Bill Nye:
He was a 90's childhood favorite of mine in his "Bill Nye the Science Guy" television series. Bill made science fun and exciting as a science popularizer. He wasn't quite as funny as Beakman's World, but Bill's nerdy style, look, and demeanor lent more credibility as the stereotypical science nerd.
Today, Bill still hasn't shaken the nerdy bowtie, he continues to make the rounds as a science popularizer, and, to his credit, appears as if he's aging much slower than the rest of us. Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end. For Bill, that happened on June 20th, 1998, when his popular TV show ended. Since then, Bill has been relegated to cameos at Disney, a few other largely unknown TV shows, and he was even a contestant on Dancing with the Stars. As of late, Bill can be found debating creationists or as the occasional expert guest on various news outlets.
The Science Guy?
It might come as a surprise to some, but Bill Nye isn't actually a "science guy". That is, he's not actually a scientist. Bill has a bachelor's in mechanical engineering from the Ivy League school, Cornell University. To be fair, he's been given honorary doctorates from a few other universities too. But, to be fair, honorary doctorates don't really mean anything. Now, I'm not saying that to try to undermine his credibility as a science popularizer. Bill has done good work in science education. I'm a product of Bill's efforts. So, if my reasoning and conclusions are mistaken, maybe it's his fault—kidding. However, his credentials should undermine the perception of him being a scientific authority. You would likely never want to cite Bill in any academic papers. So, that should give you a clue. If we had a question on astrophysics, we would likely look to someone like Roger Penrose or George Ellis as an authority, not Bill. If we had a question on chemistry, we would likely look to someone like James Tour, again, not Bill Nye. The difference between a science popularizer and a scientific authority is that one explains the science while the other writes the science. At a minimum, an authority on a topic would be someone who works or specializes in the relevant field. For those who would accuse me of making an appeal to authority here, let me clarify. I'm not saying Bill lacks the appropriate credentials and, therefore, he's wrong about abortion. That would be clearly fallacious. Despite his credentials, his reasoning could still be sound. So, we'll go through Bill's argument for abortion point-by-point and evaluate his reasoning.
Where Bill gets it so wrong:
Where Bill is clearly deficient is in his philosophy, which became glaringly obvious in a 2015 discussion on abortion where Bill, an alleged champion of reason, constructed the greatest strawman fallacy ever delivered in the abortion debate. Linked at the bottom, Bill explains at the very beginning of the discussion that "many, many, many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans...but if you're going to hold that as a standard, that is to say, when an egg is fertilized it has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue or imprison? Every woman whose had a fertilized egg pass through her?...it's a reflection of a deep scientific lack of understanding. You apparently literally don't know what you're talking about."
First, the science:
First, we need to correct Bill's science here. When he says "...many more hundreds of eggs are fertilized than become humans" he is literally scientifically wrong. Fertilization of an egg refers to the initiation of a new human being, commonly referred to as a zygote. Meaning, at the moment of conception, a zygote is biologically an individual of the human species, even if it never implants. This is also the consensus view among biologists and pediatricians:
"The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature" - American College of Pediatricians
It should be obvious that the zygote produced in the human female is not canine, feline, or bovine, nor is it non-species specific. It is literally a human being. So, science has shown us that all fertilized eggs are human beings. Thanks, science! To be charitable, Bill might have been confusing the unfertilized eggs, which eventually disintegrate and are expelled along with the uterine wall during a woman's cycle. Or, perhaps he's thinking of fertilized eggs that never implant resulting in a chemical pregnancy, a blighted ovum, or other various forms of miscarriage. Or, maybe he just doesn't consider a zygote, fetus, or unborn child to be human until they're born. Whatever the case may be, in this interview, Bill comes across as uninformed in the political, philosophical, and scientific front.
Next, the philosophy:
Now, regarding Bill's laughable misrepresentation of the pro-life position. If you're unfamiliar with the term "strawman" fallacy it is a logical fallacy of constructing your own version of an opponents argument that is easy to knock down, as easy as a straw man. This is precisely what Bill has done. He says, "...but if you're going to hold that as a standard, that is to say, when an egg is fertilized it has the same rights as an individual, then whom are you going to sue or imprison? Every woman whose had a fertilized egg pass through her?"
Nobody in the pro-life movement suggests that women should be held legally accountable due to the natural passing of a fertilized egg (i.e. a miscarriage). In fact, we mourn with the women who have endured failed pregnancies or suffered the tragedy of a miscarriage. What Bill has failed to recognize is the distinction between the natural process of a pregnancy and the deliberate and willful destruction of an innocent human being. The pro-life position is interested in the latter distinction. That is, we do not have the right to willfully and deliberately destroy an innocent human being. That's it. Pretty simple. It just so happens to be the case that a zygote is an innocent human being. So, the intentional destruction of that human being is morally wrong.
At 1:20, Bill does go on to further display his ignorance by a derisive reference to Judaism and Christianity in relation to the question of abortion, but I'll leave that aside.
You can't tell somebody what to do?
At 2:14, Bill explains that "...nobody likes abortion, but you can't tell somebody what to do. She has rights over this..."
It should be noted that, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, then why does "nobody like abortion"? Clearly, there's something about abortion that even Bill recognizes as "unlikable". Bill is also wrong that we can't tell somebody what to do (I'm assuming he means we can't tell somebody what to do with their body). We do this all the time. We tell people they can't use their body to harm other people. For instance, physical assault, sexual assault, and in some cases even disciplining your children is considered morally wrong and legally punishable. In late-term abortions and "intact dilation and evacuation" (D&E) procedures (i.e. partial birth abortions), it's obvious that you are doing much worse than physical assault. In these situations, the physician would nearly completely deliver a baby breeched (feet first), with the exception of the head, and then proceed to crush or puncture the back of the skull and suction out the brain matter. This is clearly infanticide. Today, the most common practice of abortion snips, twists, or rips a fetus apart in the womb and suctions out the remains. After which, the fetal parts are reassembled to ensure all limbs and pieces were accounted for and removed from the womb, lest the woman risks infection. If we can tell a person that they're wrong for spanking their child, then we're more than justified in saying that you do not have the right to deliberately and willfully destroy an innocent human being in the womb either.
She has rights, she doesn't like the guy, get over it?
At 2:24 he continues his previous comment by saying, "...she has rights over this. Especially if she doesn't like the guy that got her pregnant. She doesn't want anything to do with your genes, get over it. Especially if she were raped and all this".
We've become so detached from the reality of abortion that, apparently, "not liking the guy" is enough justification for the destruction of an innocent human being. It's inhuman to be so nonchalant about the flippant destruction and disposing of an innocent human being, of which no one has the "right".
Rape:
Regarding his comment of rape, let me preface this response with a question since it is an emotionally charged topic:
Should a child be punished for the crimes of the father?
For me, that's an easy "no". But that's exactly what is happening with abortion in the case of rape. You are effectively punishing the child for the crimes of the father. Instead, we should punish the father! More importantly, we should surround the mother with love and support after such a traumatic experience. But what we can't do is solve one crime by committing another. Namely, by destroying an innocent human being who had no role in the crime.
Abortion is obviously a sensitive and highly emotional topic. But, the science, the philosophy, and the moral high-ground falls on the side of the pro-life argument. So, Bill, you apparently literally don't know what you're talking about.