From: jbrindle@halcyon.com (Jennifer Brindle)
Subject: Re: The christian perspective...?
Organization: The 23:00 News and Mail Service
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:15:57 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.171158.20935@nntp.uoregon.edu> egorr@hebb.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.002553.124013@watson.ibm.com>, Larry Margolis
><margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> 
>> In  <1992Sep24.011307.7484@nntp.uoregon.edu>  eric_gorr@coglab_psych.uoregon.edu (Eric Gorr) writes:
>> > In article <v67nb=k.ray@netcom.com>, ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> > >
>> > > Nope, I'm afraid that in this case human eggs and sperm are undeniably
>> > > human life.
>> >
>> > Left seperated and with no interference, neither will ever be "born."
>> >

Can I infer from your statement here that if a fetus won't ever be born,
then it isn't what you consider "human life"?  IT seems that way to me.
YOu state that eggs and sperm won't be born--is that your criteria of
what makes something "human life"?--the fact that it will be born?

Inquiring minds want to know.

>> > Therefore, they are not human life...where as, when joined, they are.
>> 

I see, so...since eggs and sperm aren't joined, then can't be born, and
therefore they aren't "human life" (I use quotes because that's your
term--I would write 'a human life' which is very different, but you fail
to understand the difference).

So anything that can't be or won't be born isn't "human life"?

Just checking.

>> 1.  They're human and they're alive, so they constitute "human life".
>
>Well, let me explain again.  What I mean be human life is something human
>that will develop into a child (be born).  Comments?
>

I see. so, if a fetus doesn't develop into a child, "be born", to use your
words, then it isn't "human life"?  Or are you counting your chickens
before they hatch and assuming that since it is normal for a fetus to be
born, then that should be the criteria to determine "human life"?  Is
that your sole criteria?


>> 2.  Left by itself and with no interference, no zygote will ever be
>>     "born" either.
>
>True.  But that would be bad interference.  If something it "bad," it
>shouldn't be done.  Or do you think that doing evil things is ok?

Who's definition of "bad interference" are we using?  Yours or mine?
Who's definition of "evil" are we using? Yours or mine?
Let's get the terminology and definitions straight before we go on.


Listen, college boy.  I don't think very many folks here would dispute
that a fertilized egg is human.  I don't think very many folks here would
dispute that an embryo is human.  I don't think very many folks here would
dispute that a fetus is human.  What IS in dispute with respect to this
question is _when_ it becomes a human, and _when_ it becomes a person.

Now, when it becomes a human is moot.  I don't think anyone will ever
unequivocably know that.  Human life began on this planet a long, long
time ago on a continent far, far away.  An individual human gets its
start from components of its mother and father.  But when does that 
particular human life begin?  Conception?  Not if it splits into twins
or triplets--for those cases, each individual begins at the moment it 
splits.  But, it, as a whole, started before then.  I guess the same is
true for individual human life in general--it is ongoing, is it not?
When I die, some of me will remain in my children (assuming they outlife
me).  When they die, some of me and them will remain in their children....
So, part of me will never die (unless a descendent has no children).
What does that mean?  It means that all individuals are tied togetner,
and we don't start and stop like an chair or car--we are all part of 
a chain of life.

Now, when it becomes a person is quite different.  Personhood is a legal
term.  And, since you've already stated that you don't want to talk
legalities, why don't you go home as you have absolutely nothing to say.

Or, do you want to talk legalities after all?

Jennifer
Newsgroups: talk.abortion