From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:49:40 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Oct8.090508.3045@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct08.050456.153530@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >In  <1992Oct7.031733.9036@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Marti
> >> In article <1992Oct07.001512.128290@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com wr
> >> >In  <1992Oct6.191835.22191@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (M
> >> >>
> >> >> Approximately 98% of abortions in America are done for social reasons.
> >> >> Now do these social reasons take precedence over destroying human life?
> >> >
> >> >If you're talking about a person, no.  If you're talking about a zygote,
> >> >yes.
> >>
> >> Translate zygote -> human life (no more egg/sperm debate please).
> >
> >Translate sperm -> human life
> >Translate egg -> human life
> >Translate sperm -> member human species
> >Translate egg -> member human species
>
> Translate sperm -> specialized human cell but not a human life.
> Translate egg -> specialized human cell but not a human life (member of homo
>             sapiens)
> Translate sperm -> member of no species
> Translate egg -> member of no species.

All 4 are incorrect.  (See Jim Purdon's post if you want a biologist's
explanation.)

> >> If you're talking about a human life, then yes, social reasons take
> >> precedence over destroying that human life.
> >
> >You really should distinguish between forms of human life.  I do agree
> >with you in regards to human life before personhood, but I don't agree
> >that social reasons take precedence over destroying people.
                                                       ^^^^^^
> To say any form of human life is insignificant is something I do not agree
> with.  I don't see how a human life can become insignificant when it exists
> as a human life.

It doesn't *become* insignificant; it *starts out* as an insignificant
zygote, and *becomes* significant.

> Larry, do you mean what you say?

Generally speaking, yes.  :-)

> You don't agree that social reasons take
> precedence over destroying human lives?

No, I mean what *I* say, not the words you put in my mouth.  Look back
up to where I said "people", not "human lives".

> >> >> The being that exists at conception is exactly the same being that turns
> >> >> out to be a forty year old musician, a seven year old child prodigee or
> >> >> whatever.
> >> >
> >> >Then how come I can see the forty year old musician without a microscope?
> >> >Maybe there's at least a little bit of difference?
> >> >
> >> The stage of being in a human's life doesn't change the fact that that
> >> being began his/her existence as a human from conception.
> >
> >Of course not, but that's not what you said.  You said they're exactly the
> >same, which is patently ridiculous.  Are you going to try to redefine some
> >terms again, or will you agree that they're *not* "exactly the same"?
>
> Literally speaking, or looking at it from a certain perspective, you
> unify with the five month old you.

Certainly not literally speaking, and it would have to be a damned
odd perspective.

> When I mean the same I mean you cannot
> separate yourself from what you were when you were first one (unified).

So when you mean "the same" you don't really mean "the same"?  It's very
frustrating trying to carry on a conversation with you...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:42880 soc.college:4320 pa.general:346 nj.events:225