From: rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla)
Subject: Re: Human Life! : ) (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: Rescorla for himself.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:54:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.184345.21050@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.144535.4461@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.043316.24701@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>Nonsense.
>>Yes, the zygote has a unique genetic code, but so do the gametes.
>
>The gametes do not represent a new individual.
Blatant assertion. Looks like a new individual to me. It's new
and it's individual.

>>Sex is determined, but the sex is also determined in sperm. 
>
>But the sperm itself is neither male nor female in the sense of the word
>being a member of homo sapiens.
More blatant assertion.
You have provided no evidence to support it.

>>The CMA's opinion is of absolutely no relevance.
>>
>Which doesn't mean that what they say is false.
No, it merely says you can't use it to show anything.

>  What the CMA says is
>very true, I'm sure most people would agree.
I'm not sure. Please prove it.

>It should be common knowledge.  What I know in my heart, and know in my
>brain was just confirmed by the CMA as well as by science.
Why should it be common knowledge. I'm not even sure it's true.
What you know in your heart is irrelevant.
What you know in your brain has yet to be shown to have any
logical support.
What the CMA thinks is irrelevant.
You have yet to show that science supports your claim.


>>I note that even if you showed that it WAS "common knowledge" that would
>>prove nothing. Truth is not decided by majority vote.
>Do we really have to continue waltzing around the subject?  The beginnings
>of human life at conception is nearly a given.  It is not a from the sky
>opinion.  
You keep asserting that it is nearly a given. It is not.
It is not a "From the sky" opinion, true. As far as I can tell you
just pulled it out of your ass.

>Where's your common sense and general sensibility?
Where it should be. Making me a skeptic.

> Can't you just see
>for yourself?
No. Maybe it isn't true.

>Isn't it "self-evident?"
No.
Maybe it isn't true.

> Did Jefferson have to explain exactly
>why he found certain tenets to be self-evident?
Merely asserting that something is self-evident neither makes it true
nor self-evident. I find your claim to be non-self-evident and of
questionable truth.

>>I see. So Down syndrome patients are not human? They don't have the
>>proper number of chromosomes.
>
>I realize very well about the Down syndrome case when I wrote that.  The 
>genetic code is definitely human and that individual's makeup is already 
>determined at conception.  If it has the proper number of chromosomes,
>then great.  Not having the proper number of chromosomes, however, (it
>is only a difference of one crhmosome) doesn't automatically mean it isn't
>a human.  The human genetic code defining a new individual are still there.
You have yet to define what "the human genetic code defining a new
individual" is. More blatant assertion.


-Ekr


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rescorla, DoD#431 (Nighthawk S)              rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu
Former chemist now CM400 mechanic                 ekr@eitech.com(preferred)
   "Base 8 is just like base 10, really...if you're missing two fingers."