<html>
<body>
<font size=4>Greetings:<br><br>
Wayne used to teach logic and ethics in my department, with very high
student evaluations, so anyone should be careful in claiming to have won
an argument against him.<br><br>
While Wayne can certainly defend himself, I just wanted to say that I
never made the absurd claim that a human sperm can develop into an
embryo. What is possible, and may very well have happened, is that
a human ovum can indeed become an embryo without a sperm. Mother
Mary may done it herself, and no dove was required! <br><br>
On this point see the good Father Joseph F. Donceel, "Immediate
Animation and Delayed Hominization," <i>Theological Studies</i> 31
(1970), p. 99. Donceel is a Jesuit who dares to stand against his
church's dogma and supports the traditional view (including Catholic
Thomas Aquinas) that the fetus becomes a person late in
pregnancy.<br><br>
But the technology of cloning could, not the law does not allow it,
produce embryos even more easily. The complete genetic material in each
cell simply has to be transplanted in a viable ovum and then placed in a
womb. The cloning hypothesis is a good example to show the confusion of
genetic and personal identity which is found in most anti-abortion
arguments. <br><br>
If we took the genetic material of 1000 cells from one person's body and
transplanted it in 1000 ova in 1000 wombs, how many potential persons
would we have? Only one person according to the genetic-based arguments
of many conservatives. But this potential "person" would become
1000 different persons according to current law and the traditional
definition of personhood.<br><br>
If anti-abortionists claim that we must preserve the life of the
conceptus because it is a potential person, then the logic of this
argument dictates that we must also preserve the thousands of cells that
our body sheds or excretes every day. As they say in logic:<i>
reductio ad absurdum</i>.<br><br>
By the way, it is really tiresome for some people to say "It's just
your logic, and I don't have to follow your logic." Contrary
to what some French philosophers might say, the rules of logic are same
for every person whose brain is wired correctly.<br><br>
Nick Gier, a true conservative in preserving the traditional view of
personhood<br><br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Wayne, a
valiant effort, but a few minor distinctions: under NO circumstances will
a sperm cell develope into a human. It must first join with an egg,
at which point it becomes an embryo. It is the product of BOTH egg
and sperm, the embryo, which grows into a human. Therefore you and
Nick are incorrect when you insist that a sperm might logically be
granted the status of human.<br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Before you accuse others of
"childlike" logic, it might behoove you to get your facts
strait.<br>
</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>-T<br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd>----- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</a> <br>
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</a> <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Monday, January 29, 2007 9:07 PM<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br><br>
<dd>Tony writes:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">"There is no question that unborn people
are by our English dictionary definition, human beings."<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Wrong! There are several different dictionary definitions of
"human being." Not all of them can be reasonably
construed to include fetuses.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>I am sorry do not understand this part of the issue, but is a matter
of choice of language use, not a matter of fact, of when in the
development of a one-celled zygote into a baby born fully formed the word
"person" or "human being" is applicable. In a
neutral case, the same question: when does an acorn become an oak?<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>By arguing that your definition of "human being" or
"person" is the only "correct" one, you not only show
your misunderstanding of the nature of these kind of disputes, but ignore
the real issues to which at least some factual material may be
applied. There is no doubt that in most cases most zygotes will
develop into babies <font color="#FF0000">under the right
conditions.</font> The same can be said of a spermatozoa or an ovum
<font color="#FF0000">under the right conditions</font>. By
simplifying a very complex issue by childlike insistence on your own
definitions you make progress toward a time when fewer and fewer
abortions will be needed, desired, or occur far more difficult.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition</a><br>
</font>
<dd>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question" eudora="autourl">
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question</a><br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>It has been through the practical efforts of people researching,
developing, promoting, and educating about birth control that the rate of
abortions has decreased, not through the turn-off efforts of the
"Fred Phelps" type of pro-life screechers. Unfortunately
your ego will not let you see any of this, and hence you are unable to
carry on a civil dialogue with those with whom you disagree and who would
also like to see the number of abortions performed decreased, and thus
are promoting more abortions by your distracting raillery. If you
really wish to reduce the rate of abortions instead of acting like an
angry, petulant god to please your own ego, you will have more success if
you work with those of us who are pro-choice in finding practical,
realistic ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and finding
ways to change the conditions under which pregnancies might be considered
unwanted by the women who, in fact, find themselves pregnant.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>You also show your lack of understanding of ethical/value issues by
saying:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>"...such moral relativism, as condemned brilliantly by Allan
Bloom some years ago..."<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Lots of people have condemned moral relativism. Condemning it
is not the same as showing once and for all that it is in error.
