Kamala Harris wants you to know that she and Joe Biden are very, very into science. During last night’s vice-presidential debate, she made it a central plank in the Harris-Biden platform: “Joe believes in science. I’ll tell you something, Susan, I served, when I first got to the Senate, on the committee that’s responsible for the environment. Did you know this administration took the word ‘science’ off the website? And then took the words ‘climate change’ off the website? We have seen a pattern in this administration which is that they don’t believe in science.”
Got that? Joe Biden and Kamala Harris believe in science. Donald Trump and Mike Pence do not. In fact, whoever runs Joe Biden’s Twitter profile is constantly tweeting about believing science and why science is important. The point Biden and Harris are trying to make, of course, is that Trump and Pence are so unbelievably stupid and stuck in the Dark Ages that they don’t even believe in the basic mechanism humans use to understand reality. That, we are told, is incredibly alarming.
But Harris’s support for science suddenly vanished when it came time to address the issue of abortion. In the discussion about Amy Coney Barrett and the Supreme Court, Harris noted that both she and Joe Biden are firmly dedicated to the promotion of feticide: “I will always fight for a woman’s right to make a decision over her own body. It should be her decision, not that of Donald Trump or Mike Pence.”
2 thoughts on “Kamala Harris’s love for science mysteriously vanishes when abortion comes up”
Sam says:
Jonathan, I think you’re missing the point here and somewhat misrepresenting.
I agree, and I think everyone agrees, the science is that the cell is the smallest unit of life. This means that a fertilized egg is alive. You’re right on that.
The distinction here is that abortion debate isn’t really around when life begins, but when a legally protected life begins. The pro life camp essentially argues that any life ought to be a legally protected life, while the pro choice camp essentially argues that legal protection ought to depend on birth.
As such, I don’t think it’s fair to say Ms. Harris is anti-science. It’s just that the abortion debate is one of “ought”, rather than “is”.
That may be an accurate representation of some pro-choice people, but I can assure you that the vast majority of people we speak to (the average pro-life activist with our org has had 5,000 one on one conversations about abortion) simply deny the science and insist the baby isn’t a baby or a human being.
Jonathan, I think you’re missing the point here and somewhat misrepresenting.
I agree, and I think everyone agrees, the science is that the cell is the smallest unit of life. This means that a fertilized egg is alive. You’re right on that.
The distinction here is that abortion debate isn’t really around when life begins, but when a legally protected life begins. The pro life camp essentially argues that any life ought to be a legally protected life, while the pro choice camp essentially argues that legal protection ought to depend on birth.
As such, I don’t think it’s fair to say Ms. Harris is anti-science. It’s just that the abortion debate is one of “ought”, rather than “is”.
That may be an accurate representation of some pro-choice people, but I can assure you that the vast majority of people we speak to (the average pro-life activist with our org has had 5,000 one on one conversations about abortion) simply deny the science and insist the baby isn’t a baby or a human being.