RE: new abortion quiz

I recall hearing from a resident doctor who partook of his first
abortion. He was told to "count the parts." He was rather puzzled and
asked the head nurse who told him "you know two legs, one head, two
hands, etc." That is the knowledge I believe every woman ought to have
who is contemplating having an abortion. Ethical decisions can be made
more rationally the more knowledge one has of the events under
discussion. There is no sense to muse in the vacuum.

Moorad

________________________________

From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:17 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: BundrickD@evangel.edu; lcameron@apa.org;
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net; asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: new abortion quiz

Moorad,

You do a great job at missing the point. I asked when you had presented
an emotional response as scientific evidence and you responded that no
one knowingly avoids a problem because it is unpleasant. My clear
intention was to emphasize that feelings are not acceptable as evidence
for a scientific claim, however much one's emotional involvement may
influence one's choice of research area. This is related to my claim
that ethical decisions need to be made rationally, not on the basis of
emotion. I well remember the effects of the claim by Logical
Positivists, when they were dominant some decades back, that the
intensity of feeling determined right and wrong. They at least
recognized that this was irrational. Reporting results honestly has
nothing to do with my question.

Note that nothing I wrote prejudges the morality of embryonic or cloned
stem cell research. I merely challenged an emotional reaction as
rational evidence. When you say that "knowledge ought to precede ...
decision," you are endorsing my point. But your claim that viewing an
abortion trumps rational questions runs directly counter.

Dave

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 08:48:32 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:

        The student did not see that speed limits are man-made as
attested by the fact that different countries have different road
conditions, different driving rule, different quality of cars, and thus
different limits. However, the commandment about murder cannot be
man-made otherwise the Ottoman Empire genocide of 1.5 millions Christian
Armenians, Nazi atrocities against Jews, Gypsies, Stalin's murder of
millions, etc. would be acceptable as the law of the land. My main
point is that knowledge ought to precede the taking of decisions. Plain
and simple! We are not talking about publishing a paper on the physical
aspect of reality but on the behavior of conscious, rational, human
beings. No one writes a scientific paper and knowingly avoids some
aspect of the problem just because it may be unpleasant for the author.

        Moorad

        
________________________________

        From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
        Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:44 AM
        To: Alexanian, Moorad
        Cc: BundrickD@evangel.edu; lcameron@apa.org;
sheila-wilson@sbcglobal.net; asa@calvin.edu
        Subject: Re: new abortion quiz

        Guys,

        You've totally missed my point. I am open to any RATIONAL
argument. Looking at something, anything, that turns your stomach is not
an argument. I note that the common argument of atheists is that a good
and almighty deity would not produce whatever it is that they don't
like.

        That students did not, when it was sprung on them, see a
connection between speed limit and murder (not killing) is no argument
against my statement. You can partly fill in the gap to show that speed
tends toward a higher probability of fatalities. But this is a tendency
toward manslaughter. Are you accusing me of murder because I drive 75,
the limit on rural interstates in Arizona? By the way, if you want a
justification of speed limits, you'll do better with I Peter 2:13f (a
reference Bible will give you more verses on the topic)than the Ten
Commandments.

        May I suggest that you think through your position, get your
definitions clearly in mind, rather than jumping on anyone who does not
agree with every aspect of your views. A reflexive response does nothing
to communicate to those who disagree with you, but may be persuaded by
sound argument. Moorad, when did you present an emotional response as
evidence in a scientific paper? Do you need to be reminded that
philosophers strive for reasoned presentations, though they do not have
the empirical check that restricts scientific studies?

        Dave

        On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 15:47:56 -0400 "Alexanian, Moorad"
<alexanian@uncw.edu> writes:

                Dear David,

                I am not surprised at Dave's comments. I teach a science
course to non-science majors----based on the book "Great Ideas in
Physics" by Alan Lightman-----and once I asked the class if they saw a
difference between "Thou shalt not kill" and "Speed limit 70 mph. " To
my surprise and consternation some students said that they didn't. What
can I say?

                Moorad

                Dave,

                With all due respect, to compare (a) watching a tiny,
innocent human being salted and/or dismembered in the womb (or partially
delivered outside the womb) with (b) smelling vomit or (c) watching
sausage being made is quite unconscionable and unreasonable. This is an
example of why science devoid of morality and Christian ethics has a bad
name and an even worse track record.

                Sincerely,

                David R. Bundrick
                David R. Bundrick, PhD

         
Received on Wed Oct 13 15:54:16 2004