Can people who disagree on abortion stop attacking each other?

[Kylie]

Post #802

I see nothing in there that address the "unique DNA" that I presented.

Please tell me, which of those addresses the question of whether personhood is granted by unique DNA?

 

[YahuahSaves]

I see nothing in there that address the "unique DNA" that I presented.

Please tell me, which of those addresses the question of whether personhood is granted by unique DNA?

You would have if you read the linked article. We've already determined the definition of a person in Post #785 changing the language doesn't change the facts. Every question you've asked can be answered by an embryologist. Read the link, it gives you very detailed answers.

Personhood
noun

The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.
The state or period of being a person.
being a person.

 

[Belk]

Because we need something foundational to determine morality, it has to be objective, not subjective. If religion is not the foundation for lawmakers then science should be.

The objective/subjective debate of morality is another hotly contested area of this forum. Afraid we will likely disagree there as well. I have yet to see a good argument for basing morality on anything objective. If you wish to start a separate thread on it I will be happy to debate it.

 

[Kylie]

You would have if you read the linked article. We've already determined the definition of a person in Post #785 changing the language doesn't change the facts. Every question you've asked can be answered by an embryologist. Read the link, it gives you very detailed answers.

Personhood
noun

The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.
The state or period of being a person.
being a person.

Oh come on. You posted a list of myths that you claimed "answers every argument" about abortion.

None of those "myths" address the "unique DNA" I asked you about, even though you tagged me in that post as though you were providing an answer.

And your post 785 does nothing except provide a synonym. You can't answer the question.

If a group of cells/tissue/whatever you want to call it has UNIQUE DNA, is it considered a separate human/person/homo sapiens/any other word you want to use that means person?

 

[YahuahSaves]

The objective/subjective debate of morality is another hotly contested area of this forum. Afraid we will likely disagree there as well. I have yet to see a good argument for basing morality on anything objective. If you wish to start a separate thread on it I will be happy to debate it.

Why would I need to do that?

If morality cannot be objective (everyone agreeing what "morality" is), what foundation do we base our laws on? Hence, my inclusion of scientific facts on this thread. Bye.

 

[YahuahSaves]

You posted a list of myths that you claimed "answers every argument" about abortion

I said, (if you kept reading the post) the scientific facts that answered the myths listed, were too detailed to add to the post. I'm not opening the link and doing the reading and explaining for you. You can do that for yourself. It absolutely answers the question you posed:

If a group of cells/tissue/whatever you want to call it has UNIQUE DNA, is it considered a separate human/person/homo sapiens/any other word you want to use that means person?

 

[Belk]

Why would I need to do that?

If morality cannot be objective (everyone agreeing what "morality" is),

That is not what objective is. Everyone can agree and it still be subjective.

what foundation do we base our laws on? Hence, my inclusion of scientific facts on this thread. Bye.

Our laws are not objective. Hence why we when we try people we use words like "Beyond reasonable doubt" and "Preponderance of evidence".

 

[Kylie]

I said, (if you kept reading the post) the scientific facts that answered the myths listed, were too detailed to add to the post. I'm not opening the link and doing the reading and explaining for you. You can do that for yourself. It absolutely answers the question you posed:

Okay, let's see what your source says (BTW, it's horrendously formatted, you might find THIS version is much easier to read.)

Your source says, "To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization�the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte�usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (a single-cell embryonic human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced."

This seems very clear to me. A unique DNA sequence means a unique person. As such, a chimera - with TWO unique DNA sequences - is two people.

So I ask you my question again. Your own source indicates that THESE people are in fact each two people, since they each have two sets of cells, one with one set of DNA (let's call it DNA set A) and another set of cells with a different set of DNA (we'll call that DNA set B).

Now, if I could somehow go in and change every example of DNA set B to match DNA set A, the person would still be alive, they would have an uninterrupted experience,. But have I committed a murder? If you believe that a unique set of DNA is sufficient to grant personhood (and your own source supports that position), then yes, I must have committed a murder.

So, who is the dead person?

 

[GodLovesCats]

Myth 8: "Pregnancy begins with the implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., about 5-7 days)."

This is what kids are required to learn at school. I assume the reason is most zygotes are naturally miscarried without anyone knowing they existed except God. What people need to understand is the definitions of pregnancy and fertilizat5ion are different.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Now, if I could somehow go in and change every example of DNA set B to match DNA set A, the person would still be alive, they would have an uninterrupted experience,. But have I committed a murder? If you believe that a unique set of DNA is sufficient to grant personhood (and your own source supports that position), then yes, I must have committed a murder.

So, who is the dead person?

I don’t see why the question disqualifies the fact that an embryo is genetically a human being, or that editing DNA is equal to abortion. It's unethical perhaps, but show me the evidence where this has been done successfully without a negative result?

During twin absorption

Fraternal (dizygotic) twins are the twins generated from two zygotes. Two zygotes can be formed from two ova being simultaneously released and fertilized by two sperm cells. On the other hand, identical twins (monozygotic) are twins generated when one zygote divides into two (or three) before implantation in the uterus.

Quite often, one of the fraternal twins dies inside the mother’s womb. The portion of this twin that was already formed is absorbed by the other remaining twin. The individual, when born, is a human chimera, as it has the DNA of two organisms inside it.

More often than not, this does not create any problems, and the individual continues to live a normal life.

In some cases, such as when the sex of twins was different, complications may arise. If the surviving female still has cells containing the Y chromosome (found only in men) in her body, it could lead to the development of certain masculine characteristics, such as rudimentary testes.

From: Chimerism: What Is A Human Chimera?

 

[YahuahSaves]

This is what kids are required to learn at school. I assume the reason is most zygotes are naturally miscarried without anyone knowing they existed except God. What people need to understand is the definitions of pregnancy and fertilizat5ion are different.

