From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 00:30:55 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1813@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug18.201801.26020@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>>In article <1812@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug17.230209.6397@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>
>->>through a vote decide that life begins at conception, then government will
>->>have no arbitrary point of reference to make. We could also just assume
>
>->If we the people decide through a vote that all people over 85 should be
>->shot, would you be satisfied?  Or, closer to home, suppose We The People
>->decide life begins at birth.  Happy now?  I didn't think so.  You're
>->swinging a double edged sword there, and it's razor sharp on both sides.
>
> Lets take a vote and find out what the people think. Who could possibly be
>harmed by just taking a vote as a basis for research. I have faith in the
>people of this country. You dont seem to have it. Without feedback from
>the people, this country wont evolve and will remain static.
> You have made a good case for abolishment of statism. Which I might agree
>with. My initial points were based on this country still being slightly
>statist. 
>

Sigh.  Taking a vote as the basis of research?!?!!!  Please tell me this
is a joke, and you left off the smiley.  Please.  Suppose we take a
vote "as the basis of research" as to what the speed of light is.  No
matter what the outcome, the real speed of light is not going to be any
different than it really is.  What good does the vote do?  

You say you have faith in the people of this country.  I share that faith.
That's why I don't want a pure democracy.  But OK.  Suppose we take your
"advisory" vote, and 51% of the people think that *human* life does NOT
begin at conception.  Are you willing to live with the results of that?
Does that change the reality of the situation?  Suppose science demonstrates
that *human* life begins at conception.  Suppose the people vote that it
doesn't.  What purpose did the vote serve?

Look, I'm not saying feedback from the people isn't important.  There are
just some places where it's irrelevant.  150 years ago, the majority of
the people in this country thought blacks were subhuman.  Did that make 
it so?  That's the sort of BS you get when the majority rules.

>->No thanks, no pure democracies for me.  With your "vote", all you've
>->accomplished is to show that the majority favor an arbitrary position.
>->It's still arbitrary.  We need desperately to be objective here.  That's
>->why any decision should be based on science.  It's the most objective
>->thing we've got.  It's also changeable as our understanding grows.
>
> I thought that Science had determined that life begins when the total dna 
>"message of self" was formed. Am I wrong here ?

It may be life, but is it a person at the point of conception?  To find
that out, you have to define what a person is, don't you?  What is a
person, anyway?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------