From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 00:28:54 GMT

In article <ld1kqvINNpvc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.201411.21742@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>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.  
>
>Yes, that is correct. Every time I scratch myself I also kill human life,
>and I have no qualms about that either.
>

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.

>>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?
>
>This is simply your opinion. Many people disagree with you.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, when people are willing to allow the rights
>of their fellows to be trampled on, which is exactly what happens to
>women who are forced to endure unwanted pregnancies, we all suffer.
>
But I'm afraid you are forgetting who else is being trampled on.  Well,
not trampled on.  Perhaps, diced and sliced, sucked away, cut up, etc.

>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?

>>>>>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.  
>
>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.  

Do I really have to explain this???

>
>>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.
>
>In YOUR humble opinion, perhaps. 

Unfortunately, my opinion is based on scientific knowledge as well as 
common sense and reason.  (This is not meant to "put down" anyone but
I am merely trying to tell people where I am coming from.)

>
>>>>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?
>
>Again, you are fighting to take away the rights of people so that their bodies
>can be used by something that is nothing more than living human tissue.
>What's next? Human experimentation? After all, you obviously don't care
>about people, just "life." If you kill a few people in medical experiments,
>who know how many "lives" you may be able to save. Of course you should
>only experiment on women, since you obviously don't consider them to be
>as human as a blob of human tissue.
>
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.

>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?

>>>>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?
>
>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?

Unfortunately, many of those I have listed above are coming to be more
and more true.