> This is being intentionally dismissive. Not at all. > The fact that ... is very different from playing the what-if game. I was trying to speak broadly so a

> This is being intentionally dismissive. Not at all. > The fact that ... is very different from playing the what-if game. I was trying to speak broadly so as not to speak for you. How would you put it? > No, neutral is letting others determine the law without interjecting my opinion. For a pure observer, maybe. For a taxpayer, not so much. > It was you who made the connection of science being rational and religion being irrational. Yup. > I was merely pointing out that neither rational nor irrational bases can inform this issue. A position on this issue is strictly based on morality and philosophy. Assuming you feel that a human should not be killed (without reason anyways) you can formally extend that reasoning to a baby, a fetus, and so forth. At some point, the initial reasoning may stop applying. Congrats, you've now derived an opinion on abortion. You may feel that morality has a religious core, but that's a god of the cracks type thing. You can squish that bit away and analyze the rules systematically using the tools of logic. > This contrasts starkly with other issues like climate change or tax policy where math and science can inform a more correct position. There shouldn't be any contrast. What's the problem with runaway climate change? The suffering and death that it will cause. But that's the same ethical framework you'd use to analyze abortion. And it leads the same place - your basic value for the lives of others, which you may call religious or not.