From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:44:31 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct5.201411.21742@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <lcvklmINNkci@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct4.213125.6090@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>>In article <lcsomiINNcv2@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Oct2.195925.1206@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:

>>>> So what you are doing is putting the welfare of a potential
>>>>person (read potential, "doesn't exist yet") before the welfare of
>>>>a real live, sentient being (the pregnant woman). 

>>>Unfortunately (in some people's minds), it isn't just potential.  Human life
>>>exists at conception (not just potential) which is not the mother.

>>If you read the post that you just responded to, you would have noticed
>>that I had no qualms about stating that human life is destroyed in
>>the abortion proceedure. 

>I know you made a few other comments concerning this, but the above comment
>may speak for itself.  Abortion, does, indeed, kill human life and you
>have no qualms about it.  

Yes, that is correct. Every time I scratch myself I also kill human life,
and I have no qualms about that either.

>When taking away human life becomes normal, accepted, and sometimes, even
>seen to be the "right" thing to do, then human life everywhere suffers.  How
>can I value my mother's teachings about loving my neighbors and friends if
>my mother destroys the innocent life within her, my dead brother or sister?

This is simply your opinion. Many people disagree with you.

As far as I'm concerned, when people are willing to allow the rights
of their fellows to be trampled on, which is exactly what happens to
women who are forced to endure unwanted pregnancies, we all suffer.

So whats worse? To remove the rights of people, or to destroy human
tissue?

>>>>Sorry, but I don't buy it. What's more, I consider your attitude damn
>>>>cold. 

>>>If I didn't believe that there exists human life at conception, and that 
>>>the pro-life people were merely trying to protect "tissue" then I suppose
>>>you can say that.  However, because of what seems to be true and because
>>>of what the scientific community says (at this moment), we can say that
>>>human life does not begin at birth or 7 months or anything like that.  Human
>>>life begins at conception.  

>>As I mentioned in my last paragraph (not to mention my last post) I do
>>not dispute that human life is being destroyed. After all, a clump of
>>living human tissue is, by definition, human life. I do not agree that
>>human life begins at conception. Any good biology text will tell you that
>>the egg and sperm are also human life.

>I don't really think so.  An egg and a sperm, as mentioned for the millionth
>plus third time, are not fit be be called members of homo sapiens.  

This is what is generally referred to around here as "truth by blatant
assertion." 

>The egg
>and the sperm are specialized human cells which acts as messenger.  Only after
>conception can we call the unborn child members of homo sapiens.  Before that,
>the egg and sperm are merely messenger cells.

In YOUR humble opinion, perhaps. 

>>>With this, it is easy to also say that the pro-choicer's attitudes are 
>>>also "damn cold."

>>Why? Because we are more concerned with the well being of a person
>>than we are a clump of human tissue?

>This "clump of tissue" you are talking about is definitely a human life.
>(I say definitely because of common sense, reason, and science).  When 
>comparing the well being of a human and the well being of another human,
>who wins?

Again, you are fighting to take away the rights of people so that their bodies
can be used by something that is nothing more than living human tissue.
What's next? Human experimentation? After all, you obviously don't care
about people, just "life." If you kill a few people in medical experiments,
who know how many "lives" you may be able to save. Of course you should
only experiment on women, since you obviously don't consider them to be
as human as a blob of human tissue.

After you remove women's rights, then what group will you turn your attention
to next? As a member of a minority religion, I'm well aware of how fascist
groups behave, and your "pro-life" movement is one of the finest I've seen
in a while, coming in second only to white supremists.

>>>So just as you are worried about certain rights of people, some of us
>>>are worried too.  We want mothers, and their unborn children, and every-
>>>body else to work together and not against each other as in the case between
>>>the mother and her unborn child(ren). 

>>And if people don't do things your way, you'll just use more force until
>>they do. Kinda reminds me of 1984, where a picture of the future is described
>>as a boot crushing the faces of those who do not follow the official party
>>line.

>If you think allowing an unborn child to live is forcing, then what would
>killing an unborn child be, freedom?

I have no problem with _allowing_ a z/e/f to live, if that is the will
of the woman carrying it. In contrast, you are calling for the use
of _force_ when you coerce somebody to submit their bodily resources 
against their will. As I said, when you have removed women's rights, then
who is next?

Eric