Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Abortion Abortion Forum - A complex ethical, moral, philosophical, biological, and legal issue


Thanks Tree18Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 19th, 2017, 05:38 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
So then, which variant of DNA would an adult human being be "defined by" when said organism has, quite literally, billions of cells all carrying unique genetic sequences of DNA?

Indeed, even a human blastocyst with merely 16 cells can potentially have cells with 16 unique genetic sequences. And, with regards to this scenario, how many human beings would said blastocyst be comprised of if, as you said, "human beings are defined by their DNA?"

Moreover, cancerous tumors in humans are also typically comprised of cells which carry unique sequences of DNA, quite often with just a single point mutation when compared with a normal human cell's genetic sequence. So then, in order to be consistent, shouldn't those particular cancerous tumors also be human beings?
What you're presenting here simply demonstrates that each individual human being has their own unique set of unique genetic sequences made up of more than one element ("element" as in the mathematical context of a set "member"). So you have your own unique DNA set that defines who you are (at present, historically, etc.), I have my own unique set of DNA, etc.
Neil is offline  
Old November 19th, 2017, 05:59 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,967
What would happen if someone genetically modified the DNA of another species, so that that species grew a large brain and the ability to communicate in human speech, if that species could reason, use tools, compose poetry, if it could believe in the supernatural.

Would we use that species to make sausage?
goober is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 02:32 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I think I was able to follow along with you right up to the very end. Perhaps if you said "killing one of them is evil, killing the other is ok" with "killing one of them is unacceptable, killing the other is ok (or acceptable)", I'd be able to follow along. The issue I have is with the word "evil", which is essentially a word with a religious context, and I'm not religious. However, I do see from the dictionary definition that it can also mean harmful or injurious; in that case any killing is harmful or injurious & beyond, in both cases, equally. Isn't it a matter of being consistent,
this is all dodge, smokescreen and avoidance of actually answering the question.

Quote:
if it's ok to kill in an ectopic pregnancy then it shouldn't it also be ok to kill for a heart? What's the difference?
that is what i am asking you. is it ok?

if we need to kill the ectopic pregnancy to save mums life, we do.

if we need to kill the 3 month old baby to save mums live, we do not.

i have no problem with this. do you? if you do, why?

Quote:
Getting back to the surgery procedures issue, if we have any other disease or problem that requires surgery or other form of medicine, we throw money at it to look for a cure or treatment. If there is no procedure for dealing with ectopics without causing any damage, then maybe we ought to throw money at developing such technology as well. There might be parents out there who don't want to sacrifice their unborn child because of an ectopic pregnancy problem.
what a ridiculous waste of money. its easy to deal with an ectopic - you abort it. its not an unborn child, its a lump of cells in the wrong place.
Thanks from catus felis
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 02:48 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I get that it isn't the point. What I'm taking issue with is how the wording is being structured & misused as a component to make a point or argument, or ask a question such as "when does life begin". My point is that that's not a relevant question; the relevant question is this: when does a new life begin? The answer is simple and unambiguous, a new life begins at conception.

If everyone can agree with that, I'm totally willing to move on beyond the "quibbling" & splitting hairs over semantics.

What does "person" or "human being" mean, and what difference does it make whether or not someone somewhere decided to slap a label or not slap a label on something? It's what it is (or isn't) and what someone wants to do to it that matters, not what someone wants to call it or doesn't want to call it.

Why is that the criteria? Who decided that that's the criteria? Maybe it is, and maybe it's a good criteria; I don't know. What I'm asking is how do you take things we know, understand, accept & agree on, then go from there to draw any conclusion. Show me how I can start from a foundation to draw the same conclusion and I'll go along with you. Until then, I have nothing to defend such an argument & that's what I'm looking for.
imagine you give a blood donation. that bag of blood is living cells, living human cells. their DNA is your DNA. according to your criteria, that bag of blood is a human being. its living cells with unique human DNA.

but thats absurd. a human being is more than a lump of cells. a human being is also their thoughts and feelings and reactions. this requires a working brain. its not just my criteria, its the entirety of the medical profession, internationally, for generations. a human being is defined by a living, working brain. any other part of your body can be removed, destroyed, replaced, nothing else is necessary to make someone human. your brain is necessary and sufficient to define you as a human being.

nobody denies that conception creates a living human cell with its own unique DNA, that has the capacity to grow into a human being, given the right circumstances. but its not there yet. its human tissue, but like a bag of blood, it lacks the thing necessary to define a human being.
Thanks from catus felis
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 03:08 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
I've actually changed my position on abortion because I took new aspects into consideration. I used to consider anything we did to intentionally end a pregnancy (prematurely, leading to the death of the unborn child, etc.) as abortion and as something unacceptable. Later on I took into consideration that we have a right to put whatever we want to in our mouths (i.e. what we eat or drink), and if that happens to be some herbal tea or drink that can induce a miscarriage, that's nature's fault & not something I can say is unacceptable (otherwise I'd have to be telling people what they're allowed to eat & drink, and I don't want to do that).

I get where you're trying to go with this, but technically I disagree. I'd rather say that human beings are defined by their DNA.

