From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:34:15 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <1992Sep25.184205.12710@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <19lsaiINNd6c@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep21.161808.15296@brtph560.bnr.ca> alex@bnr.ca writes:
>> >
>> >   I do feel strongly that these are some of the problems which have to
>> >   be addressed. I take objection to you statement that I said only
>> >   Christians discriminate or that Blacks, Hispanics and Asians can not
>> >   be Christians. These are not my statements.
>> >
>> >   I and my wife, as a couple, are against abortion. We feel it is
>> >   our responsibilty, as adults, to the unborn child. I personally
>> >   feel that one has to take care not to get into an unwanted pregnancy,
>> >   and in our case if the accident happened we would have the child.
>> >   But we would never think of imposing our values on the other people.
>> 
>> You care a lot for those who are "already here."  That is great.  Good work.
>> But since you are againsts, abortion, following the same reasoning, why don't
>> you care for them too?  Human life is human life, isn't it?
>> 
>> Is your problem "imposing your values?"  Well, you have concern for people
>> "here" and I'm sure you'd have nothing against laws against murder.  But
>> you are, indeed, "imposing" your value of the value of human life.  Nothing
>> is wrong in caring for human life BORN and UNBORN.
>> >
>> >   We should value people that are already here.
>> 
>> 	Sounds like "we should forget about the unborn."
>> >
>> >   That is the point of my posting.
>> 
>Well, if you're gonna cry about the unborn, we should outlaw
>the pill -- it acts to prevent birth.  We should also outlaw
>sterilization of males and females -- it prevents a birth.

There is a big difference between human life which is there and human life
which has yet to be created.  

>
>Oh, when the sperm and egg meet, then there is life?  Well,
>a sperm is alive, so is the egg.  
>
>So where do you draw the line?

Try putting a sperm inside a mother's womb (making sure it makes no
interaction with an egg or anything like that).  Wait about nine months.
See any sign of a screaming crying baby?

Now put a fertilized egg inside a mother's womb.  Barring a miscarriage or
abortion, wait about nine months.  See any sign of a crying screaming baby?

>
>The Catholoic church has drawn it at condoms and the pill.
>

If you are talking about life, I believe, the Catholic Church agrees with
the scientific community in saying life begins at conception.

>Others at conception and still others at fetal viability.
>
>I believe it is the Hindus who believe that spirit enters
>the body at birth (no life until birth).
>
>Given that we have persons of all religous persuasions in
>this country, and we have (supposedly) the right to 
>freedom of religion, the decision of when abortion
>becomes murder belongs in the church and the home,
>not the gov't.
>

As has been mentioned a million+2 times, abortion is not necessarily
a religious issue (those who have seen this response a million+3 times, feel
free to press 'n').  There are those in the pro-life movement who are of
many different Religions.  There are even those who are athiests!  So how
can they be pro-life and not religious?  No church or ideology is guiding
them.

Part of the reason is that looking at the world, seeing, learning, and
trying to understand, people have come to the conclusion that real
human life exists within the mother's womb, and because each person has
a special intrinsic value in them, human life must be protected whether
it be born or unborn.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:7587 alt.politics.clinton:8292