From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Human Life! : ) (Was Re: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 18:43:45 GMT

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:
>>In article <1992Oct6.033216.27693@cs.yale.edu> rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
>>>WHY can one not call gametes "human life?"
>>>WHY are gametes not members of homo sapiens? I was not aware that this
>>>was something addressed by biologists?
>>>
>>>If you're going to be in the business of deciding what is and
>>>is not "human life" perhaps you will grace us with a coherent
>>>definition.
>>
>>For the umpteenth time:
>>  That which exists at conception is, indeed, a new human life.  From the
>>scientific community comes:
>
>>    Science has determined that at conception, a new individual comes into 
>>    being, possessing a unique genetic code that has already determined
>>    the individual's sex, fingerprints, hair and eye color, facial 
>>    features, etc.
>Nonsense.
>Yes, the zygote has a unique genetic code, but so do the gametes.

The gametes do not represent a new 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.

>
>>Also, from the California Medical Association, in 1970, declared abortion
>>to be killing and referred to "the scientific fact, which everyone really
>>knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra-
>>or extra-uterine until death."
>>   -- California Medical Association, California Medicine, 113:67, 1970
>The CMA's opinion is of absolutely no relevance.
>
Which doesn't mean that what they say is false.  What the CMA says is
very true, I'm sure most people would agree.

>>One of the reasons I seem to "assert" without giving much details is 
>>because, as the California Medical Association mentions, the fact that
>>human life begins at conception is common knowledge.  Detailing common 
>>knowledge should not be one of my tasks.
>You have yet to demonstrate that it really IS common knowledge
>that human life begins at conception. You have merely asserted 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.

>
>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.  

>>If you want, I shall continue.
>Please do, you have shown nothing.
>
>>Right now I am addressing your common sense and general sensibility:
>>-- Do you really think a cheek cell is a member of homo sapiens?
>>-- Is a toe nail really a member of homo sapiens?
>>-- Is a six month old fetus/unborn child a member of homo sapiens?
>Depends how you define "member of homo sapiens". You still have
>failed to provide a definition.
>

Where's your common sense and general sensibility?  Can't you just see
for yourself?  Isn't it "self-evident?"  Did Jefferson have to explain exactly
why he found certain tenets to be self-evident?

>>If you are still able to quarrel with this, I will now address
>>your scientific side mixed in with reason:
>>1) Try putting an egg or a sperm in isolation in a mother's womb.  Wait nine
>>   months.  Any sign of a screaming, crying baby?
>>2) Now try putting a zygote in a mother's womb.  Wait nine months, barring a
>>   miscarriage, an abortion, or a stillbirth, any signs of a screaming,
>>   crying baby?
>Try putting me in a uterus. WAit nine months. Any signs of a screaming
>crying baby? Am I not human?

Yes, you do see a human life in the uterus.  You.

>
>>moment.  The proper number of chromosomes, and the right type (homo sapiens),
>>as well as DNA which is definitely human point to the fact that human life
>>begins at conception.  
>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.

>
>>  As for the sperm/egg is it a human or not debate, previous to conception,
>>the sperm/eggs exists as human cells but in no way can be seen as members
>>of homo sapiens.  After conception, a new human life is produced.
>Blatant assertion.

>
>Sir, would you be so kind as to provide a definition for human life?
>This will be the second time I have asked for one. I suggest a set
>of points which are necessary and sufficient. Then we will have a basis
>around which to argue.
>

I will now stop.  I am getting tired of this.  If any there was any fault,
it was probably mine.  But in any case, that doesn't mean what I am
trying to say isn't true.  It is almost obvious, in my mind, and I'm
sure many others would say so as well.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion