From: emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I had an abortion two days ago
Date: 6 Oct 1992 04:01:36 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: hernes-sun

In article <1992Oct6.002854.2806@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> c164-ad@po.berkeley.edu (Martin Guerrero) writes:
>In article <ld1kqvINNpvc@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> emarsh@hernes-sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Marsh) writes:

[Guerrero, Marsh, Guerrero, etc. ]

>>>>If you read the post that you just responded to, you would have noticed
>>>>that I had no qualms about stating that human life is destroyed in
>>>>the abortion proceedure. 

>>>I know you made a few other comments concerning this, but the above comment
>>>may speak for itself.  Abortion, does, indeed, kill human life and you
>>>have no qualms about it.  

>>Yes, that is correct. Every time I scratch myself I also kill human life,
>>and I have no qualms about that either.

>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?

>>As far as I'm concerned, when people are willing to allow the rights
>>of their fellows to be trampled on, which is exactly what happens to
>>women who are forced to endure unwanted pregnancies, we all suffer.

>But I'm afraid you are forgetting who else is being trampled on.  Well,
>not trampled on.  Perhaps, diced and sliced, sucked away, cut up, etc.

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.

Is there anything I have said that you do not understand? Perhaps
you would like me to explain some of the words I used?

>>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.

>>>>As I mentioned in my last paragraph (not to mention my last post) I do
>>>>not dispute that human life is being destroyed. After all, a clump of
>>>>living human tissue is, by definition, human life. I do not agree that
>>>>human life begins at conception. Any good biology text will tell you that
>>>>the egg and sperm are also human life.

>>>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.
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.

Does this cell have mental capabilities? No, but apparently you do not
consider that to be an issue. In fact, I'm not sure just what you do 
consider to be an issue here. Is it genetic code? My skin cell has that.
Is it life? My skin cell has that.

>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.

>>>The egg
>>>and the sperm are specialized human cells which acts as messenger.  Only after
>>>conception can we call the unborn child members of homo sapiens.  Before that,
>>>the egg and sperm are merely messenger cells.

>>In YOUR humble opinion, perhaps. 

>Unfortunately, my opinion is based on scientific knowledge as well as 
>common sense and reason.  (This is not meant to "put down" anyone but
>I am merely trying to tell people where I am coming from.)

So what distinguishes a member of species homo sapient? Is it genetic 
code, etc. ?

Assume nothing. You are making a lot of assumptions and putting them 
under the heading of "common sense." As for biology, if you were to
understand biology, I doubt that you would make the arguments that
you have been making. 

A clue for you son; life is not something that just suddenly happens.
It is a complex biochemical process that has been going on for billions
of years. New lives do not happen - what happens is that the biological
material undergoing the process commonly referred to as life goes 
through transformations of state.  Don't believe me? Talk to a few
biologists, or read a few books.

>>>>>With this, it is easy to also say that the pro-choicer's attitudes are 
>>>>>also "damn cold."

>I'm afraid you are getting a little carried away here.  Living tissue
>is a great euphemism to human life, isn't it?  By the way, you are just living
>tissue too.  Your family and my family are just separate units of living
>human tissue, too.

Yep, I'm just human tissue. However certain specialized types of tissues
have grown connected in a certain manner necessary for me to develop
the attribute known as consciousness. This is what differentiates me,
and it is an attribute lacking in the z/e/f.

>>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.

>>>If you think allowing an unborn child to live is forcing, then what would
>>>killing an unborn child be, freedom?

>>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?

Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.clinton