The problem of those condemning moral relativism is problematic
because:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font color="#0000FF">All of those who condemn moral relativism wish
to impose a system of absolute morality. Unfortunately, there are
many different "absolute" systems all of which are inconsistent
with each other with no tested, accepted rational means to decide which,
if any of them, is the "true" system. </font>That is the
reason for democratic type of governments -- so that we can continually
discuss issues, especially the factual components, test the
"truth" of solutions, and attempt to make progress toward an
ethic acceptable to the majority of those in a particular
democracy. It is not a foolproof endeavor.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Value/ethical questions have been debated since the earliest times of
humankind. Although the much progress has been made toward
understanding the nature of the issues, especially in the last 150 years
with the advent of analytical methods and an increased understanding of
the nature of language, no demonstrably true ethical system has yet to be
agreed upon, unlike such things like gravity, electricity, mitosis,
operant conditioning, etc. <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Even among those who allege themselves to Christians and who based
their belief on the Bible, there is little agreement upon some very
primary issues: the death penalty, same-sex relations, abortion, making
war, etc.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio than are
dreamed of in all of your philosophy." -- Shakespeare<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>W.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>--- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>From: "Tony"
<<a href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</a>
><br>
<dd>To: "Art Deco"
<<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>><br>
<dd>Cc:
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
><br>
<dd>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:34 PM<br>
<dd>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br><br>
<dd>> Wayne, if you are correct that people are free to choose how
they define <br>
<dd>> language, then we need print no more dictionaries.
Everyone just attaches <br>
<dd>> his or her own meaning to each word or phrase. Think of
the paper we would <br>
<dd>> save!<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> Seriously though Wayne, such moral relativism, as condemned
brilliantly by <br>
<dd>> Allan Bloom some years ago, is precisely what causes
communication to break <br>
<dd>> down and consensus more difficult to reach.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> There is no question that unborn people are by our English
dictionary <br>
<dd>> definition, human beings. The founding documents pledged
to human beings an <br>
<dd>> unalienable right to life. Therefore logic demands that
one accept that in <br>
<dd>> this country our unborn citizens should enjoy constitutional
protections as <br>
<dd>> the rest of us do.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> Also, the woman is not the individual most directly affected by
an <br>
<dd>> abortion - the innocent baby who is being ripped apart is.<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> More truth later, -T<br>
<dd>> ----- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>> From: "Art Deco"
<<a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a>><br>
<dd>> To: "Vision 2020"
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
><br>
<dd>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:22 AM<br>
<dd>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>>> The issue of abortion has many facets. One should be
very obvious: Those <br>
<dd>>> at<br>
<dd>>> odds are arguing in part over the meaning of terms like
"the beginning of<br>
<dd>>> life", "human being", etc. Such
arguments are only useful if recognized <br>
<dd>>> as<br>
<dd>>> such and a set of definitions agreed upon so that the real
issues can be<br>
<dd>>> debated. If either or both parties fail to do this,
the resulting <br>
<dd>>> arguments<br>
<dd>>> are just emotional puffery on the part of those insisting
that their<br>
<dd>>> definitions are the correct ones. People are free to
choose how they <br>
<dd>>> define<br>
<dd>>> and use language.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> The abortion issue is a very emotional one. I do not
know any pro-choice<br>
<dd>>> person who thinks that abortion is something that should be
warmly<br>
<dd>>> encouraged except in special cases. I, for one, wish
that the number of<br>
<dd>>> situations where an abortion is an option could be reduced
through various<br>
<dd>>> strategies including the educated use of birth
control. I take this<br>
<dd>>> position because I don't believe that in a free society
people can be<br>
<dd>>> persuaded in any great number from engaging in activities
that could <br>
<dd>>> result<br>
<dd>>> in conception. The fact remains that unfortunately
undesired pregnancies <br>
<dd>>> do<br>
<dd>>> occur. The point of contention is that who should
decide what to do about<br>
<dd>>> such occurrences: Should it be the woman who is
pregnant and most likely<br>
<dd>>> the one who will be impacted the greatest by the decision to
abort or not <br>
<dd>>> or<br>
<dd>>> someone else?<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Another very troubling aspect of this debate is that
frequently pro-life<br>
<dd>>> advocates base their position solely or in large part on
their particular<br>
<dd>>> superstitious/religious beliefs. For Christians, there
is very little<br>
<dd>>> biblical justification for being pro-life without a great
deal of <br>
<dd>>> contortion<br>
<dd>>> of scripture. In fact, in the two places in the Bible
where abortion is<br>
<dd>>> directly discussed the position taken is morally neutral
except with <br>
<dd>>> respect<br>
<dd>>> to a private property damage claim in one case, or in the
other case,<br>
<dd>>> prescribes an action which would most likely lead to an
aborted fetus.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> One aspect of this debate is fraught with dishonesty and
hypocrisy: So<br>
<dd>>> called libertarians arguing against personal choice.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> The fundamental belief of classical libertarianism is that
the government<br>
<dd>>> (and others) should stay out of individuals' personal
choices in their<br>
<dd>>> lives.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Those so-called libertarians who are pro-life (mostly men)
apparently<br>
<dd>>> believe that personal choice should not be limited only when
it is their<br>
<dd>>> personal choice, not some other's choice whose lives mostly
likely would <br>
<dd>>> be<br>
<dd>>> greatly affected by such choices. Many so-called
"religious libertarians"<br>
<dd>>> are truly hypocrites. Their credo is that personal
choice should not be<br>
<dd>>> limited except when it conflicts with their particular
religious<br>
<dd>>> beliefs/superstitions, many of which are very restrictive
and horribly<br>
<dd>>> draconian.<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<dd>>> <a href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> ----- Original Message ----- <br>
<dd>>> From: "david sarff"
<<a href="mailto:davesway@hotmail.com">davesway@hotmail.com</a>><br>
<dd>>> To:
<<a href="mailto:debismith@moscow.com">debismith@moscow.com</a>><br>
<dd>>> Cc:
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a>
><br>
<dd>>> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:06 AM<br>
<dd>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>>> Yes, this is a troubling factor.<br>
<dd>>>> I'm pretty sure there really is not a Soy version of
Tony Baloney. He is<br>
<dd>>>> now<br>
<dd>>>> engaged in seeing his own reflection in others and is
striking out at the<br>
<dd>>>> ugliness. Frankly, I openly suppose that he was not
loved when he needed<br>
<dd>>>> it<br>
<dd>>>> most, during developmental years and uses attention
seeking tools to<br>
<dd>>>> verify<br>
<dd>>>> his existence. We literally have the screaming tantrum
of a baby when not<br>
<dd>>>> getting attention his way. Sadly this format is used as
little more than <br>
<dd>>>> a<br>
<dd>>>> squeaky toy, like a pet dog might. A child in this
position likely needs<br>
<dd>>>> outside forces tending to it, but that is his job now
and the best action<br>
<dd>>>> when this situation occurs is to not respond. As you are
indeed basically<br>
<dd>>>> pointing out.<br>
<dd>>>> We can talk around it though.<br>
<dd>>>> This kind of problem will continue on this list and
across the globe. To<br>
<dd>>>> be<br>
<dd>>>> sure there are many persons of differing beliefs,
sensitivities, shapes,<br>
<dd>>>> colors and sexes that wisely avoid any emotional
stabbing. The content of<br>
<dd>>>> this and other topics is important to many. If the list
is to stay open,<br>
<dd>>>> we<br>
<dd>>>> must cope with even the most selfish and cognitively
handicapped.<br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>> Thank you Debi, with no demands or expectations,
my invitation remains.<br>
<dd>>>> Dave<br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>>This is why more women are not involved in this
particular thread...<br>
<dd>>>>>Debi R-S<br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>
>>>>From:
"Tony"
<<a href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</a>
><br>
<dd>
>>>>To:
"Tom Hansen"
<<a href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</a>><br>
<dd>>>>>Date sent: Sun, 28 Jan
2007 17:35:46 -0800<br>
<dd>>>>>Copies to:
<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>Tom, for God's sake, would you call what Charles
Manson had his<br>
<dd>>>>>followers do to Sharon Tate, an
"operation?" How then can you<br>
<dd>>>>>characterize the equally barbaric practice of ripping
an innocent<br>
<dd>>>>>child from it's mother's womb and then summarily
trash canning the<br>
<dd>>>>>bloody remains, as a medical procedure??<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>Think, you misguided enabler! A man who
intentionally causes the<br>
<dd>>>>>violent death of an innocent child, is NOT a
"physician" but simply a<br>
<dd>>>>>more polished Charley Manson. The result is the
same: violent and<br>
<dd>>>>>unnecessary death.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>When judgment day comes, if there is such a thing,
may God have mercy<br>
<dd>>>>>on your soul, Tom, for countenancing our modern age's
most horrific<br>
<dd>>>>>crime.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>-T<br>
<dd>>>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>
<dd>>>>> From: Tom Hansen<br>
<dd>>>>> To: 'Scott Dredge' ;
<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:05
AM<br>
<dd>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for
All Life<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Two things that legalizing abortions
(prior to the third trimester)<br>
<dd>>>>> accomplishes:<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> 1) Reduces mandated influence of
the government over women's<br>
<dd>>>>> personal lives.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> 2) Provides availability of
sterilized environments and<br>
<dd>>>>> trained/qualified physicians for such an
operation.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> To believe that abortions will not occur
if they are not legal is<br>
<dd>>>>> absolutely ludicrous. To believe
that the number of abortions has<br>
<dd>>>>> increased since Roe v. Wade is just as
ignorant. Perhaps the number<br>
<dd>>>>> of REPORTED abortions has increased,
possibly due to a drastic<br>
<dd>>>>> reduction in abortions being performed
in back alleys with coat<br>
<dd>>>>> hangers.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Tom "I'm Pro-Choice and I
Vote" Hansen<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Moscow, Idaho<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> "Don't pray in my school and I
