From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:36:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.160549.26210@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.213415.20408@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep25.184205.12710@gtephx.UUCP> forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona) writes:
>> >In article <19lsaiINNd6c@agate.berkeley.edu>, martyg@ocf.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep21.161808.15296@brtph560.bnr.ca> alex@bnr.ca writes:
>[...]
>> >> 
>> >Well, if you're gonna cry about the unborn, we should outlaw
>> >the pill -- it acts to prevent birth.  We should also outlaw
>> >sterilization of males and females -- it prevents a birth.
>> 
>> There is a big difference between human life which is there and human life
>> which has yet to be created.  
>> 
>> >
>> >Oh, when the sperm and egg meet, then there is life?  Well,
>> >a sperm is alive, so is the egg.  
>> >
>> >So where do you draw the line?
>> 
>> Try putting a sperm inside a mother's womb (making sure it makes no
>> interaction with an egg or anything like that).  Wait about nine months.
>> See any sign of a screaming crying baby?
>> 
>> Now put a fertilized egg inside a mother's womb.  Barring a miscarriage or
>> abortion, wait about nine months.  See any sign of a crying screaming baby?
>> 
>> >
>> >The Catholoic church has drawn it at condoms and the pill.
>> >
>> 
>> If you are talking about life, I believe, the Catholic Church agrees with
>> the scientific community in saying life begins at conception.
>
>The scientific community also agrees that a sperm is alive and so
>is an egg -- both are human tissue and are alive.

There is a big difference between mere human tissue and that which is
actually human life.

>
>> >Others at conception and still others at fetal viability.
>> >
>> >I believe it is the Hindus who believe that spirit enters
>> >the body at birth (no life until birth).
>> >
>> >Given that we have persons of all religous persuasions in
>> >this country, and we have (supposedly) the right to 
>> >freedom of religion, the decision of when abortion
>> >becomes murder belongs in the church and the home,
>> >not the gov't.
>> 
>> As has been mentioned a million+2 times, abortion is not necessarily
>> a religious issue (those who have seen this response a million+3 times, feel
>> free to press 'n').  There are those in the pro-life movement who are of
>> many different Religions.  There are even those who are athiests!  So how
>> can they be pro-life and not religious?  No church or ideology is guiding
>> them.
>
>Pull your head out and look around.  Who are the leaders of the pro-life
>movement?  Preachers!  Now because you claim there are a few athiests 
>involved, you want me to believe it is not a religious issue?  I have 
>yet to hear of any church which supports abortion: this is definitely
>a religious issue.  
>
>> Part of the reason is that looking at the world, seeing, learning, and
>> trying to understand, people have come to the conclusion that real
>> human life exists within the mother's womb, and because each person has
>> a special intrinsic value in them, human life must be protected whether
>> it be born or unborn.
>
>Some people have come to the conclusion that life begins at conception:
>most of these people have been told so by the church -- that's what makes
>it a religious issue.

Nope.  people look at it and see that it makes sense based on scietific
fact, common sense towards life, what they learn, what they see, etc.  

What the Church says or doesn't say may or may not have anything to do
with a person's pro-life belief.  

>
>Sounds like the age old attitude that the church has the right to meddle 
>in the lives of individuals because the church is moral, just and RIGHT.
>
Athiests, too, have a sense of what's right and what's wrong.  Some of
them are pro-life.  

>Answer me this: how many homeless, hungry children have you taken into
>your home this year?
>
>When every child in this country is well fed, clothed, sheltered, and
>educated, then you can come talk to me about forcing more births;
>meanwhile, you've got a lot of action to take before I can accept
>your notion that abortion is wrong and must be outlawed.

If the solution to having children well fed, clothed, etc. (which are
preconceived notions.  There is no way of absolutely guaranteeing that
one person is going to live a miserable and horrible life) is abortion, the
destruction of human life, then the means poses a much greater evil than
the supposed end.

>
>IMHO, the pro-life movement is a bunch of "do-gooders" who feel the
>need to do something morally right but can't be bothered to get their
>hands dirty in the process.  Why do I say that?  Because there are 
>enough hungry children roaming the streets to keep the whole lot 
>busy for a decade, but those children are still going hungry.
>(BTW, I've taken in two children this year [one at a time, thankfully]
>and I don't have time to run around telling others how to live -- I'm
>too busy caring for the unfortunate to be screaming at the immoral about
>how they should bring more unfortunates into this world.)

To say that the pro-life people don't like to help out, I think you ought
to reassess your thinking.  Are you being completely fair or are you
trying to attribute negative things to the "other side."  Of course there
are people who help other people out pro-life, pro-choice or whatever.  Be
careful with what you say.

>
>IMHO, the churches are against abortion because it takes away much 
>of the suffering and stigmatism which follows sex: and god knows 
>the churches like to make us feel like sinners who need forgiveness
>by declaring sex as evil.  Abortion effectively takes away a very
>large hammer which the churches have been using against us for 
>centuries.

I don't think everyone thinks sex is evil.  Some people think sex is
very good and because it is so special, it must be respected.

But what does this have to do with abortion?  This isn't necessarily
a religious issue.  It involves science, and our basic notion of 
a human's right to life.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion