lobby.
Despite overwhelming evidence that an unborn baby (or "product of conception" or "fetal matter") is a separate human life form, the pro-abortion lobby continues to deny the facts. What facts? I'm glad you asked:
First unique DNA structure. Every cell in the human body has your unique DNA structure, yet an unborn human baby's DNA is unique and different from the mother's. Saying the baby is only part of the mother's body is like saying a bullet in the abdomen is only part of your body.
Second- ability to feel pain and response to pain and other external stimuli. Some studies show the ability to feel pain as early as ten weeks development in-utero. Other research shows unborn babies responding to voices, music and touch. What's my point? Pro-abortion groups like to act as though the "product of conception" is nothing more than the physical equivalent of a tumor or cyst. When was the last time a cyst responded to any external stimuli?
Third- behavior. Whether it's twins wrapping their arms around each other, an unborn baby reaching out and grasping a doctor's hand or other examples, time and again we've seen behavior in the unborn that mirrors activity of humans after they are born. By the abortion lobby's standards, children under the age of two should be legally killed if the parents decide it's convenient. Oops, sorry, Peter Singer has already come up with that idea.
I guess I would feel a little more comfortable with the pro-abortion lobby if they were consistent like Singer. Then we could have the debate from a purely moral perspective instead of pretending, like the real flat-earthers in the 21st Century, that we are talking about tissue rather than human life.