From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 23:45:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <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 Marsh) writes:

>>>>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]

>>>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.

Your definition of what human life is appears to be yours alone. Therefore
in the context of this discussion you are redefining usage of the term
"human life."

>>Well in that case, I define you as a frog. Consider yourself green. Poof!
>>[perhaps you can see the fatal flaw in your response?]

>I do not have the genetic code of a frog and I am definitely a member of
>homo sapiens.  

But I'm redefining the meaning of the word "frog" just as you have redefined
the meaning of the phrase "human life." Fair is fair.

>>>Do you have anything against killing a human life (read, member of homo
>>>sapiens)?

>>I would say that is a very simplistic question about a complex subject.
>>Give me more specific information and I will try to answer it.

>>Just as a comment, your response keys into something I have found in
>>most fundamentalist cults: a tendency to take complex issues and 
>>catagorize them in simple black and white terms. You wouldn't be a
>>member of one of those cults, would you?

>As in "I think like a fundamentalist cult" and therefore, I am probably
>a member of the fundamentalist cult categorizing things in terms of black
>and white.  Wait, aren't you trying to categorize me just right now?

No, just asking if you fit into a certain category. Thought I might have
seen a pattern match, but I could have been wrong. Was I?

>>>>We are not measuring one person against another, we are measuring a
>>>>person against some human tissue, that lacks the attributes necessary
>>>>for personhood.

>>>We are matching one human life for another human life, pure and simple.
>>>I hope you aren't for killing human life, are you?  

>>And my skin cells or my appendix are also human life. I have no problem
>>with destroying human life, as long as a person is not being destroyed
>>at the same time.

>*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.

I learned some time ago that in the world of science, common sense
and an intuitive understanding of things are offen wrong. This is one
such case. The use of common sense can not return a correct answer
if one doesn't have all the facts. In as far as I can see, I have a
more complete picture than you do, and so my understanding of the
situation runs contrary to your common sense perspective.

Don't believe that a living skin cell is human life? Run, don't
walk, to your local library and read some biology texts. You might
find some real eye-openers.

>>>>If you wre to take a single cell off my cheek, isolate it and keep it
>>>>alive, by your definition it would be a member of species homo sapient.

>>>A definite no.  Read an article I posted/wrote regarding this.

>>Again, I see you making a lot of blatant assertions, rather self serving
>>assertions IMHO, and claiming them as fact. Just because you say somethign
>>is true does not necessairly make it true. Of course you can claim that
>>you have that power, but I can also claim that you are a frog.

>The scientific fact that human life begins at conception is common knowledge.
>I make "assertions" because it is almost a given.

But the sperm and egg are living human life. You admitted it yourself in
another post to me. You can't have it both ways. 

>>>>It is just as much a living human cell with its own genetic code as is
>>>>a fertilized egg. In fact, it might even divide and make more cells.

>>>Oh a human cheek cell is defintely a human cell.  But note that the human
>>>cheek cell is a mere portion.  In and of itself, it is nothing.  A fertilized
>>>egg, however, in and of itself, in its entire sum, is a member of homo 
>>>sapiens.  Its entire genetic code is contained in its whole sum of parts.

>>My living cell has a complete genetic makeup. I would say that it is 
>>complete as cells go. Put it in the right envioronment and it will even
>>grow. 

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

It is human and it is life, is it not?

Perhaps you have a Kermit specific meaning for "human." If so, please
explain why you feel that I should accept your meaning.

Eric
>>>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.

>>>>>Do I really have to explain this???

>>>>Yes, because your arguments are flawed and incomplete. Perhaps if I
>>>>walk you through them a few times you will begin to comprhend those
>>>>flaws.

>>>Read my other article on this.  I am way too tired to have to keep repeating
>>>the same things over and over again.

>>Again, just because you claim something, doesn't make it true. Or should
>>I just call you Kermit?

>It is basically a scientific given.



>>>>>>After you remove women's rights, then what group will you turn your attention
>>>>>>to next? As a member of a minority religion, I'm well aware of how fascist
>>>>>>groups behave, and your "pro-life" movement is one of the finest I've seen
>>>>>>in a while, coming in second only to white supremists.

>>>>>Do women's rights include the right to kill their human offspring?

>>>>If the offspring is lacking those "personhood" attributes I described
>>>>and if it conflicts in an unavoidable way with her freedom and well
>>>>being then I say she does.

>>>The same offspring you are talking about is a unique human individual.  You
>>>are really giving people the right to kill special human individuals.  Just
>>>think about that.  

>>I've thought the issue pretty much all the way through. Looks to me
>>like your the one who has to hide behind a redefinition of terms.


>I have not REdefined terms.

>>>>>>I have no problem with _allowing_ a z/e/f to live, if that is the will
>>>>>>of the woman carrying it. In contrast, you are calling for the use
>>>>>>of _force_ when you coerce somebody to submit their bodily resources 
>>>>>>against their will. As I said, when you have removed women's rights, then
>>>>>>who is next?

>>>>>You can also say:
>>>>>   We have removed the rights of the innocent unborn.  Who is next?  The
>>>>>   sick and the elderly?  The deformed newborns?  The criminals?  Deformed
>>>>>   individuals?  The very very rich?  (For those who hate the rich)  The
>>>>>   poor? (for those who think the poor are great burdens to society)  
>>>>>   Your enemies?

>>>>Hey, I'm not the one advocating taking peoples rights away. 

>>>>You are... Remember?

>>>I'm not taking away people's rights.  Whatever gave you that idea.

>>You are advocating taking away a woman's right to control her
>>repoductive destiny, as well as her right to control her body, aren't
>>you? If you are not, then that would make you pro-choice, and you
>>most certainly don't appear to be pro-choice.

>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.  


>>>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.

>>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?


>>>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?