From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:13:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct07.055728.118130@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>In  <1992Oct6.190757.21860@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <ld3d2qINN337@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric
>> >In article <1992Oct6.052055.26529@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu
>> >>In article <ld23t0INNrii@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Er
>> >
>> >>>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]
>> >

>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >So what?
>> >
>> >I see no significance to this.
>> >
>> I am hoping that people come from a basic notion that human's are indeed
>> special, and the idea that human's are renewable would be very reprehensible.
>> But, the so what response is making me rethink that we are coming from the
>> basic notion of human worth.
>
>The fact that it's a cell with a unique genetic code doesn't make it
>valuable any more than it makes a cancer valuable. 

A cancer is definitely not human.  The fetus is.

> The basic notion
>of human worth is something I apply to what is commonly referred to as
>a human being - a (born) person.
>
So you think those human creatures who are postconceived but not yet
born have no human worth?

>> As I said before, what gets weighed is the woman's life vs. the
>> unborn's right to life.  Of course, the right to life a human must
>> be given precedence.
>
>The rights of a person must of course be given precedence over the "rights"
>of a microscopic handful of cells.  (Hey - this blatant assertion is *easy*!)

If the "cells" you are talking about have no relationship between a new
human life and it is just "human tissue" which is alive, great.  I have
nothing against removing a "parasitic growth."  But of course, those "cells"
just happen to make up a human life (read homo sapien member).  So what
is really happening here is comparing two lives and their right to live.

BTW, you are just a bunch of cells too.  I am just a piece of "human tissue"
too.

>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> >What about the rights of the woman. Looks to me like your trying to
>> >take them away.
>>
>> There are lots of cases where certain "rights" come in conflict.  Of course
>> some "rights" would take precedence over certain others.  To give a "lesser
>> right" precedence over a greater one would not be prudent.
>
>And of course the right to prevent your bodily autonomy from being violated
>takes precedence over the right to life of the violator when both are people,

Sounds as if our own unborn sons and daughters are guilty of trespassing,
entering private property, battery (hey.  He/she kicked me from inside!),
etc.  What can we sentence our unborn children to?

>and we certainly wouldn't want to give a fetus *more* rights than a person.
We certainly will give fellow members of homo sapiens a very basic, and
fundamental, natural right to life.  

>Particularly at the expense of the rights of the woman who is, without
>question, a person.

Both the woman and the unborn child within her are definitely both
humans.

>
>> >Again, once you have taken away women's rights, what group is next?
>> >Gays?
>>
>> Once the right to life of the unborn is taken away, squashed, and diced
>> and sliced, who is next?  The criminals?  The sick?  The elderly?  The
>> deformed?  The poor?  The starving?  The rich?
>
>They're all born.  Next strawman, please.
>
Sounds like there is a discrimination between those who are born and
those who are not yet born.  Why discriminate on location?  Certainly,
location does not define an individual.

>> >>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.
>> >
>> >Looks to me like you just redefined the word "rights" to support more
>> >"truth by blatant assertion."
>>
>> We hold these truth's to be self evident.
>>
>> Don't you hold the right to life of humans to be rather self-evident?
>
>Of people, yes.  If you lump in zygotes, no.
>
More human discrimination, in my eyes, anyway.