From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Good vs Bad (arguements)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:21:41 GMT

Mr. Birge has once again posted my email to the net without my
permission. Sir, you are engaged in a gross violation of nettiquette
here. I replied to this article when you mailed it to me, and
I will do so once again on the net. I will not, however, reply
to you any further in email, since you cannot be trusted to abide
by nettiquette.
I am not ashamed of what I have written but I find your breach
of trust appalling.

In article <1jndjvINN9so@male.EBay.Sun.COM> birge@guerciotti.EBay.Sun.COM writes:
>I don't seem to be making my point. Let me put it bluntly. I believe your 
>position to be fallacious.
Yes, and I believe yours to be so. So what? 

>One of my posts gave examples of other fallacious 
>arguments and you called them logical (many fallacious arguments go to court).
You're begging the question.

>>........The argument, as far as I can tell, is essentially as I indicated,
>>and leads to the absurdity I originally indicated.
>>
>>That is the interesting part of this discussion. Perhaps you will
>>address that.
>See I don't buy your basic premise that a sperm/egg are the same as a 
>zygote/embryo.
I don't maintain that. 

>However I'm sure you realize the Catholic Church agrees 
>with that assertion.
They do no such thing. Perhaps you should read up on their actual
position before misrepresenting it--not that I agree with them,
BTW.


>You would agree that an individual is made up of X  number (23? or 
>is that 23 pair equaling 46) of chromosomes containing the DNA that 
>make us distinct individuals. You may also agree that neither of the 
>gamete contain a complete set (or the catalyst) and therefore neither 
>contain the unique genetic characteristics that make a unique individual. 
>At the point of fertilization the pronucleus of the two gamete unite to 
>complete this set of instructions thereby creating a unique set of 
>instructions for the creation of a unique individual. Something like 
>that anyway.  
Right. So? When does it actually BECOME a unique individual if the
fertilized egg only has the instructions for that creation?
See, as far as I can tell, your original argument was based
on depriving a potential individual of a chance at life, and
two gametes are just as much a potential individual as a single
fertilized egg is.

>Now as the above suggests the difference between an individual gamete 
>and an embryo are vast. Thereby casting doubt on the basic logic of
>your postulation that the logical extension of my premise leads to
>an absurd conclusion.
Not really. Only if you cast your argument in terms where this is
relevant. I don't think you have. I also note that I have not postulated
that the logical extension of your premise leads to an absurd
conclusion. I have attempted to argue it. If you will recast
your argument in symbolic logic, I will attempt to show it rigorously.

>It follows that it is also ironic that an Atheist would not have a 
>less tolerant view due to the belief that our bodies are all we have 
>and therefore the destruction of the body or embryo is the end of an 
>individual that can never repeat itself. 
Which is it, an individual or instructions for the creation of one?

-Ekr

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
                        Don't believe anything you hear.
Newsgroups: alt.atheism