WaPo all confused on basic science of reproduction…

Posted on Updated on

The drive by state run media in the nation’s capital–primarily the WaPo–sure is confused with the basic science and principles of reproduction. This is the chief problem one has in “trusting” wannabee “jounralists” into translating and disseminating any truths about the facts of life, the birds and the bees.

But, alas, we know very few–if any–really are journalists rather than left wing activists with a secular, anti-God and anti-religious point of view. Lest their fellow secular amish “shun” them at cocktail parties and in the ephemeral promotions and adulations they so crave.

To wit:

Published: September 5, 2013 2:50 pm

WaPo on contraception: fools or liars?

Zygote-imageThe Washington Post editorial board has published a brain-teaser for its readers. The article is called “Ken Cuccinelli’s ‘personhood’ travails.” A better title would have been “Riddle: Are we fools, or are we liars?”

Quick background: WaPo really, really doesn’t want Ken Cuccinelli to be the next governor of Virginia, and the staff there know that the best way to oppose a pro-life politician is to start screaming about “social issues.” Here, the febrile WaPo insists that personhood legislation (which Cuccinelli has supported in the past) “provide[s] an opening to prohibit common methods of birth control, including the pill and intrauterine devices.”

As the editorial board puts it:

The practical effects of “personhood” measures, including the one in Virginia to which Mr. Cuccinelli affixed his name, would easily include banning the most popular forms of contraception. This is because the pill, as well as other forms of birth control, work partly by preventing the implantation of eggs in the uterus wall after they have been fertilized. If the “preborn” are protected “from the moment of fertilization,” as the 2007 bill demanded, then contraception — which defeats a fertilized egg’s [sic] chances of becoming a living being — could be prohibited. In fact, the legislation seems to demand it.

If the article’s comments are any indicator, WaPo’s regular readers have no idea how problematic this paragraph is.

First of all, consider WaPo’s use of parenthetical dashes. If they wanted to say that only some contraception prevents implantation, the sentence would read as such:

If the ‘preborn’ are protected ‘from the moment of fertilization’ … contraception that [not ‘which’] defeats a fertilized egg’s [sic] chances of becoming a living being could be prohibited.

But instead, the editorial board opted for the dashes – with the clear meaning that contraception per se “defeats a fertilized egg’s [sic] chances of becoming a living being.”

Guess what kids? There is no scientific reality known as a fertilized egg! Once “fertilized”, an ovum no longer is an ovum but in the first steps of becoming a blastocyte and then a zygote. 23 pairs of chromosomes, half from mom and half from dad. Read it here in the Carnegie Stages of Embryology as has been well documented and known for OVER 100 years. Let’s learn to read and research, failed drive bys!

ESH knows there is little if any hope for the drive bys, but please, don’t subject the rest of us to your fantasy fake voodoo “science”…

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s