scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion
What is the scientifically untenable position about abortion? As far as I know there is no scientific controversy concerning abortion in general, but rather it is wholly a moral question.
In the UK there are moves to reduce the time limits for abortion. At the moment it is possible for a woman to have an abortion at under 24 weeks.
The science comes in because politicians say that it's possible for infants to survive if they're born under 24 weeks, and that's one reason to reduce the limits.
The problems are:
- we do not have abortion on demand in the UK. There can be delays in getting the tests and etc. This is one reason why abortions are sometimes carried out over 12 weeks. Changing the law to allow abortion on demand under 12 weeks may increase the numbers of those abortions, but also decrease the numbers of abortions carried out over 12 weeks.
- very few abortions are carried out at over 20 weeks. It's likely to be distressing for the woman and her partner. It's almost certainly because the child has a condition incompatible with life. This isn't just a child who will live a short and miserable life of a few years; it is a child who will live at most a few days. Reducing the time limits will increase the number of women forced to carry this child to term, and to give birth to it, and to watch it die after a few hours or days.
- Survivability of infants born under 24 weeks is not great. Doctors spend a lot of time (and money) making big interventions to keep these children alive. Many doctors and nurses do not feel that these interventions are humane.
You're right that most of the decisions to be made about abortion are purely moral, but some people are making scientificky claims for their position. Those people need to be using correct information.
You could lower the limit based on survivability but still allow provisos for severely diabled children. I believe you can exceed the 24 week limit now in such cases.
I'd be in favour of a panel of doctors and scientists that get to review the limit every two years, based on advantages or otherwise in infant survivability.
The argument that can be summed up as 'life starts at conception'.
So it's a strong cultural thing. There are no mainstream politicians here who hold scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion, and so on. They'd get ridiculed, and rightly so.
This does not mean that rationality prevails in the Netherlands, unfortunately. Austerity measures are seen as the obviously responsible thing to do, even though economists don't agree. As a result we're looking at an economic recovery significantly worse than the one in the US. The GDP growth is projected at a meager 1.5% per year until 2017.