From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an abortion two days ago)
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:07:57 GMT

In article <ld3d2qINN337@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.052055.26529@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>>In article <ld23t0INNrii@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:
>
>>>[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]
>
>>>>Skin cells are not members of homo sapiens.  Unless you come up with a very
>>>>creative but twisted justificiation trying to prove that skin cells, are
>>>>indeed, members of homo sapiens.
>
>>>Funny, I don't recall you saying anything about "members of homo sapients."
>>>You said human life. Skin cells are most certainly human life, wouldn't
>>>you agree?
>
>>Nope.  Human life, in my terminology, is synonymous with being a member of
>>homo sapiens.
>
>Ahhh.... I see...
>
>Heck of a way to win an argument. All you have to do is redefine the
>terms.
>
I never REdefined any terms.  I have always held that.  It's just that other
people, without my consent, have redefined it for me.

>Well in that case, I define you as a frog. Consider yourself green. Poof!
>
>[perhaps you can see the fatal flaw in your response?]

I do not have the genetic code of a frog and I am definitely a member of
homo sapiens.  

Remember, I have never REdefined my terms.  It has always been there. 

>
>>>There is no _who_ else. Try this concept and see if it is comprehensible:
>>>it is not mere human tissue that we value, it is people. The measure of
>>>what is or is not a person is mental capability.  The z/e/f has no mental
>>>capability. None. Zero. Nada.
>
>>Do you have anything against killing a human life (read, member of homo
>>sapiens)?
>
>I would say that is a very simplistic question about a complex subject.
>Give me more specific information and I will try to answer it.
>
>Just as a comment, your response keys into something I have found in
>most fundamentalist cults: a tendency to take complex issues and 
>catagorize them in simple black and white terms. You wouldn't be a
>member of one of those cults, would you?

As in "I think like a fundamentalist cult" and therefore, I am probably
a member of the fundamentalist cult categorizing things in terms of black
and white.  Wait, aren't you trying to categorize me just right now?
>
>>>>>So whats worse? To remove the rights of people, or to destroy human
>>>>>tissue?
>
>>>>Just human tissue, eh?  Unfortunately, that human tissue is a member of
>>>>homo sapiens.  So when comparing one human with another, do you kill one
>>>>in order to appease the other?
>
>>>Just as my skin cells are.
>
>>>We are not measuring one person against another, we are measuring a
>>>person against some human tissue, that lacks the attributes necessary
>>>for personhood.
>
>>We are matching one human life for another human life, pure and simple.
>>I hope you aren't for killing human life, are you?  
>
>And my skin cells or my appendix are also human life. I have no problem
>with destroying human life, as long as a person is not being destroyed
>at the same time.
>
*sigh*  Skin cells or your appendix are not human life.  They are not
members of homo sapiens as I hope your common sense would dictate.

>>>>>>I don't really think so.  An egg and a sperm, as mentioned for the millionth
>>>>>>plus third time, are not fit be be called members of homo sapiens.  
>
>>>>>This is what is generally referred to around here as "truth by blatant
>>>>>assertion." 
>
>>>>I assert because science, biology, common sense and reason, says so.  
>>>>Would you call your cheek cells members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>>>Would you call your toenails members of homo sapiens?  I don't think so.
>>>>Will you call a five month unborn child a member of homo sapiens?  I sure
>>>>hope so.  
>
>>>If you wre to take a single cell off my cheek, isolate it and keep it
>>>alive, by your definition it would be a member of species homo sapient.
>
>>A definite no.  Read an article I posted/wrote regarding this.
>
>Again, I see you making a lot of blatant assertions, rather self serving
>assertions IMHO, and claiming them as fact. Just because you say somethign
>is true does not necessairly make it true. Of course you can claim that
>you have that power, but I can also claim that you are a frog.

The scientific fact that human life begins at conception is common knowledge.
I make "assertions" because it is almost a given.

>
>>>It is just as much a living human cell with its own genetic code as is
>>>a fertilized egg. In fact, it might even divide and make more cells.
>
>>Oh a human cheek cell is defintely a human cell.  But note that the human
>>cheek cell is a mere portion.  In and of itself, it is nothing.  A fertilized
>>egg, however, in and of itself, in its entire sum, is a member of homo 
>>sapiens.  Its entire genetic code is contained in its whole sum of parts.
>
>My living cell has a complete genetic makeup. I would say that it is 
>complete as cells go. Put it in the right envioronment and it will even
>grow. 

Grow, but that doesn't make it human, in any sense of the world.



>
>>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.

>>>>Do I really have to explain this???
>
>>>Yes, because your arguments are flawed and incomplete. Perhaps if I
>>>walk you through them a few times you will begin to comprhend those
>>>flaws.
>
>>Read my other article on this.  I am way too tired to have to keep repeating
>>the same things over and over again.
>
>Again, just because you claim something, doesn't make it true. Or should
>I just call you Kermit?

It is basically a scientific given.


>
>>>>>After you remove women's rights, then what group will you turn your attention
>>>>>to next? As a member of a minority religion, I'm well aware of how fascist
>>>>>groups behave, and your "pro-life" movement is one of the finest I've seen
>>>>>in a while, coming in second only to white supremists.
>
>>>>Do women's rights include the right to kill their human offspring?
>
>>>If the offspring is lacking those "personhood" attributes I described
>>>and if it conflicts in an unavoidable way with her freedom and well
>>>being then I say she does.
>
>>The same offspring you are talking about is a unique human individual.  You
>>are really giving people the right to kill special human individuals.  Just
>>think about that.  
>
>I've thought the issue pretty much all the way through. Looks to me
>like your the one who has to hide behind a redefinition of terms.
>

I have not REdefined terms.

>>>>>I have no problem with _allowing_ a z/e/f to live, if that is the will
>>>>>of the woman carrying it. In contrast, you are calling for the use
>>>>>of _force_ when you coerce somebody to submit their bodily resources 
>>>>>against their will. As I said, when you have removed women's rights, then
>>>>>who is next?
>
>>>>You can also say:
>>>>   We have removed the rights of the innocent unborn.  Who is next?  The
>>>>   sick and the elderly?  The deformed newborns?  The criminals?  Deformed
>>>>   individuals?  The very very rich?  (For those who hate the rich)  The
>>>>   poor? (for those who think the poor are great burdens to society)  
>>>>   Your enemies?
>
>>>Hey, I'm not the one advocating taking peoples rights away. 
>
>>>You are... Remember?
>
>>I'm not taking away people's rights.  Whatever gave you that idea.
>
>You are advocating taking away a woman's right to control her
>repoductive destiny, as well as her right to control her body, aren't
>you? If you are not, then that would make you pro-choice, and you
>most certainly don't appear to be pro-choice.

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.  

>
>>What is being weighed here is the life of the unborn child and the
>>life of the mother.  Notice that the right of the unborn child to live
>>is being protected.  Rights aren't being taken away, rights are being
>>preserved.  
>
>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.
>
>Again, once you have taken away women's rights, what group is next?
>Gays?

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?

>
>>The mother does not have the right to kill any human individual
>>whether in her or outside of her (of course, we have to balance the right
>>of the mother to live, too).  So you can't take away a right which
>>should never have been there or was never there.
>
>Looks to me like you just redefined the word "rights" to support more
>"truth by blatant assertion." 

We hold these truth's to be self evident.  

Don't you hold the right to life of humans to be rather self-evident?


Newsgroups: talk.abortion