From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Zygote
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:18:55 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  <1992Oct8.094247.3872@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
> In article <1992Oct08.072312.113604@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com write
> >In  <1992Oct7.081356.17906@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Mart
> >> In article <1992Oct07.055728.118130@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com wr
> >> >In  <1992Oct6.190757.21860@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>  c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (M
> >> >> In article <ld3d2qINN337@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM
> >> >> >In article <1992Oct6.052055.26529@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkel
>
> >
> >> > 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.
>
> So only the born have any human worth.  How about an unborn child
> a day before birth?  It definitely is a human, and it certainly looks
> like one too.  Now to say that we can't award these humans
> human worth would mean that the law, in fact, would allow these humans
> to be aborted (i.e. killed).

And the *only* reason it would be killed is if it were necessary to save the
life of the woman.

> But how can someone say that human worth is given because of a location
> of that person?

The woman is a person, not a location.

> The unborn one hour before birth is not much different
> from the newborn one hour after birth, but where did its worth change?

Before birth, it's inside a person.  After birth, it's not.  We value
the worth of the person it's inside of more than the worth of the fetus.
That's why, if one is going to die in childbirth, we save the woman.
If they were equally valuable, we'd flip a coin.

> Location shouldn't change the value we place on human individuals.  A boy
> in Zaire is worth no less than that same boy hiking up Half Dome.  To say
> that a man has no right to life in Phoenix but suddenly has a right to life
> because that individual moved ten miles away from Phoenix defies common
> sense.

Of course it does.  But we're not talking geographical location, we're
talking topological relationship to a person.  If the fetus were in
Phoenix and the woman was 10 miles away, I'd grant them equal right to life.

> To allow the unborn to be aborted five hours before its birth when it is
> clearly a fragile human just because of the notion that only born humans
> should be protected is preposterous.

That's simply not done.  Third trimester abortions are done only for
serious health reasons to begin with, and I would doubt that *any* are
done 5 hours before birth.

> >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.
> >
> So you would establish the right to kill, then.

"Establish"?

> >> >and we certainly wouldn't want to give a fetus *more* rights than a person.
> >> >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.
> >
> And both are clearly 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.
> >
> The existence of a person in location independent.  Sure, some human
> may die when put inside a furnace but that doesn't erase the fact that
> that human did exist and that human was certainly real, regardless of its
> location.

They were a person before being put into the furnace.  Doesn't apply.
And a woman is *not* a location.

> >> >> 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.
>
> This discrimination involves leaving certain humans outside the
> "umbrella" allowing these humans to be killed, used for genetic experiments,
> etc.  The disrespect for human life should affect us.

Why?  Maybe you can't tell the difference between a zygote and a person,
but I can.

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion