Reading this article on the SCNT debate in Missouri, previously posted by Tim, this section popped out at me:
Steven Teitelbaum...said he believes that cells in a Petri dish are not persons. But science, he said, cannot answer the question.Teitelbaum is correct that there is no way to scientifically prove when the soul enters the body. And different religions hold differing beliefs.“It depends on your religious tradition, your ethics, the feeling in your gut…” Teitelbaum said. “When does a soul come into the body, if at all? Clearly, no one knows that.”
But, if Teitelbaum is correct that no one knows for sure, why would he automatically say it is okay to destroy life that people are unsure about? Wouldn't logic dictate that if "science cannot answer that question" that we should err on the side of caution?
With all the of buzz over Cheney's hunting accident, I am reminded of my philosophy professor's favorite analogy:
You are hunting in the woods with buddies. You hear a rustle behind you. It could be a deer. It could be one of your buddies. It could be a person. You just do not know. Do you shoot?Why would scientists like Teitelbaum assume that "shooting" in the face of uncertainty is the correct action?
Great analogy. I think the answer to your question is that statements such as
"It depends on your religious tradition, your ethics, the feeling in your gut"
are used to discount the position of others but not are not applied to the person making the statement. There is nothing uncertain or fuzzy in Teitelbaum's confidence that a newly formed human is not valuable (not a person). What is the basis for his belief? He doesn't say. What he is asserting is that no one has the ability or the right to question his faith regarding the inception of life.
Great answer...and better than the question!