From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an a
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:30:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.181822.7837@netcom.com> bskendig@netcom.com (Brian Kendig) writes:

>>But how can someone say that human worth is given because of a location
>>of that person?  The unborn one hour before birth is not much different
>>from the newborn one hour after birth, but where did its worth change?
>>Did the "initiation" of birth give that child the privilege of life?
>
>The difference is that one is inhabiting the mother's body, and the
>other isn't.

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

I write:
>> So you would establish the right to kill, then?

>Yes, of course!  We kill lots of things -- bugs, birds, cattle -- and
>nobody even bats an eye.  

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.

>I feel that we have even _more_ of a right
>to kill something which not only is biologically far inferior to any
>of these (it hasn't developed enough yet), but is also incapable of
>living outside the womb, instead requiring that it draw all its
>sustenance from a woman's body.  It's not a person YET.

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

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.

>
>>Why do "persons" have the right to life while other humans don't.  This
>>type of discrimination between humans can often be dangerous.
>
>Giving the right to life based on something purely genetic, a low
>physical level, seems very arbitrary to me.

Nothing is arbitrary about giving the most basic and fundamental right
of humans to life to human lives at the very moment of their existence as
human lives.  To say it comes at any other time is more arbitrary, and it
is dangerous.  For personhood can easily be moved to several weeks after
birth (not self conscious) and moved to the point where the senile, deformed
and the sick ("mercy killing") don't get even the most basic protection
of life.  Infanticide, Euthanasia, etc would be logical consequences of
using the so called "personhood" to judge whether people have a right
to life or not.  

Why so exclusive?  We are compassionate enough to extend protections
to all humans no matter what stage in their human existence.  Human lives
deserve human life.

>
>If I connect myself to a woman and feed off her bodily resources, and
>can't survive without doing so, then there is a conflict of interests;
>the woman's right to her body 

No, the woman's right to her life.

>might give her the right to disconnect
>herself from me, even though it would kill me.
>

>
>>>I'm also able to discriminate between people that can
>>>breathe, think, move around on their own, etc., and the union of a sperm
>>>and an egg.  That you can't tell the difference is, I believe, rather sad.
>>>
>>This discrimination involves leaving certain humans outside the
>>"umbrella" allowing these humans to be killed, used for genetic experiments,
>>etc.  The disrespect for human life should affect us.  WHen we start
>>"limiting" certain humans to be "worthy" to live, it becomes apparent that
>>our society becomes an exclusive one where those who are not wanted are
>>discriminated against.  
>
>I don't know if you don't understand our position or if you're just
>outraged at it, but let me try to explain it anyway.  Discriminating
>between one thinking, living person and another based on skin color or
>hair color or sex is bad, of course.  But discriminating between one
>organism and another based on the existence of a brain or the ability
>to survive without being a parasite seems only logical to me.

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?

Life is not a privilege.  It is a right.

>
>>Cooperation not annihilation.
>
>I would VERY MUCH like to work with you to eliminate the need for
>abortion.  I hope that someday we can make sure that every conception
>results in a happy, well-adjusted person.

... and that many conecptions don't end in forced and induced death, too. 
>
>But legislation only fouls up the gears and rouses hostility and
>frustration.  If pro-lifers were to just decide to drop their legal
>agenda, then we all could work together towards the common goal of
>making abortion an option that's never used.

I would hate to see the murder and rape laws dropped because we want
those who want to kill and rape vs. those who are against it to stop
fighting against each other.  Sure we can try to create a society which
will make murder and rape an option that's never used.  But to say murder
and rape should be dropped from law is too much to ask.

Abortion is killing a human life which exists and deserves the most
basic and most fundamental right to life from the moment of its existence.
Legalized abortion does nothing to remove the 'acceptibility' of abortion.
Many of those born after '72 think abortion is fine and accepted and 
right because it is legal.