Reply to comment

In reading the previous comments on the distinction between life and living, between living and non-living, it has become very clear that the subjectivity of this debate makes it impossible to reach a consensus. Here is the danger of scientific "fact" or even theory being used to bolster political and ethical opinion. In a debate so touchy as the one on abortion (and on stem cells), each side is using the most convenient "scientific" definition of life and living to argue for what is undoubtedly an ethical and faith-based opinion. Many others in the class have raised the question: what role does faith play in science? I think it provides the purpose for many ground-breaking observations in the history of earth and human sciences. It should not, I would argue, be present in the observations themselves. Faith may spark curiosity, but it shouldn't form a scientist's perspective. You can't prove right and wrong; morality is a social construct. So how can a debate that is rooted in defining the moment that the life of an organism acquires value ever be scientifically resolved?