Their take on scripture is deliberately anachronistic. We didn’t have the medicine or sanitation 2000 years ago to place their kind of value on a fetus.
The medicine in question comes from the very scientific establishment that grew out of scholasticism, which is why I find the accusation of anti-intellectualism rather strange.
My point is that you have to distinguish between arguing against the output of the intellectual activity and arguing against the intellectual activity taking place.
It’s possible that I misread it, since I don’t understand the accusation of anti-intellectualism.
Isn’t it rather pro-intellectual to found universities like that of Bologna in 1088 and pour massive amounts of resources into research to ensure we eventually get to the level of obstetric medicine that we have?
And isn’t it on the contrary intellectually lazy to throw your hands up and declare life to be disposable simply because you don’t know how to treat and prevent diseases and can’t be bothered to figure out how?
If I'm following you, I should state that I don't see anything anti-intellectual in Christianity as a concept or in practice. The anti-intellectualism I was referring to is specifically regarding the idea that the bible proscribes abortion, solely because the train of thought is anachronistic.
My point is that you have to distinguish between arguing against the output of the intellectual activity and arguing against the intellectual activity taking place.