From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: In Suzanne's Defense
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:25:12 GMT
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

In article <h8!pj3_.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>In article <850nlnk.ray@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>>c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes ...
>>>>>Abortion doesn't kill people.
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>Keep this in mind for a while.
>>>>
>>>>>Abortion kills an organism whose only similarity to an adult human,
>>>>>for many weeks after conception, is its DNA structure. 
>>>>
>>>>  This does mean that this "organism" is indeed a member of homo sapiens
>>>>right?  
>>>
>>>Well duh.  So's my finger.  Relevence?
>>
>>Cut off your finger and tell me that that part is indeed a member of homo
>>sapiens.  Most people would probably say no.  Sure it is part of a being
>>which probably was a human, but is your finger a human life?
>
>Clearly not.  But it does have complete human DNA.
>
What has to be taken into consideration is how DNA works together with the
entire entity.  At conception and in the next few weeks or so, the DNA and
the entire entity work together in carrying out the genetic code that was 
written or combined at conception.  The entire sum of that individual is 
contained within the fetus or the unborn.  

However, in your finger example, only a portion of the entire sum of the
individual was taken away.  That small portion does not a new human life
make.

Of course, as common sense dictates, either removing or destroying the
entire sum of the individual, or removing a portion of a sum of the
entire individual can cause death.

>>Now cut off the an unborn baby a few weeks before birth.  Would you consider
>>that the unborn baby is a human life?  You might say yes (I have to say
>>might because of the amazing rationalizations some people have).  Now
>
>If it's alive, yes.  Now try it 7 months before birth.  Is THAT a person?

It is a member of homo sapiens, and is definitely human.

>
>>  Now
>>look to the mother.  Is that human life?  I'm sure you'll say yes.  Now
>>ask, are they one and the same thing?  That the unborn baby is merely an
>>object similar to a finger is to a human being?  
>
>>   What exactly do we mean by being born?  Does being born mean that the
>>unborn baby becomes separated with his/her mother, and tries to live a life
>>outside the mother's womb?  
>
>Bingo.  Pat the boy on the head.

If being born is:
1) unborn baby is separated with his/her mother.
2) unborn baby tries to live a life outside the mother's womb,

Then what happens during abortion?  Doesn't the unborn baby get separated
from his/her mother?  Doesn't the unborn baby try to live a life outside
the mother's womb successful or not?  

So a baby can actually be born during an abortion.  But instead of trying to 
make the unborn baby live its life outside the mother's womb, abortions try 
to make it such that the unborn baby will never be able to live a life 
outside the mother's womb.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,alt.sex,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.polit