Unless you’re a masochist who’s fluent in jargon, you probably haven’t braved academic journals and the impenetrable bilge they publish from doctoral candidates. But a recent contribution among the two million that annually curse us teaches much about human nature, abortion, and Marxism. Not bad for a genre that averages 10 readers per article.
Even better, we needn’t wade through the magnum opus itself: the author kindly provides a precis. It describes his ordeal in producing a “working paper associated with my dissertation, which was entitled Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights: A Mixed Methods Mediation of the U.S. Abortion Debate.”
Before writing dissertation and paper, though, Mr. Jacobs conducted exhaustive research on attitudes towards abortion. He “led discussions,” “surveyed thousands of Americans,” “consulted” with colleagues at the University of Chicago, and “reviewed aggregated lists of biologists’ views.” From this extensive polling, he learned that “the most common view was that a human’s life begins at fertilization.” Nor is this a religious, romantic or ignorant notion: when Mr. Jacobs queried experts who presumably study this question, he “[found] that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.”
Halestorm
Buy New $8.57
(as of 10:30 UTC - Details)
Whoa! Let’s pause to fully digest so stunning a statement: “96% of … 5,577 biologists … affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization.” And that consensus is global, not merely national, since Mr. Jacobs “emailed” his “surveys to professors in the biology departments of over 1,000 institutions around the world.”
In other words, not only do almost all of us agree about when life begins, but biologists “affirm” this conception, so to speak. And yet, over half of our fellow serfs are A-OK with slaughtering innocent babies, while a ghoulish subset not only enthusiastically promotes but also profits from this bloodbath.
Perhaps you’re like me: before I read of Mr. Jacobs’ investigation, I’d attributed Americans’ eagerness to slaughter the unborn to their tragically mistaken but genuine belief that a “fetus” is either a) inhuman or b) inviable. Sure, a fraction might admit, even if only to themselves rather than publicly, that both options were lies, that human life is indeed human life as soon as Mr. Sperm collides with Miss Egg. But certainly the overwhelming majority of our friends and neighbors are decent people who champion murder from a lack of knowledge, not a surfeit of evil.
Alas, we should never underestimate the innate sinfulness of mankind. According to Mr. Jacobs, even the most rabid abortionists confess that zygotes, let alone the much-maligned fetus, are human beings. Yet they still favor butchering them.
Chilling, isn’t it? And yet such cold-blooded wickedness may explain other pathologies, such as Marxism’s popularity with our countrymen. Again, I used to marvel at Amerikans’ infatuation with a doctrine that has exterminated its hundreds of millions while bankrupting nation after nation. But I also fondly hoped that the mobs demanding “free” stuff from Bernie, Fauxcohontas, et al., were actually good folks, albeit frighteningly stupid. Wouldn’t they renounce their kleptomania if only they fathomed political philosophy?
Thanks to Steve Jacobs, I am now older and much, much wiser.
The hoi polloi perceive that taxation is stealing, just as they recognize abortion for murder—and unspeakably barbaric murder at that—but they don’t care. Those who shrug at slaying innocent babies also wink at communism’s horrors. They’re as corrupt, craven and merciless as the politicians and bureaucrats robbing us on their behalf.
Such insouciance towards basic morality doesn’t make for courteous or even rational partisans. The biologists, the very people we’d expect to furnish cool, disinterested answers when Mr. Jacobs asked his “open-ended question to ensure that respondents were able to fully express their views on when life begins,” instead threw snits and insults. Their hysteria contrasts with Mr. Jacobs’ dry, unemotional account in delicious irony. Witness the “notes” “some” of these scholars affixed to their surveys:
- “Is this a studied fund by Trump and ku klux klan?”
- “Sure hope YOU aren’t a f^%$#ing christian!!”
- “This is some stupid right to life thing…YUCK I believe in RIGHT TO CHOICE!!!!!!!”
- “The actual purpose of this ‘survey’ became very clear. I will do my best to disseminate this info to make sure that none of my naïve colleagues fall into this trap.”
- “Sorry this looks like its more a religious survey to be used to misinterpret by radicals to advertise about the beginning of life and not a survey about what faculty know about biology. Your advisor can contact me.”
- “I did respond to and fill in the survey, but am concerned about the tenor of the questions. It seemed like a thinly-disguised effort to make biologists take a stand on issues that could be used to advocate for or against abortion.”
- “The relevant biological issues are obvious and have nothing to do with when life begins. That is a nonsense position created by the antiabortion fanatics. You have accepted the premise of a fanatic group of lunatics. The relevant issues are the health cost carrying an embryo to term can impose on a woman’s body, the cost they impose on having future children, and the cost that raising a child imposes on a woman’s financial status.”
Abducting Arnold--A No...
Buy New $2.99
(as of 10:30 UTC - Details)
No doubt the same detachment and devotion to facts characterize other allegedly scientific disciplines, too, from climate change to such medical voodoo as vaccines and, oh, my, the “transgender” absurdity. But what can we expect, given that the State has insinuated itself into every aspect of life, especially in the ivory towers?
Unfortunately, the calm, equitable Mr. Jacobs doesn’t stop after disclosing his “findings” and the biologists’ tantrums; he also proposes a “solution.” He suggests that “both a majority of pro-choice Americans (53%) and a majority of pro-life Americans (54%) would support a comprehensive policy compromise that”—get this—“provides entitlements to pregnant women, improves the adoption process for parents, permits abortion in extreme circumstances, and restricts elective abortion after the first trimester.” That’s what I like in a “compromise”: a pact to murder only when we really, really must.
And aren’t the unintended consequences to these “polic[ies]” lollapaloozas? The “entitlements” alone would bribe a great many women of child-bearing age to bear children, quintupling the national debt in a quick nine months.
Finally, Mr. Jacobs’ facile advice that we surrender one of our most basic, inalienable rights to a vote—and the lack of outcry against such an execrable conclusion—should terrify us.
But that’s life—and death by murder—in a democracy.
