From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1992 05:57:28 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

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. ]
> >
> >>>>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.
> >
> >Ahhh.... I see...
> >
> >Heck of a way to win an argument. All you have to do is redefine the
> >terms.
> >
> I never REdefined any terms.  I have always held that.  It's just that other
> people, without my consent, have redefined it for me.

You misunderstand.  You might not have changed the definition *you're* using,
but you redefined the term human life to mean something more restrictive
than simply "human life".

> *sigh*  Skin cells or your appendix are not human life.  They are not
> members of homo sapiens as I hope your common sense would dictate.

That's where you're getting confused.  See, they're living human cells,
so they *are* "human life", even though they don't meet *your* definition.

> Grow, but that doesn't make it human, in any sense of the world.

The fact that it came from a human makes it human, albeit not *a* human.
Adjective versus noun.

> >>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.  The basic notion
of human worth is something I apply to what is commonly referred to as
a human being - a (born) person.

> 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*!)

> >>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,
and we certainly wouldn't want to give a fetus *more* rights than a person.
Particularly at the expense of the rights of the woman who is, without
question, a person.

> >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.

> >>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.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion