From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Human Life! : ) (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 14:45:35 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.043316.24701@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.033216.27693@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>WHY can one not call gametes "human life?"
>>WHY are gametes not members of homo sapiens? I was not aware that this
>>was something addressed by biologists?
>>
>>If you're going to be in the business of deciding what is and
>>is not "human life" perhaps you will grace us with a coherent
>>definition.
>
>For the umpteenth time:
>  That which exists at conception is, indeed, a new human life.  From the
>scientific community comes:
Check my nodename. Until quite recently, *I* was part of the scientific
community, and we hadn't decided any such thing. Or if we had, *I*
wasn't invited.

>    Science has determined that at conception, a new individual comes into 
>    being, possessing a unique genetic code that has already determined
>    the individual's sex, fingerprints, hair and eye color, facial 
>    features, etc.
Nonsense.
Yes, the zygote has a unique genetic code, but so do the gametes.
Sex is determined, but the sex is also determined in sperm. Fingerprints
are not determined by genetics exculsively. Monozygotic twins have
different fingerprints. Facial features are not exclusively determined
by heredity. Monozygotic twins sometimes have different facial features.
Or would you like to explain the scar on my chin? Environment is certainly
a strong influence. Hair and eye color, yes.

However, each gamete, as I said, also has a unique genetic code.
You have shown nothing.

>Also, from the California Medical Association, in 1970, declared abortion
>to be killing and referred to "the scientific fact, which everyone really
>knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-
>or extra-uterine until death."
>   -- California Medical Association, California Medicine, 113:67, 1970
The CMA's opinion is of absolutely no relevance.

>One of the reasons I seem to "assert" without giving much details is 
>because, as the California Medical Association mentions, the fact that
>human life begins at conception is common knowledge.  Detailing common 
>knowledge should not be one of my tasks.
You have yet to demonstrate that it really IS common knowledge
that human life begins at conception. You have merely asserted it.

I note that even if you showed that it WAS "common knowledge" that would
prove nothing. Truth is not decided by majority vote.

>If you want, I shall continue.
Please do, you have shown nothing.

>Right now I am addressing your common sense and general sensibility:
>-- Do you really think a cheek cell is a member of homo sapiens?
>-- Is a toe nail really a member of homo sapiens?
>-- Is a six month old fetus/unborn child a member of homo sapiens?
Depends how you define "member of homo sapiens". You still have
failed to provide a definition.

>If you are still able to quarrel with this, I will now address
>your scientific side mixed in with reason:
>1) Try putting an egg or a sperm in isolation in a mother's womb.  Wait nine
>   months.  Any sign of a screaming, crying baby?
>2) Now try putting a zygote in a mother's womb.  Wait nine months, barring a
>   miscarriage, an abortion, or a stillbirth, any signs of a screaming,
>   crying baby?
Try putting me in a uterus. WAit nine months. Any signs of a screaming
crying baby? Am I not human?

>moment.  The proper number of chromosomes, and the right type (homo sapiens),
>as well as DNA which is definitely human point to the fact that human life
>begins at conception.  
I see. So Down syndrome patients are not human? They don't have the
proper number of chromosomes.

>  As for the sperm/egg is it a human or not debate, previous to conception,
>the sperm/eggs exists as human cells but in no way can be seen as members
>of homo sapiens.  After conception, a new human life is produced.
Blatant assertion.

Sir, would you be so kind as to provide a definition for human life?
This will be the second time I have asked for one. I suggest a set
of points which are necessary and sufficient. Then we will have a basis
around which to argue.

-Ekr



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.abortion.inequity,alt.birthright