Q&A – The Science of Life

Today’s note comes from  @norrisfreedman

You had this opportunity to reach millions of people who need the real“bottom line” spelled out in basic terms too. It’s ok to articulate an opinion with real basic words. Murder is one.

Bottom Line:  A week ago Friday I brought you the provocative story “A Matter of science, life, and death in New York and Virginia”. In it, I addressed the late-term abortion topic brought about by the new, New York law and the biggest scandal in Virginia politics, Governor Ralph Northam’s defense of essentially post-birth abortion. Many don’t realize that the reason why the controversies in Virginia began in the first place. The moral outrage of doctors Gov. Northam went to school with feeling compelled to do what they could to attempt to prevent the Virginia bill from becoming law. Had that not happened, the blackface stuff with the governor or Attorney General wouldn’t have surfaced. Also, the Lt. Governor wouldn’t have been scrutinized and the sexual assault allegations wouldn’t have been brought to light. Virginia's current political debacle is about one thing. Moral outrage by some over how far some people are willing to go to eliminate life. 

The scientific definition of life is: Life - /līf/ -  noun -  the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Now, take the scientific definition and apply it to the abortion argument. There are yes and no answers to all of these circumstances. As early as conception is there:

  1. The capacity for growth? - Yes
  2. Potential to reproduce? - Yes
  3. Potential for functional activity? - Yes
  4. Continual change preceding death? - Yes

Pregnancy, as early as conception, fits every scientific characteristic of life. In the case of abortion, we’re discussing human life. That’s the premise here. The latest actions taken in New York and Virginia simply demonstrate the extent to which these politicians are comfortable with the elimination of human life. 

I’ve received more feedback on this story than any I’ve done since the elections last year. Mostly, feedback has been positive. Sure, there’s the mix of haters without any attempt to engage the issue, but there has also been about another quarter of people who are upset that I didn’t go further with the characterizations. That’s why I choose the Tweet I shared. If you’re genuinely attempting to inform and engage people on this issue, or any highly divisive and emotional issue, using language like “murder” is a sure way for you to lose your audience. The moment you take the topic from factual to emotional, you’ll fail to reach those who might otherwise be open-minded and willing to consider empirical, scientific, information. After all, unless one’s a science denier wink, it’s beyond dispute.

Too often we’re led by our emotions rather than pragmatism, even if we have the best of intentions. Using terms like “murder” will only serve to activate those who already agree with you and immediately turn off those who don’t. I’m grateful to those who’ve cited and shared my story, but I’d ask that you do it in the context with which I present it. A scientific presentation about the facts of life, I promise you it’ll be more effective.

Submit your questions using one of these methods.

Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com

Twitter: @brianmuddradio

Facebook: Brian Mudd https://www.facebook.com/brian.mudd1

Photo by: Getty Images Europe

Sponsored Content

Sponsored Content