From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 08:48:01 GMT

In article <25_ppyj.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>What has to be taken into consideration is how DNA works together with the
>>entire entity.  At conception and in the next few weeks or so, the DNA and
>>the entire entity work together in carrying out the genetic code that was 
>>written or combined at conception.  The entire sum of that individual is 
>>contained within the fetus or the unborn.  
>
>My finger contains _complete_ DNA.
>
>>However, in your finger example, only a portion of the entire sum of the
>>individual was taken away.  That small portion does not a new human life
>>make.
>
>Guess what happens when the embryo/zygote is removed from the mother?
>The same thing that happens to the finger removed from the rest of my
>body.  Does this suggest anything about the personhood status of said
>zygote/embryo?

No, this just says that you separated a part of the whole you.  Your
finger does not possess any special individuality.  The zygote/embryo/
fetus/unborn however, when removed from the mother is very different.  
Your finger with respect to the rest of your body is essentially the same.
The mother's genetic code compared with the child is very different.  So
different, that we can, in fact, conclude that the unborn is a separate
entity from the mother, connected or not.

>
>>Of course, as common sense dictates, either removing or destroying the
>>entire sum of the individual, or removing a portion of a sum of the
>>entire individual can cause death.
>
>Really?  I've been removed from one place or another a couple times
>and it doesn't seem to have done _me_ any harm.  Maybe I wasn't paying
>close enough attention.

I said CAN.  I'm sure you know the difference between CAN and WILL.

>
>>>If it's alive, yes.  Now try it 7 months before birth.  Is THAT a person?
>>
>>It is a member of homo sapiens, and is definitely human.
>
>Which dodges the question: Is it a person?
>
Answers to this pressing question is contained in other posts where
I respond to this.


>>If being born is:
>>1) unborn baby is separated with his/her mother.
>>2) unborn baby tries to live a life outside the mother's womb,
>>
>>Then what happens during abortion?  Doesn't the unborn baby get separated
>>from his/her mother?  Doesn't the unborn baby try to live a life outside
>>the mother's womb successful or not?  
>>
>>So a baby can actually be born during an abortion.  But instead of trying to 
>
>More commonly known as being born via C-section, if I understand what you're
>trying to say.  By the way, an "unborn baby" cannot reside anywhere but in
>the mother.  Once outside, it has been born.  "unborn baby tries to live a 
>life outside" is nonsense.
>
>>make the unborn baby live its life outside the mother's womb, abortions try 
>>to make it such that the unborn baby will never be able to live a life 
>>outside the mother's womb.
>
>If you are claiming that abortion kills born infants, then I suggest you
>produce some evidence.  You might also want to call the police since 
>this is a crime known as murder.
>
No I'm claiming abortion kills non viable tissue which actually acts as a 
parasite, sucking nutrients from its mother in a noncompassionate, selfish
way.  Why would people be so upset at removing a very irritating, parasitic,
"extension of the mother?"

Anyway, I wasn't necessarily saying abortion kills born infants.  I was
just wondering how can you differentiate between normal birth, when the
baby is born, and during abortion, when the possibly dead child is "born"
or comes out of the mother?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion