Texas bans abortion.

[RecoveringYuppy]

unique DNA = different person

So back to every sperm and egg is a person.

 

[Warbler]

As late as the '60s, there was no question that the federal government and the states had the authority to regulate possession of firearms, particularly handguns. That was the moderate, mainstream majority opinion. Times have changed.

I would find it hard to believe that there was no one pre-'70s, pointing at the 2nd amendment and saying "any regulation limiting gun ownership is unconstitutional!".

 

[Warbler]

So back to every sperm and egg is a person.

sperm alone has the same DNA as the father.

ego alone has the same DNA as the mother.

fetus/zygote/embryo has unique DNA from that of the mother and father.

 

[acbytesla]

sperm alone has the same DNA as the father.

ego alone has the same DNA as the mother.

fetus/zygote/embryo has unique DNA from that of the mother and father.

So we're back to the fetus/zygote/embryo being more important than the woman.

Also, I guess you're against IUDs.

 

[Stacyhs]

This 'unique DNA' argument is just so silly. No one is arguing that people, except for identical twins, don't have unique DNA. That isn't what makes a zygote/embryo a human being/person. This has unique DNA, but it isn't a human being/person...yet:

 

[Warbler]

So we're back to the fetus/zygote/embryo being more important than the woman.

nope. But its right to live might exceed a woman's right to end a pregnancy that will not end her death.

Also, I guess you're against IUDs.

do they kill already fertilized embryos?

 

[Warbler]

This 'unique DNA' argument is just so silly. No one is arguing that people, except for identical twins, don't have unique DNA. That isn't what makes a zygote/embryo a human being/person. This has unique DNA, but it isn't a human being/person...yet:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/716696158b52ea2980.jpg[/qimg]

The argument started in here because someone tried to argue that the embryo/zygote was a part of the mother, like her arms or legs. Unique DNA means that it is not part of the mother.

 

[Paul2]

unique DNA = different person

Not necessarily, as in the case of twins.

 

[Warbler]

Not necessarily, as in the case of twins.

fine,

unique DNA = not the same person as the mother.

okay?

 

[Paul2]

The argument rests on the DNA of the fetus/zygote/embryo being unique from that of the mother.

I think you mean "different" from that of the mother.

Continuing: point taken, but why is that criterion - different DNA - crucial in the scenario of a pregnancy? If you say that it's because it defines two different people, then that criterion is inconsistently applied because we don't say twins are the same person.

 

[Paul2]

sperm alone has the same DNA as the father.

ego alone has the same DNA as the mother.

. . . .

Technically, it's a subset, isn't it? 1/2 the chromosomes?

 

[Paul2]

fine,

unique DNA = not the same person as the mother.

okay?

See my response immediately prior to this one.

 

[acbytesla]

nope. But its right to live might exceed a woman's right to end a pregnancy that will not end her death.

might? What is it about you and Warp? Can you be any more wishy washy?

do they kill already fertilized embryos?

IUD's prevent fertilized embryos from attaching to the uterine walls.

 

[Susheel]

So back to every sperm and egg is a person.

Which is why Onanism was a crime punishable by death in the OT.

 

[catsmate]

nope. But its right to live might exceed a woman's right to end a pregnancy that will not end her death.

I look forward to you detailing how you'll infallibly determine this.

do they kill already fertilized embryos?

Maybe you should educate yourself?

 

[Warbler]

I think you mean "different" from that of the mother.

I am not sure what difference is make whether the word "different" or "unique" is used there. The point is still the same: the DNA is not the same as the mother's.

Continuing: point taken, but why is that criterion - different DNA - crucial in the scenario of a pregnancy? If you say that it's because it defines two different people, then that criterion is inconsistently applied because we don't say twins are the same person.

true, we don't say twins are same person. But, we tested two DNA samples and found that they didn't match each other, we could and would conclude that the two DNA samples did not come from the same person.

 

[Warbler]

I look forward to you detailing how you'll infallibly determine this.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to do that here.

Maybe you should educate yourself?

or maybe you could have answered my question instead of being rude and snarky?

 

[Aridas]

fine,

unique DNA = not the same person as the mother.

okay?

I've been mostly trying to ignore a lot of problematic arguments on both sides, but... I'm going to arbitrarily step in here.

The unique DNA argument attempt to counter the point that, for example, "a zygote is literally part of the mother" is a complete nonstarter, and even moreso when you end up trying to make up a definition where a zygote or embryo ends up as a "person."

Long story short, you're trying to directly argue against the simple truth of the matter. Being clear about the fact that that truth is not the whole picture is one thing and could possibly be worth discussing. Reflexively denying the truth will only create pointless headaches.

 

[Warbler]

might? What is it about you and Warp? Can you be any more wishy washy?

I am not what is so wishy washy about using the word "might", in a situation where I am not 100% certain.

IUD's prevent fertilized embryos from attaching to the uterine walls.

Thank you for politely answering my question. As for whether I am against IUD's, I need to think about it.

 

[Warbler]

The unique DNA argument attempt to counter the point that, for example, "a zygote is literally part of the mother" is a complete nonstarter,

I don't understand how it is a not starter? If you argue a zygote is part of the mother, like her arms or legs, the fact the Zygote has different DNA from the mother invalids the argument.

Long story short, you're trying to directly argue against the simple truth of the matter. Being clear about the fact that that truth is not the whole picture is one thing and could possibly be worth discussing. Reflexively denying the truth will only create pointless headaches.

I'm confused, that is "the simple truth of the matter"?