From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: rights and responsibilities
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 03:08:02 GMT

Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com> writes:

>In  <Bw4v7v.JwC@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>  kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>> "Andrea B. Gansley-Ortiz" <ag1v+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>>
>> >Question. How is this so?  Maybe in lab experiments they can merge two eggs,
>> >but that still takes some force outside the mother to make the fertilization
>> >possible. Without fertilization there will be no child. As far as we know
>> >now, it takes two to make fertilization happen.
>>
>> If you believe that a human being exists from the moment of conception,
>> then two people are necessary to create a human being.  If you believe
>> the fetus is an unviable tissue mass, than it takes only one person,
>> the pregnant woman, to make a human being.  The man merely supplies raw
>> materials.

>This is where "kellmeyer logic" takes a big leap away from reality.
>Both the man and the woman supply equal amounts of genetic material,
>to make a zygote.  The zygote develops into an embryo and then a fetus,
>using the resources provided by the woman.

ANd here is where Larry gets hoisted by his own petard.  Because he is 
adamant in insisting that not one of the terms above refers to a child.
Thus, it is obvious to someone even as dim as Larry that the man does
not create a child.

Larry virtually declares that the man is merely a supplier of raw materials
in the last sentence above.  Each developmental stage occurs only and
solely because the woman supplies the materials and the location to 
continue production of what is not, according to him, a child.  It will
become a child only IF the woman chooses to finish production. 

>Neither the man nor the
>woman "created" the born child; they provided the gametes which created
>the zygote that developed into the child.

The man supplied nothing more.  The woman supplied EVERYTHING ELSE. 
Is Larry saying that an unviable tissue mass can create itself into
a child?  Preposterous!  For if it can do so, it cannot be unviable!
No, that tissue mass depends entirely on the woman's generosity for
existence.  Without the woman, there would be no development.  Apart
from a single raw material delivery, the man is completely unimportant -
that's why men have no right to any legal voice in the abortion 
decision.  The woman, according to the pro-aborts, exercises total
unilateral control solely because she is the one who creates the child -
without her, it remains an unviable tissue mass.  The courts recognize
this - GESTATIONAL mothers are the mothers in the eyes of the law, NOT
the egg donors, not the rearing mothers. 

Now if egg donors aren't mothers, why should sperm donors be fathers?
Why indeed?  Anonymous sperm donors are legally forbidden from EVER 
being considered parents in any sense of the word, regardless of the
results of paternity testing.  They would have to adopt their own
biological children, with the consent of the gestational mother, as if
they had no genetics shared at all if they wanted to be a father to
a child which had half their genetic material.   

Larry's uncomfortable because my predictions are coming true.

>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Steve Kellmeyer
-- 

Steve Kellmeyer 
kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.abortion