From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: The Kermit Syndrome (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:00:57 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct6.185035.21338@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <ld3bm7INN2um@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc.]

>>>>>The topic involved eggs/sperm etc. being human life.  I said
>>>>>the sperm/egg isn't human life.  Since the sperm/egg isn't human life, then
>>>>>you can't terminate it as a human life because it never was a human life
>>>>>right?  

>>>>So a sperm/egg isn't human? If not, what is it?
>>>Sperm/eggs are specialized human cells which acts as messengers.
>>>>So a sperm/egg isn't alive? If not, what is it?
>>>N/A
>>What do you mean, N/A? This is a very simple question: is the
>>sperm/egg alive or not? If it is not alive, then what is it?

>It is alive.

Thank you.

>>>>If a sperm/egg is human and it is life, then does that not mean
>>>>that _by_definition_ it is human life?
>>>Certainly, you wouldn't start calling sperm/eggs human life would you?
>>Your darned right I would, because it _is_ by definition human life.


>My definition involves being a member of homo sapiens.  The sperm/egg doesn't
>define a new human individual.  

Take a sperm and an egg and put them in a petri dish. You now have in that
dish the genetic information necessary to create a new person, for whatever
that's worth. However I don't want to get into that bag of worms right
now.

>In and of themselves, the sperm/egg, can
>not be called members of homo sapiens.  Since they cannot be called members
>of homo sapeins, then they cannot be human life in my definition.

Oh yes, the Kermit syndrome. You create a unique definition for the
phrase "human life" and based on that definition advocate the removal
of women's rights.

Just out of curiosity, if you were to take a snapshot of this thing
you call "human life", what attributes would it have? Keep in mind
that a snapshot is time independent, that is it can not include past
or potential future attributes.

>Your definition of human life you are trying to tag on me involves merely
>being alive and being a PART of a human being.  

No, my definition of human life is something that meets the criteria of
the two words "human" and "life." 

>I do not hold that.  One
>cannot be merely part of a human being, like a skin cell or a sperm/egg,
>alive and be called human life in the sense of being called a member of homo
>sapiens.  One must be a new human life, genetically "created" by the 
>combination of a sperm and an egg.

OK, so your approach is to advocate a position and then tailor your use of
language so that it fits a definition supporting your position. 

Where have I heard that before? Orwell, wasn't it? 

But that's unkind. I prefer to think that your position is based on
Kermit logic rather than Orwellian reasoning. Of course with your advocation
of the removal of rights for a majority of the population I could be
wrong...

Eric
Newsgroups: talk.abortion