Academic Paper Unintentionally Skewers Left's Lies about Gender and Abortion - Granite Grok

Academic Paper Unintentionally Skewers Left’s Lies about Gender and Abortion

microscope, medicine, science, research

Yesterday we reported on how the only gay gene is the gay guy named Gene. Or maybe it’s Jean. Feel free to transition between the two. Just leave me out of it. Today, we discover an academic paper that posits something else that can be biologically sex specific.

Disease. 

That’s not new news, but it is good to be reminded that Nature is not interested in your ideas about nurture. 

Many diseases affect one sex disproportionately. Women, for instance, get autoimmune diseases more often than men do, whereas men are at higher risk of non-reproductive cancers such as lung, colon, and kidney cancers. But the question has always been why.

Physical Biology. Gender is something you make up in your head. And there is no legal standard by which you should be able to force me to believe it is true in mine. Not that you lack for trying. But if you have a right to image you can be a girl with a penis, I have an equal right to imagine you’re not. 

Anything else would be, what’s the word, discriminatory. 

Pregnancy Matters

One of the “whys” for the difference in how various diseases favor women over men, or vice-versa, according to the research, is pregnancy. The ability to get and stay pregnant.

The evolution of pregnancy required the immune system to walk a tight line between fending off pathogens while tolerating the placenta — genetically foreign fetal tissue that invades the mother’s uterus.

Genetically foreign fetal tissue. Back in the day, women who had AB negative blood could never bear more than one child. The body saw all future pregnancies as an invasion.

Most neo-feminists feel the same way about pregnancy today and the presence of all men, actually. But that rejection is learned. Maybe programmed is a better word. We’ve got medications to help prevent the rejection of pregnancy. We also have drugs to facilitate that rejection.

A world made better and worse through chemistry.

But Wait, There’s More!

But do you know what else that means? The person inside you is not your body. Again, we knew that. the unborn child has their own DNA. If you were found at a murder scene holding a specula or some surgical scissors with ‘the victims’ blood on it, you’d be a primary suspect for murder. Or at least an accessory to it. 

The political contention of one side of the aisle is that this act is a women’s right. Because it’s her body. It’s nother body, but if it were, what would happen to these women if they cut off some other part of “their body?’ If they asked or made someone else do it for them? If taxpayers were forced to finance the business model of a corporation who acceded and profited from those demands?

Crazy.

But so is politics.

So, we continue to have a conversation about the responsibility for choosing to engage in life-creating acts and the irresponsibility of treating the byproduct as medical waste.

Note to voters: If you are not always doing and saying what the-pro-abortion advocates expect, you, regardless of whether you are 22-weeks or 2200-weeks are medical waste. And guess what? Being a woman, or black, or gay won’t protect you.

That’s who these people are. They don’t value any life if it is not in line with their political agenda.

Having opinions other than theirs is a disease to the person of the state and history tells us that they will, at some point, be more than willing to abort it from the body politic.

Don’t say you were never warned.

| Boston Globe (subscription req.)