This new installment on the above-referenced subject from Shri Averthanus L. D'Souza appears to be a rambling diatribe meant to deflect attention from the serious scientific and philosophical points made in my earlier responses. The use of “we”, “our” and "us" in this screed makes it appear that he is speaking on behalf of his political constituents, co-religionists or his organization.
This new harangue is a sophomoric reaction to substantive statements, using such frivolous gimmicks as to ridicule non-human primates by anthropomorphizing them, as if such a thoughtless response could ever make a dent in the scientific observation that these animals are self-conscious beings. What is worse is that the author does not have the courage of his religious convictions. He flatly denies the transparent fact that his claims are derived from his own religion. Instead, he wants readers to believe that science is the basis for his morality, which he believes is synonymous with legality. He wants to sell the whopper that his received wisdom regarding “intrinsic evil”, and his self-righteous pronouncements of medical abortion and medical use of human embryos being murder, are dictated not by his priests, but by scientists. One would surely like him to answer the following question in this regard, so hopefully one can find out how much credibility he is willing to expend in order to test the gullibility of his fellow primates (In case of unfamiliarity with basic biology, please note that humans, like monkeys and apes, are primates): Which branch of science defines murder, and gives these medical procedures as examples of murder, and based on what scientific justification? Furthermore, despite my attempts to explain as clearly as I can, the new installment betrays a persistent lack of understanding about the distinction between the term "human person" used by theologians and the notion of "personhood" defined by secular philosophy as the state of being self-conscious. My explanation that science has discovered facts that define the latter concept with precision, and by virtue of this definition, rejected its exclusive confinement to humans (which is implied by the former theological term) does not seem to have registered in the author’s mind. He projects his confusion on to me. I wonder what such a mentality would do if we ever encounter technologically advanced sentient and self-conscious non-human extraterrestrial beings in the future. Would it deny them personhood? Would it be morally unconcerned about killing them? Above all, in the new installment there is a complete lack of recognition of the self-inflicted fact-free confusion that has led to the following superficialities, absurdities and calumnies: 1. The blatantly false charge that I would like people to believe that the act of destroying “a person in a coma, or a patient suffering from Alzheimer’s disease is not necessarily an act of murder.” Indeed, I have stated exactly the opposite, bolstering my argument that lack of personhood is no grounds to dismiss the charge of murder. 2. Gratuitous suffixing of a question mark after “Dr.” to question my undeclared credentials. 3. The absurd claim that science must have something to do with defining murder because “doctors are ‘morally’ responsible for ‘all’ the actions performed by them in their professional capacity”. By this simplistic logic, I guess, public transportation is also responsible for defining murder because a bus driver is clearly morally responsible for all his professional actions, which involve the responsibility for the lives of his passengers. The obvious question to ask the author is the following: Which human being is not morally responsible for all his/her actions in his/her professional capacity? 4. The imposition that the author’s own religious morality regarding medical abortion and medical use of human embryos equals legality. 5. The absurd claim that science is grounded on faith, using pure gibberish about objective truth and epistemological relativism to ostensibly justify that claim. The author evidently believes his personal faith is based on objective truth. This mixing of religion and science is at the heart of the apple and mango confusion in which he finds himself. He is completely oblivious of the fact that faith is the exact opposite of objective evidence, and that other people’s faiths prescribe different moral dictates. 6. The faith-based claim that Ruchika is Ruchika “despite physiological, sociological, cultural and psychological changes” because of “mysterious design”, which science has not been able to decipher. An individual who was guided by objective evidence rather than his personal parochial faith would have been aware or receptive to the universally applicable scientific knowledge on the biological basis of constancy and variability of the human body and mind, and would have avoided making such a gaffe. 7. The transparently bogus claim that medical abortion would satisfy the following current legal definition of murder: “murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” Does he know the meaning of the words “unlawful”, “malice” and “aforethought”, one wonders? I hope he is not a judge or a lawyer. 8. Finally, the author’s insistence in the face of contradictions that he has engaged in a scientific argument, not a theological one. He appears to boast that he is fully capable of debating theology and refuting the well known fact that followers of other religions such as Judaism disagree with his just-stated “scientific” opinions that medical abortion or medical use of human embryos is murder because a zygote is a full human person. But then he sheepishly runs away from this debate by making a lame excuse. All he had to do was state a few pertinent facts and a simple rationale to directly address a substantive point, which he seems to be unable to do, relying instead on glib assertions and evasions. The burden to substantiate empty rhetoric with facts rests on the author in question, and the organization or people he represents, as implied by his use of the collective pronouns “we”, “our” and “us”. Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 1/18/10, Averthanus <[email protected]> wrote: > > The public discussion on the evil of > abortion brought to the fore some important assumptions > which underlay the positions taken by some of the > participants. These "assumptions" need to be addressed > because they determine the conclusions reached by those who > hold them. It will be helpful to the clarification of the > position that abortion is intrinsically evil if we consider > some of the arguments advanced by those who hold the view > that the arbitrary termination of pregnancy is not an act of > murder. (Dr.?) Santosh A. Helekar claims that: "I had > affirmed that science had nothing to do with defining > murder. . ." This affirmation is both outlandish and > illogical.
