Ireland's abortion referendum

[America Needs R'hllor]

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Obviously yes. Call me radical, but I believe in science and know that embryos aren't human beings This is honestly one of the least pleasant issues to debate, it's basically pushing against a stubborn wall of people who religiously believe that embryos are humans that can be murdered are refuse to let go. But the problem with religiously believing in something here, is that you want to translate your beliefs into theocratic laws. On economic issues, for example, debating and respecting each other's views is crucial because there's just no definitive proof that onw side is right, but when people want to oass theocratic laws because of unscientific beliefs, I can't and won't "respect" that, sorry.

I find it interesting that you bluster about science and religion without actually showing how science proves that an embryo isn't human.

Now I'm just a dumb fundamentalist but it seems obvious that an embryo is genetically speaking:

a) human
b) not it's mother

For all your talk about science it's rather difficult to get around these facts. Me thinks the pro choice emperor has no clothes.

An embryo is just an early stage of development into humanity, like a fertilized egg. 90% of abortions occure in the 1st trimester, when it's not even close to viable outside of the womb, it doesn't even feel pain, it's not a person. Yes, for the other 10% there are some moral issues (though mostly for the increasingly tiny percentages at the farther side of the spectrum), but the fact is that, whatever the case, embryos and fetuses are less human than the woman who carries them. I oppose later term abortions, but even then, when a woman was raped, she can't be forced to carry that potential life, and when it risks her own life, an already viable and existant life, she always should win. Your side, mostly consisting of the Christian Right, wants to ban access to abortion because of beliefs mostly stemming from religion, ignoring the statistics of all the women who die because they can't have a legal, safe abortion. I cannot respect that, just like I cannot respect most of the other homophobic\mysogenic views of the Christian Right.

Another post of yours that I agree with almost word for word (and probably better written than whatever similar statement I would have made), except that this time, as to rape, it seems to me reasonable that the mother abort the fetus early on, so there is no good reason to accommodate a late term abortion. I also oppose late term abortions if there is not a material physical health risk to the mother. Claiming depression or something more intangible, just won't cut it with me.

I also think under current SCOTUS law, restricting late term abortions as described would be upheld under the O'Connor undue burden to the mother standard.

Thanks You're probably right, and I do think that, logically, most women who were raped would've aborted their fetuses very early. However, there are some fringe cases when pregnancies are discovered late, or maybe the woman couldn't have an abortion early, or couldn't speak out about the attack she went throguh and so on. So I think that late-term abortions should be mostly prohibited, but generally judged on a case-by-case basis.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Vacuum aspiration et. al. are "unpretty", I suppose, but so is every other legitimate medical practice.

The art of medicine exists to treat and cure diseases and to promote good health. Pregnancy is not a disease.

A mole is also not a disease, and yet many choose to remove it for various reasons (like health, cosmetics etc). It's still a medical procedure that should obviously be kept legal.

Legalized abortion is extremely and unambiguously Good, and others on the Left need to be much more unapologetic (as with myself) about their support for it. Vacuum aspiration et. al. are "unpretty", I suppose, but so is every other legitimate medical practice. Abortion does not warrant the label of "necessary evil" seeing as how there is nothing immoral about terminating a fetus.

Fully agreed. It might sound better and more "nice " to say that you don't like abortion, but this is correct.