From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an a
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1992 07:23:12 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  <1992Oct7.081356.17906@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct07.055728.118130@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >In  <1992Oct6.190757.21860@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
> >> In article <ld3d2qINN337@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (E
> >> >In article <1992Oct6.052055.26529@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.
> >
> >> >>Realize that that which is created at conception can never be replaced.  It
> >> >>isn't as simple comparing this to another skin cell.  The NEW genetic code
> >> >>is very different from the mother.  The mothers skin cells are basically
> >> >>hers.  The cells in the mother's unborn child are all his/hers.
> >> >
> >> >So what?
> >> >
> >> >I see no significance to this.
> >> >
> >> I am hoping that people come from a basic notion that human's are indeed
> >> special, and the idea that human's are renewable would be very reprehensible.
> >> But, the so what response is making me rethink that we are coming from the
> >> basic notion of human worth.
> >
> >The fact that it's a cell with a unique genetic code doesn't make it
> >valuable any more than it makes a cancer valuable.
>
> A cancer is definitely not human.  The fetus is.

But the cancer *is* a new genetic code created from a human.

> > The basic notion
> >of human worth is something I apply to what is commonly referred to as
> >a human being - a (born) person.
> >
> So you think those human creatures who are postconceived but not yet
> born have no human worth?

Bingo - they're not people, and so are not entitled to the valuation
we give to people.  They might be *potential* people, but that doesn't
entitle them to anything until they realize that potential.

> >> As I said before, what gets weighed is the woman's life vs. the
> >> unborn's right to life.  Of course, the right to life a human must
> >> be given precedence.
> >
> >The rights of a person must of course be given precedence over the "rights"
> >of a microscopic handful of cells.  (Hey - this blatant assertion is *easy*!)
>
> If the "cells" you are talking about have no relationship between a new
> human life and it is just "human tissue" which is alive, great.  I have
> nothing against removing a "parasitic growth."  But of course, those "cells"
> just happen to make up a human life (read homo sapien member).  So what
> is really happening here is comparing two lives and their right to live.

Right.  And in the case of the zygote, that right is zippo - nada - nil.
Is this getting through to you at all?  I know *exactly* what it is we're
talking about, and that's *why* I hold the views that I do.  That it might
grow into a person like you or me some day, if things go in its favor, is
*not* news to any of us.

> >> >What about the rights of the woman. Looks to me like your trying to
> >> >take them away.
> >>
> >> There are lots of cases where certain "rights" come in conflict.  Of course
> >> some "rights" would take precedence over certain others.  To give a "lesser
> >> right" precedence over a greater one would not be prudent.
> >
> >And of course the right to prevent your bodily autonomy from being violated
> >takes precedence over the right to life of the violator when both are people,
>
> Sounds as if our own unborn sons and daughters are guilty of trespassing,
> entering private property, battery (hey.  He/she kicked me from inside!),
> etc.  What can we sentence our unborn children to?

If they use someone's body without that person's permission, we can
sentence them to death.  We can kill the zygote, embryo, fetus, or
"unborn Jesus" just as we could if it were a real person violating
someone's body.

> >and we certainly wouldn't want to give a fetus *more* rights than a person.
> We certainly will give fellow members of homo sapiens a very basic, and
> fundamental, natural right to life.
>
> >Particularly at the expense of the rights of the woman who is, without
> >question, a person.
>
> Both the woman and the unborn child within her are definitely both
> humans.

But only the woman is definitely a person.

> >> Once the right to life of the unborn is taken away, squashed, and diced
> >> and sliced, who is next?  The criminals?  The sick?  The elderly?  The
> >> deformed?  The poor?  The starving?  The rich?
> >
> >They're all born.  Next strawman, please.
> >
> Sounds like there is a discrimination between those who are born and
> those who are not yet born.  Why discriminate on location?  Certainly,
> location does not define an individual.

Because that "location" happens to be the body of a living, breathing,
bona-fide person-type human being.

> >> Don't you hold the right to life of humans to be rather self-evident?
> >
> >Of people, yes.  If you lump in zygotes, no.
> >
> More human discrimination, in my eyes, anyway.

Perhaps you should look up the word "discrimination".  It's not necessarily
a bad thing.  We discriminate all the time.  I discriminate between things
that I put in my mouth (like food) and things that I don't (like small
furry animals).  I'm also able to discriminate between people that can
breathe, think, move around on their own, etc., and the union of a sperm
and an egg.  That you can't tell the difference is, I believe, rather sad.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)