Bill Nye’s Big Think On Abortion Rights

Bastion of science and reason and buttress of all that is ‘fact,’ Bill Nye has come out in support of abortion rights.  In a video posted by ‘Big Think’ Nye ‘debunks’ the anti-abortion stance.  The absolute irony of the liberal/progressive position is the people who always claim science, reason, logic and facts are exclusively on their side.  Any opposition is, therefore, always preposterous and a position of ignorance held by idiots.  “Anti-science!,” they shout.

The fact is Bill Nye builds some impressive strawman arguments in his video and knocks them down effectively.  Too bad they aren’t really sound arguments.  What’s worse is the number of people who believe his arguments are rock solid.  He ‘debunked’ those ignorant ‘anti-choice’ arguments.  Right.   Let’s think critically and go through what Nye says.

1) First, he contrasts implantation and fertilization asking, “Who are you going to sue? [if fertilized eggs have rights] “Have all these people failed you?  You don’t know what you’re talking about.”

What is natural death compared to murder?  If an 85-year-old man dies after having a heart attack rather than being smothered to death by a nursing home orderly is there any distinction?   What’s the difference between natural selection and artificial selection/breeding?  The difference in each case is human intervention.   Lack of implantation and even miscarriages end human life.  They are natural death.  Otherwise, why would parents mourn a miscarriage?  Abortion, quite obviously, includes human intervention ending human life.  Yes, we believe a fertilized egg is a human life and has rights equal to the mother.  He/She has the right to not have his/her life ended by human hands at the very least.  If, however, life ends naturally how can that be called murder when no human intervention was involved?  This is an important distinction Nye ignores.

2) He also says to leave reproductive rights to women.   It’s the old, “Hey, we shouldn’t tell women what to do with their bodies!” argument.  But of course we outlawed prostitution didn’t we?  Isn’t that telling people what they can and cannot do with their bodies?  No ladies and gentlemen, you may not sell your bodies for money.  There are laws governing when one can get a tattoo as well.  The laws vary by state, but they all regulate what a person does with his/her body.  Also, a pregnant woman’s body refutes Nye’s thinking.  The mother’s body employs physiological barriers to protect the offspring from the mother’s immune system which sees the genetically unique organism growing inside her as a possible threat.  Her own body sees the baby as separate from itself.  But again, this isn’t fact-based science.  This is ridiculous.

3) Then, unbelievably, Nye plays the racist/sexist card!  Granted, he disguises it well.  “You have a lot of men of European descent passing these extraordinary laws based on ignorance.”   Then he attacks Christianity, which is nothing new for him and I’m not really going to address it here except to say I’m not a Roman Catholic and don’t believe all sex has to be procreative.  I support the use of condoms and/or any contraception that is not abortifacient.   I do find it astounding even Bill Nye stoops, “All these dumb, white men need to stop trying to own women’s uteri!”  What about the white, male doctor operating on her?  Should only women perform abortions?  Should only women deliver babies?   What about the percentage of black women who’ve had abortions compared to white women?  What about Margaret Sanger’s racist beliefs?   Those facts don’t matter I guess.

4) “Nobody likes abortion.”  Well, Mr. Nye you’re a bit out of the loop I’d say.  Over the past few weeks the ‘activist’ hashtag #shoutyourabortion has been trending on social media.  Women proudly chronicle their abortion stories for the cause of finally lifting the stigma of ending your baby’s life.  It seems amazing to me to advocate federally funding an institution (to the tune of $500,000,000) that is the number one facilitator of a procedure no one likes. Amazing.

“What if the woman doesn’t like the guy? Doesn’t want anything to do with his genes?”  Well, Mr. Nye she evidently likes something about his genes if she had sex with him.  How about not having sex with someone you don’t like?  (This would be a great segue way into the reasons why traditional marriage is important, but I digress)  On the issue of rape; I can’t imagine going through something like that with my mother, wife, or daughter.  I can say I don’t think adding evil to evil is good.  But again, that is an opinion untouched by experience.

