From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:14:11 GMT

In article <lcvklmINNkci@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct4.213125.6090@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <lcsomiINNcv2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct2.195925.1206@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>> So what you are doing is putting the welfare of a potential
>>>person (read potential, "doesn't exist yet") before the welfare of
>>>a real live, sentient being (the pregnant woman). 
>
>>Unfortunately (in some people's minds), it isn't just potential.  Human life
>>exists at conception (not just potential) which is not the mother.
>
>If you read the post that you just responded to, you would have noticed
>that I had no qualms about stating that human life is destroyed in
>the abortion proceedure. 

I know you made a few other comments concerning this, but the above comment
may speak for itself.  Abortion, does, indeed, kill human life and you
have no qualms about it.  

When taking away human life becomes normal, accepted, and sometimes, even
seen to be the "right" thing to do, then human life everywhere suffers.  How
can I value my mother's teachings about loving my neighbors and friends if
my mother destroys the innocent life within her, my dead brother or sister?

>
>>>Sorry, but I don't buy it. What's more, I consider your attitude damn
>>>cold. 
>
>>If I didn't believe that there exists human life at conception, and that 
>>the pro-life people were merely trying to protect "tissue" then I suppose
>>you can say that.  However, because of what seems to be true and because
>>of what the scientific community says (at this moment), we can say that
>>human life does not begin at birth or 7 months or anything like that.  Human
>>life begins at conception.  
>
>As I mentioned in my last paragraph (not to mention my last post) I do
>not dispute that human life is being destroyed. After all, a clump of
>living human tissue is, by definition, human life. I do not agree that
>human life begins at conception. Any good biology text will tell you that
>the egg and sperm are also human life.

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.  The egg
and the sperm are specialized human cells which acts as messenger.  Only after
conception can we call the unborn child members of homo sapiens.  Before that,
the egg and sperm are merely messenger cells.

>
>>With this, it is easy to also say that the pro-choicer's attitudes are 
>>also "damn cold."
>
>Why? Because we are more concerned with the well being of a person
>than we are a clump of human tissue?

This "clump of tissue" you are talking about is definitely a human life.
(I say definitely because of common sense, reason, and science).  When 
comparing the well being of a human and the well being of another human,
who wins?
>
>IMHO, your priorities need reordering.
>

I have thought about reordering them.  I tried putting the mother's right
to kill a human life above the right of a new human life to CONTINUE
living.  I'm sorry.  I really can't reorder my priorities.  Reordering
my priorities to give the right to kill just would not be prudent.


>
>>So just as you are worried about certain rights of people, some of us
>>are worried too.  We want mothers, and their unborn children, and every-
>>body else to work together and not against each other as in the case between
>>the mother and her unborn child(ren). 
>
>And if people don't do things your way, you'll just use more force until
>they do. Kinda reminds me of 1984, where a picture of the future is described
>as a boot crushing the faces of those who do not follow the official party
>line.

If you think allowing an unborn child to live is forcing, then what would
killing an unborn child be, freedom?