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.
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 21:16:27 GMT

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.
	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.  And even folks
who disagree on the moral issues can (an do) *agree* on the legal issues, 
depending on the degree to which they believe their value systems should be
codified in secular law.
	Alas, this point often gets ignored in the roar of the flamethrowers
employed by both sides of the debate, and not only in talk.abortion.
	Thanks for the post, Mr. M.

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

Newsgroups: talk.abortion