5) “There are so many more important things to deal with!”  I realize this outlook is a direct result of believing an embryo isn’t a human life or has no rights compared to the mother, etc.   But don’t cases like the Kermit Gosnell case, and the fact Hillary Clinton advocates abortion in all stages of pregnancy show this is exactly what we need to be dealing with?  If what Gosnell did was so wrong, why aren’t we holding people like Clinton responsible for her insane stance??  Why aren’t we asking her harder questions if it’s a double homicide when a person kills a pregnant woman?

6) “You wouldn’t know how big a human egg was if it weren’t for microscopes and scientists. …at some point we have to respect the facts. …I’m just being objective”    Blah blah blah, why even point this out? Don’t you realize it was the advent of scientific advances like the sonogram that turned a lot of doctors away from performing abortions because they realized it was a living human being?  Don’t appeal to science to support your insane position.  Please don’t.  In this case you are the science-denier.  It is alive, and it is human.  Science says so.


All Truth, One Truth

Hello everybody, I’m a Christian.  I believe in Jesus and the truth of the Bible.  Not just that, I believe in the inerrancy of the original Biblical manuscripts and that it is the Word of God written by men via the Holy Spirit (it is ‘God-Breathed’).  I also believe that evolution is scientific fact.  It happened, it still happens, end of story.

There.  Now people on both sides of the argument think I’m nuts.

We should all be able to agree about one thing; there is only one truth.  It is incorrect to say that the Bible only answers religious questions and science answers everything else.  That cannot be true since both say things about the origins of our universe, our planet and us.  One overrides the other at our flippant choosing depending on what worldview we’ve bought into?  That doesn’t make sense at all.  So, what do we do when it seems as if the things we observe and detect contradict what the Bible describes?  Do we reject science and cling to dogma?  Do we throw out ‘man-made religion’ in favor of empirical truth?  Truth is objective, not subjective.   This means that what is true and actual is true regardless of perspective.  That’s awesome!   It means we Christians should not be afraid of concepts like evolution, because the truth that says God made all things is the exact same truth that says organisms change over time even though the sources of these truths are different (Although, technically God is the architect and maker of our intellect and everything we scientifically observe so the sources are the same…)   Jesus is truth and all truth leads to Him.  ALL truth.

The point is this; if there is one truth, then there is no need to reconcile evolution and the Bible.  If the goal of science is to reveal truth about our existence through empiricism and the Bible is truth revealed by revelation and there is only one truth, then the two cannot ultimately contradict.

As humanity has fallen deeper into the rabbit hole of knowledge and technology we tend to forget or even ignore how much we actually do not know.  It is true in science that for every question answered many more are produced.  We don’t know even close to everything there is to know about genetics and inheritance.  I am not saying that our lack of answers to certain scientific questions are or have to be answered by belief in God (ie, god of the gaps).  What I am saying is there exists a disconnect in knowledge between what the Bible says is true about our origins and the conclusions we are able to draw about origins based on observation.  A disconnect, not contradictions.  Part of that disconnect exists as a lack of scientific knowledge and part of it exists as a lack of theological knowledge.  This is exacerbated by secular scientists who in an effort to push their worldview interpret data having already assumed that worldview to be true.  It is equally aggravated by pastors and even Christian scientists who try to turn their back on the data and say evolutionary biology is wholly false. This disconnect turns into conflict when Christians, pastors, and Christian scientists elevate their ability to understand and interpret the Bible to the same level of inerrancy as the scriptures themselves, and when secular scientists allow their opposing worldview to affect their ability to interpret their own data. Data is numbers, it will never lie.  But how data is collected and interpreted is very pliable in the face of one’s philosophy, and the same is true of Scripture.  This needs to be remembered by both scientists and pastors alike during discussions about our origins.

My hope is that as Christians and non-Christians discuss such important issues as where we come from and why we are here there will be no fear from either side and a discussion/argument can actually occur rather than juvenile bickering or derisive comments towards one another.

Remember, if our common goal is to look for truth then the buck stops at Jesus.  Every time, all the time.



Acknowledgments: Thanks to Tony Svarczkopf for help in editing and honing ideas.