Re: compulsory pre-mortem dissection

"Greg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: 
: "Peter Ashby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: >  "Wayne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
: > > Rivaz.  You're not one of those sub-human pieces
: > > of filth who once did, or does now, sexually assault and dissect
: innocent,
: > > helpless dead people againt their will, are you?
: > >
: > Dead people have no will.
: 
: You certainly have not one iota of proof for that claim!

There is certainly no proof of the opposite, either. The probability is very high that 
dead people, or more precisely in this context their physical bodies, have no will; 
accepting the simplist explanation, until an "iota of proof" is discovered, seems the 
most rational course.
 
:  Anyway it is not the post mortem issue that is
: > interesting
: 
: It's real interesting to me, not knowing if I'll be left unmolested and
: unharmed, or mulilated from some faggot physician.

Your "faggot" adjective shows several definite biases: that there's something wrong 
with homosexuals, and that female physicians won't molest or mutilate (I assume you 
don't really mean "mulilated") you. Or perhaps you wouldn't object to a _female_ 
physician doing this?

: or the basis of the debate with John. It is his contention
: > that dead things can be 'brought back'. His inability to see this as an
: > article of faith, rather than informed with sound science is a matter of
: > amusement,

This seems like a very sensible contention to me. Faith is blind belief, a sacred cow 
to some people, which precludes rational discussion.

My thoughts, anyway, on an interesting topic.

-- 
Dugie

Lose HAIR to email.
--

<giant snip>
: And may I ask what you do at the School of Life Science, Peter?
: 
:         Wayne
: 
: >
: > So I have removed us from the groups list.
: >
: > Peter
<snip>