From: c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero)
Subject: Re: No Human Worth in Unborn (was Re: Poof! Martins a frog (was: I had an a
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:42:47 GMT

In article <1992Oct08.072312.113604@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes:
>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.

>
>> > 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).  

But how can someone say that human worth is given because of a location
of that person?  The unborn one hour before birth is not much different
from the newborn one hour after birth, but where did its worth change?
Did the "initiation" of birth give that child the privilege of life?

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.

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.  Clearly, it is a human life, and
clearly, we must protect its life.
>

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

>> >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.
>
And both are clearly humans.
Why do "persons" have the right to life while other humans don't.  This
type of discrimination between humans can often be dangerous.

>> >> 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.

>> >> 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.  WHen we start
"limiting" certain humans to be "worthy" to live, it becomes apparent that
our society becomes an exclusive one where those who are not wanted are
discriminated against.  

Cooperation not annihilation.

Newsgroups: talk.abortion