Journal benhocking's Journal: Of faith and science 16
It seems to me that there are a lot of liberals who think that faith is a four letter word. (Don't get me wrong, there are a lot who don't.)
So, I could get in to how science actually does require some faith. Faith that our senses are consistently portraying the outside world with at least a certain degree of fidelity. Faith that other scientists aren't part of an elaborate hoax. Faith that we even have senses and aren't part of someone else's simulation, etc.
However, it occurs to me that there is a whole other type of faith that many liberals tend to cling to. (For the record, I consider myself more liberal than conservative, but would probably best be described as a radical moderate.)
The faith I refer to is the faith that a fetus is not a human being and does not have the rights therewith associated.
In the American judicial system, we are innocent until proven guilty. This philosophy also colors my pro-life position. Until someone can convince me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus shouldn't have the rights afforded to other humans, I think his/her right to life trumps his/her mother's right to reproductive choice. What are the results of applying this tenet to my pro-life point-of-view?
- I'm willing to say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a 16 or 32-cell embryo is not a "human". Obviously and unfortunately, there is not a strict line where beyond a reasonable doubt crosses into reasonable doubt.
- If the mother's life is in jeopardy, then it seems reasonable to put her life above the possible life that is growing in her.
- This is not about the mother "accepting responsbility" for her actions, but is about the life of the fetus. Many pro-lifers weaken their position, IMO, by alluding to how the mother made bad decisions and needs to live with the consequences, etc., etc.
- The fetus isn't responsible for the consequences surrounding its creation. If it is a product of rape and/or incest, this is not the fault of the fetus, and accordingly it does not deserve the death penalty for the sins of its father.
Obviously, "reasonable doubt" is going to vary from person to person, and I'm arguing from a personal point-of-view and not a legal point-of-view. That is, I'm not advocating enforcing my view points on others. However, I have yet to meet anyone who can claim beyond his or her own reasonable doubt that a six-month old fetus is fundamentally different from a 2 day old baby, in ways other than depending on the womb for life. (Technically, of course, it is possible that the six-month old fetus could live outside the womb.)
You should (Score:1)
Reconsider, that is. Hmm - I have once held UVa in some regard....
"Faith" in none of these things is required for scientific enquiry. Faith ignores or proceeds happily without evidenc
Pigeonholing (Score:2)
You seem to live in a very black and white world. Either everyone at UVa makes sense or no one does. Faith ignores or proceeds happily without evidence. Science requires evidence.
This reminds me very muc
Moo (Score:1)
Good comments about the fetus. Ultimately the question is "is this a life". Nothing else matters when asking that question. Once that is answered, the only question worth asking is: if yes, "if this life is killing the host mother, and there is no other way to save the mother, do will kill this life?". If no, "does the father own part of this tissue mass?".
I think the answer to both is yes.
Split personality (Score:2)
Reading your journal comments loosely, one could imagine that you suffer from a split personality. Don't take this personally - people could assume the same thing about me. Recently, someone [slashdot.org] added me to their foes list (my first freak!), ostensibly because he thought I was a religious fanatic (I'm basing that off of the comments on his profile and my recent comments at that time). People who know me found that conclusion amusing. I then made him a "friend", which might have just reinforced his assumptions,
Re:Split personality (Score:1)
Why would someone say that? In case your wondering, my MBTI is INTJ.
but cringe a little at the use of the word "own" after referring to this "tissue mass" as "life".
That came after "if no". As for owning, that would be in as one owns a dog. After all, if it isn't a life, the father is the sharecropper and the mother is the field. The father would then own part of that crop, or at least has say in if it should be
Re:Split personality (Score:2)
Keeping in mind that I did qualify it with "loosely", I'm referring to how one could infer from one post [slashdot.org] that you were a creationist sympathizer (I didn't infer that because I read it "tight" enough to understand your meaning - I think), and from another post [slashdot.org] that you were anti-religion (again, if read loosely).
Of course, this happens
Re:Split personality (Score:1)
I can see the pattern that binds your thoughts together
:)
The sharecropper and the field (Score:2)
OK, first of all, you are correct in pointing out that it came after "if no". However, you've now called the mother "the field". :) You're hurting me. Stop it.
Re:The sharecropper and the field (Score:1)
Thanx. It feels good to be vindicated.
However, you've now called the mother "the field".
Heh.
I realize the inherent danger in using that terminology, but i think it was a successful metaphor.
Re:Moo (as in Moove over) (Score:2)
And some scientists are Pastafarians. The laws and teachings in this country should not be based on the perceived majority's beliefs. I believe the intent of the legal foundation in this country was to provide a system that enabled every citizen to practice their religious beliefs in their fullness without the interference of the government (at least as much as is possible). I believe that the question of what is life, is clearly in the realm of ma
Re:Moo (as in Moove over) (Score:2)
So then murder shouldn't be illegal?
The question "What is life?" is the precursor to protecting life, for how could you protect that which is not defined?
I couldn't have said it better (Score:2)
It is as impossible to have a legal system completely devoid of a system of beliefs as it is to have a legal system competely devoid of a system of morals.
I think my "reasonable doubt" argument has merit, but of course, I'm the one making it. :)
Nevertheless, I think it is worth trying to remove religous beliefs from our system of laws as much as possible. For example, I don't understand how anyone can argue against allowing homosexuals to marry. The question about "What is life?", however, is too import
Re:I couldn't have said it better (Score:2)
Because marriage is a religous thing. A civil union is better, but even that misses the point. It is not upon the state to recognize unions, unless that union is required for something under the law, for example an adoption may be required to have two guardians, and it may even require those two to have a bond. If that was the case, homosexuals should have the same right as anyone else to be recognized as a unit to adopt (assumin
Does not compute (Score:2)
OK, perhaps I wasn't specific. I can understand people arguing against their church allowing homosexuals to marry. I cannot understand people arguing that the government should interfere if a church (or sea captain, judge, high-priestess, etc.) does choose to marry homosexuals. Even more specifically I can't see how someone can argue it isn't a religious thing.
As for the brain-dead idea,
Re:Does not compute (Score:2)
Basically, the government should not recognize marriage at all, because it is inherently religious. But, as long as it does, it needs to enforce it unless the religous definition would change.
With most of the country being Xian, that's probably where it has to hap
Re:I couldn't have said it better (Score:2)
I agree whole-heartedly. As far as morals go though, I think that morals are something that can exist outside of a religious environment. It is a hard argument to support however, as we don't have much of a history of moral statutes existing outside of a religious framework to date. In that light though, just because person 'A's set of morals happen to coincide with person 'B's religious based moral beliefs, doesn't n