From: clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu (The_Doge)
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 15:26:25 GMT

>In article <C0KAA4.8w@ra.nrl.navy.mil> lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil writes:
>>In article <1993Jan6.211627.15421@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> clavazzi@nyx.cs.du.edu
>>(The_Doge) writes:
>>	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.
>
	That's not what I said at all.  I'll repeat it in what I hope will be
clearer terms:  science can't answer the question "when does human life begin"
without a definition of the term "human life", and this definition is a
matter of one's belief system.  Our definitions of the term differ because our
belief systems differ.  Science can't resolve that.
	Now science *could* resolve the dispute *if* we all agreed on the
definition of the term "human life".  But if we did, this debate wouldn't
exist in the first place.

>>	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.
>
	And what, pray tell, is this "scientific definition of life"?  I'm
more than a little curious.  I'd be surprised, quite frankly, to find any
scientist in the biology/medical/life sciences field who would claim that
there was such a thing.

>
>>
>>The_Doge
>> ObQuote:       The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered
>>        considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more
>>        destructive of respect for the government and the law of the
>>        land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open
>>        secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is
>>        closely connected with this.
>>                -- Albert Einstein, "My First Impression of the U.S.A.", 1921
>
>Einstein - great PHYSICIST!
	Hey, you remembered!  >:-)>  In any case, if celibate theologians can
pontificate on human sexuality, a scientific genius may be allowed an opinion
on government, IMHO.

>BTW, I think killing vs enebriation may not be a very good comparison
	Depends on which side of the core dispute you're on.  See above.

The_Doge

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism