Odd question. The Irish legislation was based on the idea that the foetus is a life. And that taking that life is wrong, morally. Therefore, it posits that in the case of mrs. Halappanavar, there were two lives at stake when she entered the hospital. Their judgement, wrongly, was that one of them was not in immidiate danger, and thus they waited. Now, if you are going to make this into a religion vs. science example, you need to show that, scientifically speaking, the view that the foetus is a life is wrong. Otherwise, your statement that "science says one" is meaningless in response to my post. Also, you need to show that the foetus isn't a life is scientifically wrong to be able to continue claiming this as an example of religion vs. science.
Your claim, that a foetus isn't alive, is not one science is able to make. As far as I've seen, no-one has been able to make a distinction as to where life starts scientifically. If you have that proof stashed away somewhere, you should share. Otherwise, you've made another unsupported assertion.
You'll probably be shocked to find out that I disagree with your conclusion, Stubby. The problem with your rephrasing is that it removes the conflict you need, and which you rely on for your conclusion. Seeing as the worldview in question was scientifically informed, there isn't a conflict here per se. Instead, there is a conflict between differing worldviews as to what constitutes a life, and what should be done in a case such as this where, given the definition of "life" existing in the law, there was two lives at stake. Sure, the law probably contributed to her death. But the reasons for it doing so didn't rely on a science vs religion-conflict.
I believe the phrase was "clarify", not "change". Also, whilst I probably know less about this than you do, isn't it correct that there were quite a few failngs wrt blood tests, routines, messages etc, which, if done properly, would have led to the neccesary conclusion?
Which hard limits are we talking about here? Are these limits something that can be used as a general definition of when life begins? As for the bolded, this again runs into the problem above. You may not agree with their values, I may not agree with their values, but are we then arguing from science, or from something else? My impression is we tend to start from our values - socially defined, and not scientifically informed (in the strict sense), and that such we don't see a conflict between religion and science. Between religion and sciences - that is another matter.
You are misrepresenting the debate. The question isn't science vs, religion, it is "is there a conflict between science and religion?" Different things. As for your second paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly.
In this case, the bolded is the relevant part (i believe, anyway). And if I'm not sorely mistaken, the definition isn't related to what makes a life in and of itself, but to whether a foetus is "saveable", that is, can be kept alive outside of the womb. However, as a demarcation this is a moving target, and furthermore (as Peter Singer noted in the quote Ser Scot provided) comes with the inherent contradiction that a foetus can be alive in, say, Ireland, but not in New Guinea. Since, then, it is not based on a fact, it doesn't support Stubby's argument. Your second paragraph I have no objections to. It doesn't, however, relate to the question I'm debating here. If you disagree, please elaborate.
I'm probably wasting my time, but I've read a little around to find out what happened in this case. What I've read tells me that it was a terrible case, it was a case showing errors in judgement on a systemic level at the hospital in question. However, it isn't a question of religion vs. science. Provoked? Probably, if you care at all about me writing. However, I am going to lay out why I've reached my conclusion. Science can tell us that there are conditions that may be fatal. In such cases, science will inform us that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the consequence will be the loss of life of the mother. And, as it happens, this was probably known to the medical staff at the hospital. It was at least assumed, in that this is what medicine basically trains people for. However, science cannot make the decision to take every concievable test, it cannot make people less forgetful, it cannot overcome bad routines. Basically, it cannot overcome the possibility of human or systemic error. According to the inquest report (as reported by generally every news outlet I could find), the reason for mrs. Halappanavar's death was "medical misadventure", and from what I can read and understand, there were a number of things gone wrong on the way leading to her demise. These wrongs, however, were not religiously motivated - they were human errors. If these errors had not occured, mrs. Halappanavar could - and I believe would - get the termination of her pregnancy. After all, the law in Ireland at the time did allow termination if the mother's life was in jeopardy. That was deemed not to be the case by the hospital - wrongly, as it turns out - but it was still the judgement made, based on the scientific evidence obtained. Your argument has been that religion killed mrs. Halappanavar and science would have saved her. However, science in itself wouldn't have saved her, and a scientifically informed worldview couldn't either - because these worldviews are not clashing in this case. Instead, what is clashing is a liberal vs concervative view on abortion. Crucially, however, both would allow abortion in this case had it been known that mrs. Halappanavar's life was threatened. What you can argue from this case is that a liberal worldview would save the lives of more women. What you cannot infer is that a scientifically informed worldview would have kept mrs. Halappanavar alive.
1. Asserting that the "poisoning the well"-link was wrongly applied doesn't make it true. I've argued why it fits, and I stand by that. You have, on that count offered nothing. Also, it would be interesting to see what you count as "evidence". Your number 2 is in its way a dodge, and I might add a rather graceless one, because the history of science is chock full of religious people doing science for religious reasons (showing God's glory etc). If you want some reading, I'd reccomend a starting book. 3. No, your response doesn't "prove" anything. You are, indeed, quite to fond of that word, and misapply it constantly. What you have done is present your reasoning, but that does not in any way, shape or form "prove" that you are right. I happen to have read Altherion's replies as well, and I will contend that you have to read them in ill will to reach the conclusions you have. A reasonable reading would assume, as Altherion writes furter on, that he doesn't argue that if many enough people believe something, it is right. Heck, seeing as he generally doesn't commit to anything for certain, I'll argue that the "cherry-picking"-argument is true - you are ignoring the main thrust of his arguments and his conclusions in order to try to score a cheap point and claim victory. 4. As you know, or should know, you are over-representing your source. While the number of deaths owing to unsafe abortions are way too high, the you cite point out that there are quite a few unsafe abortions happening because of lack of access, in countries where abortion is legal. 5. In a way, I think we are arguing different things. I am arguing that as a general rule, there is no conflict between religion and science (leaving aside the YEC and JW). You seem to be more a literal arguer - that spesific examples and anecdotes will show that there sometimes is a conflict. Seeing as we're leaving YEC and JW behind, I'd argue - like number 3 here - that you are in some way trying to argue against the main thrust of the argument in favour of scoring points. (Oh, and it is an anecdote in this instance. After all, it happened in a country where abortion in cases like this was allowed under the law - your article deals with other places, where it is outlawed or not available).