From: lebow@psl.nrl.navy.mil
Subject: Re: Spoken Like a True ProLifer
Organization: NRL
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:49:16 GMT

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.

>	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.


>	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.

In any case, I sure do agree with do agree with your assessment of the "core"
of the debate.
>
>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!
BTW, I think killing vs enebriation may not be a very good comparison


- Paul

- Paul