From: martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic Code != Human
Date: 1 Sep 1992 19:04:26 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
NNTP-Posting-Host: plague-ether.berkeley.edu

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: Genetic code != entire sum of the individual
Summary: 
Expires: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Open Computing Facility
Keywords: 

In article <1992Sep1.002306.27577@midway.uchicago.edu> eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>Martin Guerrero <martyg@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
>>Let's put that mosquito in a human mother's womb.  Let's watch it grow
>>to become a screaming, crying blob of cells at birth.
>
>That proves that a z/e/f has more *potential* than a mosquito.
>Granted.  So?  I think rights are based on what one *is*, not on what
>one may become.
>

I agree!  The unborn is human, and that's what it is.  The human unborn
can never be a mosquito, and a mosquito can never be a human and it
never IS.  

>>At least we agree that a human can exist within the womb.
>>Let's work together on this.
>
>Of course a z/e/f is human: what else would it be?  So are sperm and
>eggs human: what else would they be?
>

Sperm and the eggs, by themselves, are not humans.  They are cells created
by the male and the female which are merely messengers of their respective
chromosomes.  If an egg, were human, then women should be pregnant
about every month.  And about every month, there would be an "abortion."


>>How can you be a human and not a person?  
>
>Simple.  Don't have a brain capable of functioning (or do you really,
>honestly think that a baby born without a brain is a person?).
>

But from conception, the brain is constantly forming.  Everything that the
brain will possess in terms of its form, its personality, etc. is there
at conception.  The brain does not direct the creation of the individual.
The DNA and everything else does.  To kill the unborn because the brain
that is still forming and which nature says should form, is to deny that
unborn its right to life.  


>>> martyg@ocf writes:
>>>>Simply put, before abortion there is life.  After, there is death.
>
>> e elizabeth bartley writes:
>>>Hm.  Well, yes.  So?  Before a cow was killed for the steak I ate last
>>>night there was life.  Afterwards, there wasn't.  What of it?  We kill
>>>all of the time -- often we kill bacteria and viruses and parasites
>>>inside or body without even knowing it.  Does the fact that a z/e/f
>>>has human DNA demand different treatment?  Does what a z/e/f may
>>>become demand different treatment?  Why?
>
> martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu writes:
>>Earlier, you said that even the z/e/f is human.  Also, you say, so?
>>I'll leave the rest up to you.
>
>I don't think there's any special value in having human DNA.  I think
>there's a great deal of value in people.  However, personhood to me
>depends on intelligence, brain potential, character (not its type,
>simpy the possession of one), memory, etc.; the species is irrelevant.
>IMO, z/e/fs become people around the 24th week, when myelination in
>the brain starts and the brain has the potential of functioning
>(functioning *now, not sometime in the future).
>

I value people too.  For this reason, I am "pro-life."  DNA by itself may
not mean too much.  But when put together with a new human, and its entire
self, there is something special to it.  That specialness is called
the miracle of life.

Because life is special, it becomes difficult to have life volutarily taken
away by its mother.  You would probably agree that what exists at conception
is human.  I say human life is special.  

Abortion, therefore, at any time from conception to the appropriate
time, is killing that INDIVIDUAL's life.


Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:3072 talk.politics.misc:42172 alt.politics.clinton:3140 alt.politics.elections:11669