Thursday, September 27, 2012

Science Shows Progressives Aren't Science-Based

Most progressives claim to be science-based, but in their opposition to Motion 312, science ironically proves they're not.

Unless a party somewhere has Newton's PhilosophiƦ Naturalis Principia Mathematica as their platform, no political organization is science-based. If any Liberal or New Democrat wants to be part of an institution with a scientific foundation they should enrol in any one of our country's fine post-secondary schools. Imposing the veneer of rational inquiry on a political organization is an insult to the neutrality and objectivity of science and an insult to the values and principles of ideologies that motivate us to change the world.

Yet many progressives, as appears to be a growing trend in North America, claim they, unlike their primitive and barbaric political foes, are science-based, at least in Canada with Liberal and New Democrat opposition to M-312 it's clear that whatever their base is, it isn't scientific.

Motion 312 sought to create a parliamentary committee to review the legal definition of when life begins, this proposal was opposed and successfully defeated by New Democrats, Liberals, and even some Conservatives. Current Canadian law defines the beginning of life as only existing after "complete birth", that is while a fetus five seconds before birth is not alive, five seconds after, is. In other words, our legal system outdatedly believes life is not so much imparted by a biological change as it is by spatial change, just a few inches down the birth canal somehow differentiates nothingness gobblity-goo and a living person.

Such a definition of human life is contrary to our current scientific understanding, the unwillingness of progressives to update it demonstrates science isn't their primary motivation.

The development of life is a process, involving many variables and changes. Though the exact moment of when life begins will most likely never be determined, modern biology has established that in the third trimester a fetus has the same organs at the same developmental stages as a child just born. Therefore if science is truly the ultimate arbiter for progressives, a fetus late in term should be considered alive and a person.

Of course such a fetus can be denied such identification, but that denial is not based on science, for what biological change to the child's nervous system does moving eight inches out of a woman cause? What development, even the most minute, occurs in the brain that imparts life only when a fetus exits a vagina? No biological change occurs to a fetus during birth, therefore the legal definition of when life begins is separate from science, the progressives' opposition to M-312 shows they are too.

Now it is possible that progressives are still adherents to a political movement that is somehow science-based, that perhaps they opposed Motion 312 because they saw Stephen Woodworth, the Conservative MP who proposed it, as wanting to limit womens' rights. Their defeat of the motion thus could be seen as a valid trade-off in values, but besides this still subordinating scientific understanding, the uproar against even opening the discussion, any discussion shows this was not the case and that progressives are against bringing Canadian law up to par with current biological evidence.

Liberals and New Democrats did not oppose this motion because of science, they opposed it because of fear, fear of a slippery slope that could lead to all abortions being prohibited. This is not to say such opposition was wrong, it's to say it was political. And nothing is more political than fear.

But perhaps what really shows that progressives aren't fact-based, even more than their opposition to Motion 312, is their ever-growing interest in another cause that exists almost entirely without evidence, the leadership of Justin Trudeau; something of which even this writer is not excluded from.


Robert McClelland said...

This makes absolutely no sense at all. said...


M-312 sought to update the legal definition of when life begins with current scientific understanding.

Progressives opposed M-312.

As science shows our current legal definition is outdated, in opposing M-312, progressive parties have demonstrated science does not guide their actions.

Robert McClelland said...

Choosing not to have a discussion does not in any way imply science does not guide their actions. said...


As I previously noted, progressive parties opposed reconciling an outdated legal definition of when life begins with current scientific understanding. In this instance it is clear science wasn't the paramount concern.