Ireland's abortion referendum

[DC Al Fine]

No obviously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Ireland

Yes of course I'd vote for repeal.  Stop the needless deaths of pregnant women.

Strange. I thought something died during the procedure...

[DC Al Fine]

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.

[DC Al Fine]

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.

This is what I'm talking about:

You talk about science, but when pressed, fall back on an ethical/philosophical question. Science and ethics are two different things. An embryo is unable to feel pain. We agree on that. I merely posit that that fact (or a creature's development or lack thereof) is insufficient to declare someone a non-person.

Your logic around late term rape cases is also suspect. You talk about an early term baby being "undeveloped" but then call a late term baby, whose preemie counterparts are living outside the womb "a potential life". How did you support that logical pretzel?

Then you cap your post off with a silly ad hominem. Again, it seems that a movement that ostensibly supports science and logic is quite willing to ignore them when it doesn't suit them.

[DC Al Fine]

"I merely posit that that fact (or a creature's development or lack thereof) is insufficient to declare someone a non-person."

DC, your point of view is Manichean. You are either a person or not, with no shades of grey. Parrot and I view it more as a continuum, and never the twain shall meet as to our respective points of view. It is not as if one of us is right and the other wrong. In my view, the matter is mostly subjective, after we agree on the basis underlying facts about the stages of fetal development. So I don't really see how further parry and thrusts on this move the ball much, unless there are new facts to adduce.

Does that make any sense to you?

Torie, I don't think you quite understand why I'm annoyed. Parrotguy wrote a post (which you applauded) stating that my position on an ethical position was unscientific (despite the facts not being in question) and therefore unworthy of debate. This post also contained a logical contradiction ((calling a late term fetus a potential life) and derogatory remarks about my religion. Again, you praised this post.

Falling back on "our points of view are incompatible" doesn't address the problem here.

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.

First of all, those two conditions alone don't work. A tumor satisfies both.


And even if you disregard the scientific definition of life and decide that an embryo is a human life, it's also

c) stealing the mother's resources without consent.

As a Republican, I'm assuming you oppose forcing taxpayers to give their hard-earned money as welfare to people who haven't done anything for it. Why, then, should mothers be forced to give not only their hard earned food but also their continuing labor (the embryo relies on the mother's heart, lungs, and various other organs to survive) as welfare to embryos and fetuses?

I'm a Red Tory you ignoramus.

[DC Al Fine]

^Sigging when I get the chance.

Haha. Thank you.