From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: 6 Oct 1992 15:44:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct6.052055.26529@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <ld23t0INNrii@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

>>[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.

Well in that case, I define you as a frog. Consider yourself green. Poof!

[perhaps you can see the fatal flaw in your response?]

>>There is no _who_ else. Try this concept and see if it is comprehensible:
>>it is not mere human tissue that we value, it is people. The measure of
>>what is or is not a person is mental capability.  The z/e/f has no mental
>>capability. None. Zero. Nada.

>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?

>>>>So whats worse? To remove the rights of people, or to destroy human
>>>>tissue?

>>>Just human tissue, eh?  Unfortunately, that human tissue is a member of
>>>homo sapiens.  So when comparing one human with another, do you kill one
>>>in order to appease the other?

>>Just as my skin cells are.

>>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.

>>>>>I don't really think so.  An egg and a sperm, as mentioned for the millionth
>>>>>plus third time, are not fit be be called members of homo sapiens.  

>>>>This is what is generally referred to around here as "truth by blatant
>>>>assertion." 

>>>I assert because science, biology, common sense and reason, says so.  
>>>Would you call your cheek cells members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>>Would you call your toenails members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>>Will you call a five month unborn child a member of homo sapiens?  I sure
>>>hope so.  

>>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.

>>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. Whats more, I would be willing to bet that within a decade we will
be able to use that cell to clone another me. If that is the case then
there would be no difference in the potential of my skin cell and a 
fertilized egg.

>>Does this cell have mental capabilities? No, but apparently you do not
>>consider that to be an issue. In fact, I'm not sure just what you do 
>>consider to be an issue here. Is it genetic code? My skin cell has that.
>>Is it life? My skin cell has that.

>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.

>>>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?

>Repeating things over and over again is one way of knowing its time
>to get out of talk.abortion.

Repeating things over and over again does not make them any more true.

>>>I'm afraid you are getting a little carried away here.  Living tissue
>>>is a great euphemism to human life, isn't it?  By the way, you are just living
>>>tissue too.  Your family and my family are just separate units of living
>>>human tissue, too.

>>Yep, I'm just human tissue. However certain specialized types of tissues
>>have grown connected in a certain manner necessary for me to develop
>>the attribute known as consciousness. This is what differentiates me,
>>and it is an attribute lacking in the z/e/f.

>So you wouldn't mind killing a z/e/f which is, in all respects, a human
>life.  Remember, that z/e/f someone aborted is the person who would ahve
>cured cancer, cured AIDS, or saved you when you needed help most.

Of course statistically the z/e/f is more likely to be a Hitler...

>>>>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 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.

>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. 

Again, once you have taken away women's rights, what group is next?
Gays?

>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." 

Be talking to you, Kermit.

Eric

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39921 alt.politics.clinton:8126