From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@ocean.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 01:53:38 MST
Lee Corbin writes:
> Brett writes
> >*this one* comes from the leader of government business
> > in the lower house. Tony Abbott MP. Looks pretty similar
> > to me.
> >
> > "I believe (sic) that life (sic) begins at conception. I believe
> > that any other points we might choose are essentially arbitrary
> > and uncertain. And I believe that this is a view founded not in
> > religion, not in faith,but on the logic of the matter. ....
> >
> > "Let me make this very clear: even if destroying embryos to
> > harvest their stem cells could create the medical miracles,
> > which are now so commonly claimed, I would be against it,
> > because there are some things that we cannot do, no matter
> > how good the cause."
>
> But wouldn't it have meant exactly the same thing if
> he had said, "My working hypothesis is that human existence
> begins at conception, and I contend that this is a view
> founded not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
>
> and had gone on to say
>
> "I am against snuffing out human existence in principle."
>
> It seems to me that he would be saying exactly the same
> thing, no?
I don't think so at all.
> It think that we have an *ontological* dispute in
> that he considers human beings to be absent/present
> over tiny changes in the physical situation, and tiny
> changes in t.
The proposition I am putting to you Lee is that there is a larger
issue here than the mere ontological point. If we call the guy who
made the original unmodified statement Tony-A and the one who
made the modified statement Tony-B would you really have no
preference over whether Tony-A or Tony-B was casting a vote
on stem cell policy that was likely to directly effect the rate at
which treatments for a variety of diseases might be found and
ultimately cures might be found?.
Would you prefer to have Tony-A or Tony-B deciding on
what laws are going to be enacted in relation to stem cells,
genetic engineering, and cryonics and what rights you would
have as a citizen of the State and what limits would be placed
on your liberty?
> > They start from a position of faith or belief assume
> > that as an axiom and reason from there.
>
> But I .....start from the axiom "suffering is bad" (that's me!)
I don't think the infant Lee Corbin came into the world
loaded with many "axioms" at all. I also think that by the
time you learnt what the word axiom meant your thinking
would have developed way past the point where you
would have thought suffering is bad in every case. I don't
think there is an *actual* as opposed to a theoretical or
philosophical state in which you do, or ever did, "*start*
from the axiom 'suffering is bad'".
> Now yes, in general, I'm with you and I *do* have a
> problem with axiomatic schemes.
In what respect are you *with me*? What do you take to be
my main contention in this thread (that you are with me on)?
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST