From: chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney)
Newsgroups: alt.birthright,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion
Subject: READ THIS (Was Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Date: 21 Aug 92 02:04:27 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento

In article <1992Aug20.221224.17716@advtech.uswest.com> stevens@eatdust (John Stevens) writes:
>In article <1992Aug15.231351.14657@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug14.022124.3457@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug10.161448.6148@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>
>>
>>Send this message to your professor: 
>>
>>1) Is the zygote the same as a skin cell or a stomach cell? 
>>2) Seeing as the zygote is a differentiating cell with the full human
>>DNA, does any other cell in the body have that DNA code and can it
>>differentiate? 
>
>All other cells (with the exceptions that the good proffessor mentions)
>have the 'full human DNA'.  Different types of cells, have different
>parts of the DNA active.

NOTE: (for all you archive.junkies): 
I read up on that and verified it in whole. 

Except, the embryologist here, whom I am working on convincing into a
typed interview in response (whom I've been chatting with and taking
time off of posting to t.a in trying to find the guy), gave me some
points to ponder, especially where he saw plainly that I was being
told that if the zygote is a human life, then so are stomach cells.
(Not that I wasn't battling that assertion myself in this thread!) As
far as I can remember what he said, I'll plug it in to disprove the
hard-pushed point here, "z/e/f = human life -> so is the skin cell." 

>>3) What prevents a zygote from becoming a stomach cell or a skin cell?
>
>A better question is: what keeps a stomach cell from growing into a
>complete human being?  Answer: at the very least, a stomach cell has
>parts of it's DNA inactivated (through the process of differentiation)
>and the theory is that those parts of your DNA that control the process
>of growing a complete human being from a single cell have been deactivated.
>
>Conceivably, if you could reactivate those parts of the DNA, in a cell
>with the right enviroment, in the right order, you could clone a man
>from one of his intestinal cells.

Of course.  
But that is a big IF. 

You see, a lot of pro-aborts come up right at this point and say that
by pro-life reasoning, the destruction of intestinal cells would be
"murder" in our definition. 

News flash: it would be IF and WHEN they got the cell to
differentiate. But, like the unfertilized sperm & ovum, it's not
fertilized or differentiating yet. 

The argument that "(z/e/f= alive) -> (killing skin/stomach/intestine
cells = murder)" doesn't hold when "z/e/f= differentiating" and
"xx/xx/xx cells != differentiating."  



>>>"Brain activity" is not a single, simple thing.  Some parts of the
>>>brain, such as the cerebellum and thalamus (for example) don't
>>>specialize until the middle of the second month.  At about this
>>>time, some reflexes are operative, and the brain may be regulating
>>>some of the organs.  For this to happen, myelination has to have
>>>taken place.
>>
>>Uh-oh. That means that by this standard (brain activity), abortion
>>would be illegal somewhere in the 2nd month. Right before 90% of all
>>abortions are actually done by D&C and suction curettage... 
>
>Yeah.  This is one of the reasons the pro-choicers do NOT want brain
>activity used as part of the definition of life.

They're still trying to find out how they can justify how the z/e/f is
not a person, and they ain't figured a plausible, workable definition
yet. 

Kind of like how they tried to justify nonpersonhood for minorities
ranging from Africans to Indians, in the old days. 

And they say _we're_ uneducated? 

>>2) This professor comes from Berkeley. 
>
>???? What does this matter?

It implied, before I verified what he said, that he might have been on
drugs when he was saying this. Berkeley IS known for that... 

>>Major mistake. Ask your professor to answer this: 
>>1) Can stomach cells produce skin or brain cells, yes or no?
>
>If we had the technology (say, a COMPLETE understanding of the process
>of DNA activation/expression) a stomach cell (or more likely, an
>intestinal cell) could be modified to grow into a skin or brain cell.

The BIG point that is certain to be a stumbling block for the "killing
skin cells = murder!" craze the pro-aborts jump out with, is that they
can't differentiate unless altered, and there really isn't anyone
there. There can't be anyone there unless, as it's uncontradictably
known, you've got differentiation. Until then, you've got, at best,
potential.  

>>3) Does the mother continue to contribute to the z/e/f's DNA? Meaning,
>>does she add arms, legs, a head and other things that the z/e/f cannot
>>produce him/herself? Yes or no?
>
>No.  The child's genetic endowment is complete after fertilization.

Then how can any pro-abort possibly stand on the idea that the z/e/f
is "a part of the woman's body"? If this idea were true: 

1) You'd have to answer yes to the question "is the z/e/f's blood the
same as the mother's?" In which case the person who says this, has not
taken anything in science... 
2) Then you'd have to say yes to the Q, "Does the woman's body
recognize the z/e/f as an extra organ?" And then you'd be surprised to
know that the z/e/f runs into an immunological system in the uterine
lining that screams "INTRUDER!" when s/he tries to implant. 
3) Then you'd have to tell us what part of the mother's body she
leaves behind after an abortion or childbirth...  

>>4) What in the world is it in a z/e/f that runs his/her growth?
>
>I (as you might expect) view the DNA as both a program, and a set
>of blueprints for a computer.  The DNA has the program that controls,
>directs and regulates the z/e/f's development.
>
>>Sounds like you are the one lacking any intellegence, Knapp. Either
>>that or you're forging.  
>
>His professor is quite correct.  Your interpretation of the information
>may differ, but the information given has no errors that I or my
>exceedingly nit-picky biologist friends (and wife) can detect.



>John
>stevens@uswest.com
Xref: sparky alt.birthright:415 alt.abortion.inequity:3183 talk.abortion:32711