From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 1992 05:29:26 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

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. You might have also noted that I stated that
the loss of human life was not the issue, but the loss of life of sentient
beings (which the z/e/f is not) was another, more significant issue. 
You might then have noticed that is what I was referring to when I
described the potential person.

Didn't you even bother to read my post? If not, then why did you bother
to respond to it?

>>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.

>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?

IMHO, your priorities need reordering.

>>You can continue to attack the rights of people in this country if
>>you like. Just keep in mind that there are alot of people like me
>>who take those attacks very seriously, and will fight as hard as
>>necessary to see that you don't succeed.

>Unfortunately, some of us also think the right to life or our children
>are also being forgotten.  Not only forgotten but squashed and destroyed.

Your entitled to your opinions.

>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.

Eric