Who's "we"? I don't necessarily agree with these premises, or definitions (that's what they really are). That isn't a problem of consistency or inconsistency. It looks like you're coming up with the definitions you want to apply to words and you want people to go along with your meanings & interpertations, and when you refer to being consistent you're talking about people accepting or agreeing with your definition. But whether or not people agree or accept your definition or interpretation, etc., even though that is a matter of being consistent, has nothing to do with the issue, which is whether or not it is acceptable to kill that which has existed since conception.

What would be consistent and relevant to the matter would be whether it is acceptable to kill something that has existed since conception or not, and to stick to that decision. If it's acceptable to kill a baby before it's born, then it's consistent that it's acceptable to kill a baby after it's born, and consistent that it's acceptable to kill a baby 1 year later, or a 10 year old child, or a 20 year old adult, or 30 or 40 or 50, etc. and everything in between. What would be inconsistent is to say that during this time it's ok but during that time it's not ok; that's just arbitrary.
if a human being is defined by their DNA then you run into problems. a dead body has its own unique human DNA, does a corpse enjoy the same rights as the living? conjoined twins have one body, identical DNA, but two brains. i consider them two people, but your definition would not.

if you consider a human being begins at conception, do you want a coronial inquiry and funeral for every miscarriage?

universally around the world, "death" means brain death. every other organ can be working fine, they are human organs with human DNA, alive and good, but there isnt a working brain so the person is considered dead. similarly, if any other part of the person dies, its a medical problem for sure, but not a death. someones heart dies, get a transplant, or an artificial one if you are rich enough. kidneys die, we have dialysis. an arm or leg dies, we amputate. those body parts dont get a funeral, they are not considered murders, because they arent human beings. because the death of living tissue with human DNA is not necessarily the death of a human being. its only when a brain dies that it is considered the death of a human being.

my position is that the term "unborn child" applies, entirely appropirately, from about 20 weeks onwards. thats when the brain has matured to the point it is active, it is generating thoughts and emotions, and it can be considered a human being. and certainly, any act that is an attempt to kill that child is no different from an act to kill a born child. or an adult for that matter. its a person, its a new human being and deserves every protection and all rights that any other person deserves.

doing this from conception is irrational. there isnt a person to protect. its not yet a person. in the same way that an egg is not a chicken, and a seed is not a tree, an embryo is not a human being. with an egg, or a seed, or an embryo, they have potential to become something greater, given time and the right environment, but they are not there yet. the things that define a chicken are not present in an egg, it has the same DNA and it cannot possibly become anything other than a chicken, but it isnt a chicken yet. same with a seed, its got the right DNA and the potential to grow, but the things required for tree-hood are simply absent.
Thanks from catus felis
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 03:12 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
What you're presenting here simply demonstrates that each individual human being has their own unique set of unique genetic sequences made up of more than one element ("element" as in the mathematical context of a set "member"). So you have your own unique DNA set that defines who you are (at present, historically, etc.), I have my own unique set of DNA, etc.
identical twins dont have a unique set, they each have the same set. conjoined twins even share the same body, they are one organism. yet, we would consider them two people.

so clearly it isnt just DNA that makes someone human.
hot dragon is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 05:05 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 10,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
What you're presenting here simply demonstrates that each individual human being has their own unique set of unique genetic sequences made up of more than one element ("element" as in the mathematical context of a set "member"). So you have your own unique DNA set that defines who you are (at present, historically, etc.), I have my own unique set of DNA, etc.
And identical twins have the same DNA, and yet they are unique individuals.
Because DNA doesn't make the individual, it's the mind that is unique, that makes the individual.
Thanks from RNG, catus felis and Clara007
goober is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:51 AM   #28
Banned
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,839
My daughter an her husband carry a gene, that causes Fanconi Anemia our grandchild was born with this disease. Odds on this is 1:131,000

They choose not to have children they could because the odds are 1:4 that their children will have the disease, so they could have embryos and have them tested and implant a healthy embryo, They choose not to do that because it would be killing a child if the embryo should have the disease and they abandon it.


So are they wrong in their belief?
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 03:54 AM   #29
Banned
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by hot dragon View Post
identical twins dont have a unique set, they each have the same set. conjoined twins even share the same body, they are one organism. yet, we would consider them two people.

so clearly it isnt just DNA that makes someone human.
Conjoined people are 2 people sharing one body. The extent of that sharing is a case by case, many times they can be separated..
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 02:16 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
hot dragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 9,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Conjoined people are 2 people sharing one body. The extent of that sharing is a case by case, many times they can be separated..
i know. tell neil, he is the one who says a set of unique human DNA is what defines a human being, which means conjoined twins would count as one human being. i agree with you, they are two, and the reason there are two is because there are two functioning human brains.
hot dragon is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Abortion

Tags
antiabortion, crowd, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Time for the Anti-Gay Marriage crowd to give up RNG Political Humor 4 June 30th, 2016 08:06 AM
Abortion Rights Leader Nails Hypocrisy Of Anti-Abortion Activists LongWinded Abortion 3 December 14th, 2015 03:06 PM
Finally... A Good Idea By The Anti-War Crowd! Jefferson Warfare 2 November 21st, 2006 05:20 AM
Anti-War Crowd and Fascist Islam In Bed Together alias Warfare 37 September 6th, 2006 12:15 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.