From: sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Date: 9 Jan 93 02:21:25 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona UNIX Users Group

From article <C0KAA4.8w@ra.nrl.navy.mil>, by lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil:
> In article <1993Jan6.211627.15421@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu
> (The_Doge) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.182436.1040@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>>>From article <1993Jan6.160656.4107@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
>>>by mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran):
>>>> In article <C0FF9F.En8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
>>>> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>mcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark A. Cochran) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In article <C0CBty.n1y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> vengeanc@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I freely admit that a preborn baby human being is not LEGALLY defined
>>>>>>>as a "person".  The moral and scientific evidence that it SHOULD be
>>>>>>>defined as such has been beat to death already.  
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>When? All I've ever seen is medical and scientific evidence that it is
>>>>>>*not* a person.
>>>
>>>You have?!?  Don't you mean that you've seen medical and scientific
>>>evidence that it *may not* be able to *do* certain things (like, e.g.,
>>>think or possess myelin)?  Mark, personhood can be defined in various
>>>ways by various people, depending not upon "medical and scientific
>>>evidence" but upon the philosophies of the people making the definitions.
>>>The most disturbing posts (to me) on t.a are the ones that cite
>>>"medical and scientific evidence" that is neither medical nor 
>>>scientific, to support a definition of personhood based on purely
>>>philosophical assumptions.
>>	Bingo!  Give that man a cigar.  You can't empirically answer the
>>question "when does human life begin" without first developing an operational
>>definition of the term "human life" that does *not* include assumptions about
>>when it begins.  That's why (to amplify Mr. Matheson's excellent point)
>>arguments of the form "science shows that human life begins <insert time
>>period here>" are a load of Dingo's kidneys by definition.  Science can't
>>answer the question because science can't provide a definition of the term
>>"human life".  The definition is based in belief/values/morals systems which
>>are usually not subject to empirical examination.

> Just because beliefs/morals/values are often used to define or
> explain natural phenomena does not mean science has no place in
> defining that phenomenon.

Pardon?  Paul, I don't see how "personhood" can be reasonably
categorized as a "phenomenon", any more than "liberty", "integrity",
or even "stupidity" can be considered phenomena.  Science can
certainly add parameters to our definition of personhood, but my
point is that science itself does not define personhood.

>>	This is the core of the pro-choice/pro-life dispute.  Persons
>>of good will can and do have different values systems, from which
>>it follows that they can and do differ on the moral issues
>>surrounding abortion.

> Maybe I'm a fluke case in your book, but my moral view against
> abortion came after my scientific definition of life was formed,
> not before.

I assume you mean "definition of personhood" when you say "scientific
definition of life".  Unless you mean to suggest that life is a
sufficient criterion for personhood.  In any case, I'm sure that
at least some (though certainly not all) folks formulate their
opinions on abortion with their definition of personhood in mind.
But again, I maintain that science does not define personhood
(or even life).  We first define it, then science tells us when it
is and isn't present.  Or as Mark Cochran put it, we just know it
when we see it (but we still can't agree on what we see).

--

Steve Matheson   Program in Neuroscience   University of Arizona
sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu