Re: The naturalist Philosophy

From: John Burgeson (
Date: Wed Sep 04 2002 - 12:43:46 EDT

  • Next message: bivalve: "RE: Biomass Hydrogen Paper in 29 August Nature"

    Jan wrote, in part: "In studying nature, there are things from which, I
    believe, investigators
    should stay away. For example, some research in biology involving
    embryos...These are things which can be easily reasoned."

    Easily reasoned, perhaps, but you imply the answers are easily found. Having
    been in an ethics class where such was discussed, I did not discern easy
    answers, even from my more conservative colleagues. Human reproduction
    remains a PROCESS, and reasonable people, devout, committed Christians among
    them, do not agree on when in that process a human being can be identified.
    My own position is that the point is quite early in the process, but I have
    at least one clergy friend, who is also a professor of philosophy in Texas,
    who holds that it is quite late -- perhaps not until the 3rd or 4th month of
    pregnancy. I think him to be wrong; I have no arguments which are compelling
    for my own position, unfortunately.

    >>It is much more difficult to show that much of modern research is
    >>motivated by men wanting to play God.>>

    Perhaps that may be because the statement is not true.Or, more likely, it is
    because all of us do most of the things we do on the basis of mixed, and
    only partially understood, motives. Which makes the questioning of a
    person's motives in most cases a futile, as well as an uncivil, exercise.


    Join the worldís largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Sep 04 2002 - 19:58:43 EDT