Fact 8: This definition of "pregnancy" was initiated to accommodate the introduction of the process of in vitro fertilization, where fertilization takes place artificially outside the mother in a petri dish, and then the embryo is artificially introduced into the woman's uterus so that implantation of the embryo can take place. Obviously, if the embryo is not within the woman's body, she is not "pregnant" in the literal, traditional sense of the term. However, this artificial situation cannot validly be substituted back to redefine "normal pregnancy," in which fertilization does take place within the woman's body in her fallopian tube, and subsequently the embryo itself moves along the tube to implant itself into her uterus. In normal situations, pregnancy begins at fertilization, not at implantation. Quoting Carlson:

"Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm, but a great deal of preparation precedes this event. First both male and female sex cells must pass through a long series of changes (gametogenesis) that converts them genetically and phenotypically into mature gametes, which are capable of participating in the process of fertilization. Next, the gametes must be released from the gonads and make their way to the upper part of the uterine tube, where fertilization normally takes place. Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus, where it sinks into the uterine lining (implantation) to be nourished by the mother."35 (Emphasis added.)

From: WHEN DO HUMAN BEINGS BEGIN? "SCIENTIFIC" MYTHS AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS

 

[Kylie]

I don’t see why the question disqualifies the fact that an embryo is genetically a human being, or that editing DNA is equal to abortion. It's unethical perhaps, but show me the evidence where this has been done successfully without a negative result?

During twin absorption

Fraternal (dizygotic) twins are the twins generated from two zygotes. Two zygotes can be formed from two ova being simultaneously released and fertilized by two sperm cells. On the other hand, identical twins (monozygotic) are twins generated when one zygote divides into two (or three) before implantation in the uterus.

View attachment 325796

Quite often, one of the fraternal twins dies inside the mother’s womb. The portion of this twin that was already formed is absorbed by the other remaining twin. The individual, when born, is a human chimera, as it has the DNA of two organisms inside it.

More often than not, this does not create any problems, and the individual continues to live a normal life.

In some cases, such as when the sex of twins was different, complications may arise. If the surviving female still has cells containing the Y chromosome (found only in men) in her body, it could lead to the development of certain masculine characteristics, such as rudimentary testes.

From: Chimerism: What Is A Human Chimera?

Totally irrelevant.

Your source says that "Unique DNA" = "Unique Human." A person with TWO sets of unique DNA is, by your logic, two people.

In my hypothetical, I have destroyed one of the DNA sets. By your logic, I have killed a person, because cells with that unique DNA no longer exist.

So tell me, who have I killed? Either I killed someone, or your source is wrong when it said unique DNA counts as a separate person.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Your source says that "Unique DNA" = "Unique Human." A person with TWO sets of unique DNA is, by your logic, two people.

I thought you understood objective reality? (Post #758). If the scientific evidence is not enough for you, then that just means you're operating under your own emotional biases and in denial about the facts. Why would I continue to debate someone who is selective with the evidence that proves a human beings existence begins at fertilisation? I've been around this LOOP with you before and I'm not interested in doing it again. You would probably argue with a doorpost. 》BYE.

 

[Diamond72]

So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions and that is ridiculous!"

Onan "spilled his seed on the ground" and we are told: Genesis 38:9 "What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also." (NIV)

 

[Diamond72]

Finally, the fertilized egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus

My Daughter never made it to the Uterus. But I had a dream about her in Heaven and she is alive and well there. Although she is a little confused about why she did not get to live her life here on Earth.

 

[YahuahSaves]

Onan "spilled his seed on the ground" and we are told: Genesis 38:9 "What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death also." (NIV)

Can't use that as a valid argument against abortion though. besides, that passage is about rebellion against God, not necessarily the spilling of seed in and of itself.

 

[NxNW]

when did you learn right from wrong?

Are you implying that all such matters suddenly became immediately clear at one moment? The absurdity of that question should refute any notion of an Age of Accountability.

On the other hand, the notion that all humans begin to sin immediately upon conception is equally absurd.

The logical conclusion is that the notion of sin is what's really absurd.

 

[NxNW]

For the pro-choicers on this thread, anyone I've missed, count yourself included in this post.

@ChristianForCats
@NxNW
@Kylie
@jayem
@Belk

This answers every argument you have regarding abortion of a human being. The detailed scientific facts can be found in the link provided, they're too in-depth to add in this post, but they demolish the myths.

I'm going to take a look at this over the next day or two. I've quickly read thru a few of the arguments and found them lacking and out of date. The response to "myth 9" is blatantly false regarding the Morning After Pill, for example. Last week's headlines:

FDA changes Plan B label to clarify 'morning-after' pill doesn't cause abortion​

FDA changes Plan B label to clarify 'morning-after' pill doesn't cause abortion

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration announced Friday that it will overhaul packaging labels for the emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B, that women can take after having sex to prevent a pregnancy.

The federal agency said it will remove references on the contraception's packaging that claim, without scientific evidence, that the pill prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. The new labels are intended to further distinguish the emergency contraception — also known as the morning after pill — from abortion pills, which end a pregnancy after a fertilized egg has implanted in the lining of a woman's uterus.

The Morning After pill is simply a higher dose of the medication in birth control pills. To claim that it causes abortions is a lie. If the other arguments are equally false, then your position is a weak one.

 

[NxNW]

So you don't think that every human's life is valuable.

I never said that. Please stop making false claims about what I said.

 

[NxNW]

My Daughter never made it to the Uterus. But I had a dream about her in Heaven and she is alive and well there. Although she is a little confused about why she did not get to live her life here on Earth.

If you think about it logically: Given that the vast majority of Heaven's inhabitants must be embryos that miscarried, she would have plenty of company.