From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:20:55 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <ld23t0INNrii@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.002854.2806@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <ld1kqvINNpvc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]
>
>>>>>If you read the post that you just responded to, you would have noticed
>>>>>that I had no qualms about stating that human life is destroyed in
>>>>>the abortion proceedure. 
>
>>>>I know you made a few other comments concerning this, but the above comment
>>>>may speak for itself.  Abortion, does, indeed, kill human life and you
>>>>have no qualms about it.  
>
>>>Yes, that is correct. Every time I scratch myself I also kill human life,
>>>and I have no qualms about that either.
>
>>Skin cells are not members of homo sapiens.  Unless you come up with a very
>>creative but twisted justificiation trying to prove that skin cells, are
>>indeed, members of homo sapiens.
>
>Funny, I don't recall you saying anything about "members of homo sapients."
>You said human life. Skin cells are most certainly human life, wouldn't
>you agree?
>
Nope.  Human life, in my terminology, is synonymous with being a member of
homo sapiens.

>>>As far as I'm concerned, when people are willing to allow the rights
>>>of their fellows to be trampled on, which is exactly what happens to
>>>women who are forced to endure unwanted pregnancies, we all suffer.
>
>>But I'm afraid you are forgetting who else is being trampled on.  Well,
>>not trampled on.  Perhaps, diced and sliced, sucked away, cut up, etc.
>
>There is no _who_ else. Try this concept and see if it is comprehensible:
>it is not mere human tissue that we value, it is people. The measure of
>what is or is not a person is mental capability.  The z/e/f has no mental
>capability. None. Zero. Nada.

Do you have anything against killing a human life (read, member of homo
sapiens)?

>>>So whats worse? To remove the rights of people, or to destroy human
>>>tissue?
>
>>Just human tissue, eh?  Unfortunately, that human tissue is a member of
>>homo sapiens.  So when comparing one human with another, do you kill one
>>in order to appease the other?
>
>Just as my skin cells are.
>
Yeah, sure.  Read the tons of responses to this type of claim.

>We are not measuring one person against another, we are measuring a
>person against some human tissue, that lacks the attributes necessary
>for personhood.

We are matching one human life for another human life, pure and simple.
I hope you aren't for killing human life, are you?  

>
>>>>>As I mentioned in my last paragraph (not to mention my last post) I do
>>>>>not dispute that human life is being destroyed. After all, a clump of
>>>>>living human tissue is, by definition, human life. I do not agree that
>>>>>human life begins at conception. Any good biology text will tell you that
>>>>>the egg and sperm are also human life.
>
>>>>I don't really think so.  An egg and a sperm, as mentioned for the millionth
>>>>plus third time, are not fit be be called members of homo sapiens.  
>
>>>This is what is generally referred to around here as "truth by blatant
>>>assertion." 
>
>>I assert because science, biology, common sense and reason, says so.  
>>Would you call your cheek cells members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>Would you call your toenails members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>Will you call a five month unborn child a member of homo sapiens?  I sure
>>hope so.  
>
>If you wre to take a single cell off my cheek, isolate it and keep it
>alive, by your definition it would be a member of species homo sapient.

A definite no.  Read an article I posted/wrote regarding this.

>It is just as much a living human cell with its own genetic code as is
>a fertilized egg. In fact, it might even divide and make more cells.
>
Oh a human cheek cell is defintely a human cell.  But note that the human
cheek cell is a mere portion.  In and of itself, it is nothing.  A fertilized
egg, however, in and of itself, in its entire sum, is a member of homo 
sapiens.  Its entire genetic code is contained in its whole sum of parts.

>Does this cell have mental capabilities? No, but apparently you do not
>consider that to be an issue. In fact, I'm not sure just what you do 
>consider to be an issue here. Is it genetic code? My skin cell has that.
>Is it life? My skin cell has that.

Realize that that which is created at conception can never be replaced.  It
isn't as simple comparing this to another skin cell.  The NEW genetic code
is very different from the mother.  The mothers skin cells are basically
hers.  The cells in the mother's unborn child are all his/hers.
>
>>Do I really have to explain this???
>
>Yes, because your arguments are flawed and incomplete. Perhaps if I
>walk you through them a few times you will begin to comprhend those
>flaws.

Read my other article on this.  I am way too tired to have to keep repeating
the same things over and over again.

Repeating things over and over again is one way of knowing its time
to get out of talk.abortion.

>
>>>>>>With this, it is easy to also say that the pro-choicer's attitudes are 
>>>>>>also "damn cold."
>
>>I'm afraid you are getting a little carried away here.  Living tissue
>>is a great euphemism to human life, isn't it?  By the way, you are just living
>>tissue too.  Your family and my family are just separate units of living
>>human tissue, too.
>
>Yep, I'm just human tissue. However certain specialized types of tissues
>have grown connected in a certain manner necessary for me to develop
>the attribute known as consciousness. This is what differentiates me,
>and it is an attribute lacking in the z/e/f.
>
So you wouldn't mind killing a z/e/f which is, in all respects, a human
life.  Remember, that z/e/f someone aborted is the person who would ahve
cured cancer, cured AIDS, or saved you when you needed help most.

>>>After you remove women's rights, then what group will you turn your attention
>>>to next? As a member of a minority religion, I'm well aware of how fascist
>>>groups behave, and your "pro-life" movement is one of the finest I've seen
>>>in a while, coming in second only to white supremists.
>
>>Do women's rights include the right to kill their human offspring?
>
>If the offspring is lacking those "personhood" attributes I described
>and if it conflicts in an unavoidable way with her freedom and well
>being then I say she does.

The same offspring you are talking about is a unique human individual.  You
are really giving people the right to kill special human individuals.  Just
think about that.  

>
>>>>If you think allowing an unborn child to live is forcing, then what would
>>>>killing an unborn child be, freedom?
>
>>>I have no problem with _allowing_ a z/e/f to live, if that is the will
>>>of the woman carrying it. In contrast, you are calling for the use
>>>of _force_ when you coerce somebody to submit their bodily resources 
>>>against their will. As I said, when you have removed women's rights, then
>>>who is next?
>
>>You can also say:
>>   We have removed the rights of the innocent unborn.  Who is next?  The
>>   sick and the elderly?  The deformed newborns?  The criminals?  Deformed
>>   individuals?  The very very rich?  (For those who hate the rich)  The
>>   poor? (for those who think the poor are great burdens to society)  
>>   Your enemies?
>
>Hey, I'm not the one advocating taking peoples rights away. 
>
>You are... Remember?
>
I'm not taking away people's rights.  Whatever gave you that idea.
What is being weighed here is the life of the unborn child and the
life of the mother.  Notice that the right of the unborn child to live
is being protected.  Rights aren't being taken away, rights are being
preserved.  The mother does not have the right to kill any human individual
whether in her or outside of her (of course, we have to balance the right
of the mother to live, too).  So you can't take away a right which
should never have been there or was never there.