From: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an a
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:03:06 GMT
Reply-To: bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ronald Bense)
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In talk.abortion, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>Why should "personhood" depend on the circumstances.  Existence of the
>human life, not the circumstances.

Because the way you use "human life" is synonymous with person. Person
is completely subjective, and depends on circumstances. Need further
elucidation?

>I sure hope you aren't comparing killing human lives to killing bugs, birds,
>cattle, etc.  Human lives, no matter what stage in life, should not be
>compared to bugs, birds, etc. Its dehumanizing.

Here we go, another tactic of those less than fully understanding of
the concepts of life and personhood.

>To give a Condor Unborn the right to life while our own unborn sons and
>daughters are being killed by their mothers is very saddening.  There are
>huge fines for destroying a Condor Egg for example.  No one even cares
>whehter the Condor is a true Living, moving condor or not.  There are fines

And there should be, since man is the direct cause for bringing the
condor (and other animals) to virtual extinction. Also, there is no
pressing need to kill the condor (or many other animals) as they pose
no threat nor hardship to any man. (Notice that there is no prohibition
against killing roaches, termites, beetles, aphids, mice, spuirrels,
moles, groundhogs, chipmunks,.... you get the picture, I think.) Note
also, however, that should another animal or the condor mother itself
wish to kill the young, there will be no fines or other penalties, as
they may do so. Just man (and woman) is barred from killing them or
causing them to be killed. 

>for poisoning pigeons, or shooting birds.   Lots of animals get protection
>under law except one, our own human unborn sons and daughters.

There are no fines for poisoning them or otherwise killing them, as
long as it's done under controlled conditions. I think you'll find there
were other reasons to ban the poisoning of pigeons than just "saving
the pigeons". Same with shooting birds. This has been banned in several
areas, true, but all I know of were done because of the cruelty to the
animals (whether they were shot just for sport or they were wounded
and slowly and painfully died) or for safety or noise reasons.

>If animals are worth more than our own unborn children, then it is obvious
>that the value of human life has depreciated to a point where killing our
>own becomes accepted and is seen to be a right in some circles to be fought
>for.

It is not. It is only allowed in a case where one definitely abridges
the rights of another, and this has always allowed the use of violent
force, to the point of being lethal, to preserve one's state of body.

>We are discriminating between one human life and another, the difference
>being the different stages in life.  To discriminate on the basis of
>time a human has been in existence can be dangerous.  Does seniority
>afford us the special privilege or life?

It is not a human. A single cell, or two cells is not a human.

>Life is not a privilege.  It is a right.

Bzzzzt!!! Wrong. Incorrect answer. No where is there a right to life.

Ron                          Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
			     The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
			     Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion