Nancy Pelosi’s participating in one of the #MarchForScience events today, and we’re starting to sense a theme thanks to the abortion cheerleaders of NARAL:
— NARAL (@NARAL) April 14, 2018
For NARAL, “science” is a big buffet where you can take a couple things you like and leave the stuff you don’t find appealing:
This is so embarrassing. You guys didn't confront any of the ACTUAL science consistently offered by pro-lifers, like, oh I don't know—when a life begins, separate DNA, the ability to feel pain, etc. I've never heard anyone make any of the "arguments" this stupid article lists.
— Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) April 14, 2018
This is a straw man argument. You’ve debunked myths that no PRO-LIFE advocates use! Our argument is simple: Life begins at conception, and it should not be ended because someone refuses to accept responsibility for the life they CHOSE to create. #MarchForScience #ProLife
— Jason W. (@cobalt5050) April 14, 2018
NARAL’s eagerness to discuss “science” will exclude topics they find inconvenient:
NARAL embarrasses women by pretending "inconvenient science" is "junk science." It's indesputable that from the moment of conception there exists a genetically distinct, genetically human, and living being. The only relevant question is when a living human being isn't a "person." https://t.co/hbWhNOlSRD
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) April 14, 2018
Pro-life isn't anti-choice. There are several options that don't include abortion. The focus of your argument is in fact a propaganda based myth.
— Samuel Freeman (@Thetrusamu) April 14, 2018
It’s not “extremist” to value life above death. People have the “choice” to avoid promiscuity or embrace prevention.
— American, First (@MRCNFRST) April 14, 2018
The left gave up their right to use "science" as their argument when they claimed climate change is real, man made, and irrefutable … and deciding that a person can choose their gender. You want to talk about "fake choices" … there ya go.
— ?Ѡąƨƙɛƪωɛɛ?Ɯѧßβiȶ ?and 7 others (@WaskelweeWabbit) April 14, 2018
— Mitch Behna (@MitchBehna) April 14, 2018
Notice that this blog post doesn't refute any of the scientific claims consistently offered by pro-lifers.
— Hannah Bleau (@hannahbleau_) April 14, 2018
That you choose not to believe actual, proven science but instead believe in a position based on emotion and selfishness doesn’t make the science junk. It just makes you a fool.
— Scott A Whisenant (@swhiscpa) April 14, 2018