I guess the “big lie” strategy explains a little of the lefts hypocrisy concerning their supposed fealty to science over the parochial. Of course, they have no such real faith in science.  They do have a great deal of faith in sophistry.  Call abortion a choice long enough and you frame the debate around a false choice.  That being the right to choose. The abortion debate has nothing to do with a right to choose.  It is about whether a fetus is a human being with human rights.  And, the left loves to tell you that you cannot know for sure when life begins and the tissue mass is part of the mother’s body and, blah, blah, blah. It is the same pattern for the other liberal sacred cow; The normalcy of homosexuality.  By framing the debate around the foolish straw man of homophobia the real question of homosexuality and its scientific explanations go unexplored or at least undiscussed.  The pattern is tried and true.  It is the same pattern of argument that has been used for years to paint conservatives as racists.  Make the argument about a word with more cachet than the real subject and you can keep the useful idiots wagging their tongues for election cycle after election cycle.  It is so much easier to accuse conservatives of being racists than actually try to form a cogent argument to counter the truth as described by Hayek and Friedman, (Milton, not that idiot Thomas).  And, since the base of the Democrat party would have to ask someone to Google either name in the first place it makes a lot more sense just to rile them up over catchwords and personal attacks.  And, as frustrating as that is, the real aggravation is that they don’t even care about the science.  For instance, there is nothing in biology that explains homosexuality as a normal state of existence for any life form.  The human organism runs contrary to most of nature.  It tends to combat the forces of entropy.  Most natural systems fly from the center outward toward dissolution.  The human organism, if any of Darwin is correct, tends to improve.  Given this evolutionary imperative to create a human form that is most able to survive, inserting an element of non-reproducing, disease vulnerable behaviors is contrary to the science. Homosexuality is then at the very least aberrant and very likely deviant from the evolutionary process.  That is the science.  But, don’t tell a liberal or they will describe to you how hateful and evil and homophobic you are.  They will make the assumption that because you recognize something as outside the norm you must fear or hate it.  On the contrary, most things outside the norms we find delightful and interesting. Exceptional smoked pork for instance.  But the Holy Grail of liberalism is of course abortion.  If abortion can stand on the premise of choice, then really there are no choices that are proscribed. And, that is a primary goal of liberal dogma; if it feels good, do it.  And, it behooves the left to frame the argument in terms of faith and esoteric rights. Because, the science simply doesn’t support a right to abortion.   I used to argue that because no one can know, as the left insisted, when life begins, it is imprudent to take the risk that a fetus is a human life and cause it irreparable harm.  The argument stands up but allows the left to leave out the science.  The facts of abortion have been known for decades. The fetus is clearly alive.  It takes in nutrient, processes that nutrient into growth and passes out waste.  Furthermore, studies have proven it learns and adapts to its environment.  As early as 1865 Gregor Mendel theorized on the existence of an inheritance molecule that over the years was understood to be DNA . Science has proven since Watson and Crick modeled the DNA structure in 1953 that every living creature on earth has a distinct and unique DNA code. And, so does an immature human being we sometimes call a fetus.  That small life has a DNA structure that clearly identifies it as human and distinctly different from the host organism or Mother.  The fetus’ DNA makes it scientifically impossible to claim the fetus is a part of the mother’s body.  The womb just happens to be where babies live until they are mature enough to be born.  Aborting a fetus because it is inside its mother is no different from killing a homeless person who I find squatting in my basement. It is stating that the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for trespassing. But in the baby’s case it isn’t even trespass.  Getting pregnant is an affirmative act requiring participation by two persons whose physical bodies are mature enough to produce egg and sperm. (Here is where choice comes into play.) Getting pregnant requires time and effort and forethought to take part in the sexual act. That is choosing to do something where pregnancy is an inherent risk. Here is where the liberals say, “Oh yeah, but what about in the case of incest and rape? Hunh? Smarty pants!” Another intentionally misleading canard. The fact of my or your parentage does not in any way change our right to live and pursue liberty and happiness.  If the fetus is a living human being, and the DNA proves it is, it has human rights no matter how it came into being.  Unlike Al Gore’s climate rantings the science of abortion really is settled.  It does not rely on the consensus of the group but rather on the specifics of the science.  But do liberals really care?  Of course not. To really stand up for the facts would make them something they are absolutely not willing to be.  Conservative.