won't think in your church."<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> - Author Unknown<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dd>>>>>--------<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> From:
<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">
vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>>
[<a href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</a>] On Behalf Of Scott Dredge<br>
<dd>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:03 PM
To: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for
All Life<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Tony,<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> You can oppose abortion all you
want. The fact is that whether or<br>
<dd>>>>> not abortion remains legalized or
whether it is completely banned<br>
<dd>>>>> will not directily impact you. You
personally gain no rights nor<br>
<dd>>>>> lose any rights as abortion restrictions
ebb and flow.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> But would your position on
"compassion for all life" change at all<br>
<dd>>>>> if you were affected? For
instance, let's say that I need half of<br>
<dd>>>>> your liver to survive because for
[insert any reason] my own liver<br>
<dd>>>>> is failing. Let's say that an
operation to split your liver carries<br>
<dd>>>>> no more risk of death to you than that
of a woman in child birth.<br>
<dd>>>>> Let's also say that the recovery time
from this operation is no more<br>
<dd>>>>> burdensome than what women typically go
through from late term<br>
<dd>>>>> pregnancies through child birth.
Your liver will regenerate back to<br>
<dd>>>>> full size 6 months after the
operation. The question then I have<br>
<dd>>>>> for you is this: should you be allowed
to make the choice of whether<br>
<dd>>>>> or not to donate half of your liver to
save my life or should the<br>
<dd>>>>> government be allowed to strap you to a
gurney against your will and<br>
<dd>>>>> take half of your liver to save me in
the name of "compassion for<br>
<dd>>>>> all life"?<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> Looking forward to your bobbing and
weaving response - if you have<br>
<dd>>>>> any response at all.<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>> -Scott<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dd>>>>>--------<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>>>>>
=======================================================<br>
<dd>>>>> List services made available by
First Step Internet,<br>
<dd>>>>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
>>>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>
>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>>
=======================================================<br>
<dd>>>>><br>
<dd>
>>>>=======================================================<br>
<dd>>>>> List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
<dd>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<br>
<dd>
>>>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>
>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>
>>>>=======================================================<br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>>
_________________________________________________________________<br>
<dd>>>> Get live scores and news about your team: Add the
Live.com Football Page<br>
<dd>>>>
<a href="http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football">
http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football</a><br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>>>
=======================================================<br>
<dd>>>> List services made available by First Step
Internet,<br>
<dd>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
>>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>>>
=======================================================<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> =======================================================<br>
<dd>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
<dd>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<dd>
>>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<dd>>>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>>> =======================================================<br>
<dd>>><br>
<dd>>> <br>
<dd>> <br>
<dd>> <br><br>
<hr>
<dd>=======================================================<br>
<dd> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
<dd> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<dd>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<dd>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
<dd>=======================================================<br><br>
</dl>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net /" eudora="autourl">
http://www.fsr.net
</a> <br>
<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================</blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font size=2>"Truth is the summit of being; justice is the
application of it to human affairs."<br>
--Ralph Waldo Emerson<br><br>
"Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings
who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it."<br>
--Mohandas Gandhi<br><br>
"Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot
be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each
part by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on
the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our
intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science,
religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its
various parts." --Ma</font><font size=1>x Planck<br><br>
</font>Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href="http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm<br>
</a>208-882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href="http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm" eudora="autourl">
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm<br><br>
</a></body>
</html>