----- Original Message ----- From: "David Brin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 9:58 AM Subject: Re: Brin: Second Salvo
> > --- JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > At 04:06 PM 10/16/2004 -0700 David Brin wrote: > > >But let's be fair. If infanticide were legal, a > > ten % > > >drop in the rate would not stop you from being > > boiling > > >mad. The real problem isn't pragmatic but > > >philosophical. As romantics, each neocon subgroup > > >must go for a whole loaf, never part of one. > > >Compromise is for enlightenment humanists. > > > > So, would you argue that "compromise" is the > > appropriate long-term solution > > to genocide, fascisim, communism, islamic > > fundamentalist jihadism, and > > racist segregation? Or should enlightened > > humanists always maintain a > > long-term goal of complete victory in those cases? > > My point was that everybody has some line where they > have drawn between the "unpleasant but bearable" and > the "intolerable". Your reaction to the former may be > pragmatic compromise aimed at reducing the unpleasant > without having to get ballistic over what remains. > > The latter? You must dig in your heels and fight > "evil". > > Problem is that many in our society are unconvinced > that God wrote digital laws for a clearly analog > world. In biology things are murky with slow and > amorhous dividing lines. Those whose PERSONALITIES > make them adamant line-drawers had to choose as the > moment of life inception the ridiculous moment of > sperm/egg joining. A titanic silliness on dozens of > levels, proving how absurd such purist/romantic > twaddle can get. But, the legal system doesn't have murky lines....It can't. The present, enlightened standard, is a full term fetus that is not delivered is not human; a delivered 10 week premature fetus is human. It is true that biology is > (God Himself aborts half of such joinings, which are > better called "rought drafts of manuscripts for a > later human.") Let's look at this logic. Were infants not human in the 18th century? The infant mortality rate was 50% back then http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0012030.html > It bois down again to personality. Pragmatic > enlightenment types what to maximize the overall > number of happy children who can compete on a level > playing field. So, is infantcide for Down syndrome childen, severly retarded childen, children born with AIDs, children born with alchohol fetal syndrome, etc. , a good idea? If one were to rigorously apply the maxim you just gave, that would be the logical result. No, I'm not accusing you of believing that. I'd guess that you don't. I'm just using the logic A->B ~b therefore ~A Finally, the belief in absolutes is not a Romantic notion. Faith in the trancendental is definatly a part of the enlightenment. Kant, the quintessential Enlightenment philosopher, speaks very clearly towards that. Jefferson penned such a faith statement in the Declaration of Independance. >Birth control powerfull helps this end. Proved. Sure. Even though I'm anti-abortion, I'm strongly pro birth control. (I'm also anti death penelty). The reality is that we are in a nation that is divided on abortion. It seems reasonable to me, in such a climate, to first get half a loaf, and then work on the rest. Further, since consensus will be required to really end abortion, it makes a lot of sense to keep dialog open. Working together on things we all agree upon to make abortions as rare as possible would seem to to be a good first step for anyone who wishes to end them. I'm anti-abortion, and I've been married to someone who is pro-choice for > a quarter century. Although it is not something we discuss a lot, we know that we agree on a great deal...even though we fall on two sides of the fence on this issue. Ending abortion requires convincing people like my wife that is should be illegal. And, there is general agreement among most people on, for example, third term abortions. Most folks agree it should be illegal, except in the case of the mother's life really being at risk. (If you throw health in there, mental health is included...and any therapist worth her salt can find a DSM-IV diagnosis for anyone.) My wife agrees with that. We agree that terminating fetuses past the point of viability is wrong...even though she is pro-choice. The most strident pro-choice advocates fight like the NRA fights for the right to carry a bazooka over this....which is not really enlightened. So, in short, I take issue with your picturing of the folks on both sides of the issue. In particular, it appears that you have assigned to the Enlightenment ideas that really were developed fairly long after the Enlightenment. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
