What makes someone a human, worthy of protection in this society? Simplest, MOST FUNDAMENTAL answer possible: human DNA. (Did you ever stop to think that the most fundamental reason why you can’t shoot and kill another human being legally is because that creature has human DNA?) You are a human, you have feelings, are unique, all that crap, because of human DNA. And its your own unique DNA. Well, fetuses have the same human DNA as you, Dopers. And you are killing them.
It’s a part of the mother’s body, so she has a right to do with it how she pleases? Uh, no, it’s got seperate DNA. A mothers’ liver, heart, kidneys… all same DNA. Fetus, different, UNIQUE DNA. I know, complicated concept. Next…
It’s not a human until it’s born (or some arbitrary point in time), so it doesn’t have the “right” of protection, so its ok if I destroy it? Again, any “thing” possessing human DNA is fundamentally a human being. Fetuses, in the most earliest of stages, have unique DNA. Abort it, kill a human being. Stab a child, kill a human being. Same sad difference…
Pretty simple, (that’s why I composed this post on a 5th grade reading level.) But human dynamics do get in the way of simple, clear thinking all too often.
What does uniqueness have to do with anything? Are you saying that if there are twins or a genetic clone, it’s okay to “kill the spares” up and until the point where one unique DNA sequence reamins?
Identical, my point exactly. It is not a new, unique creation.
O, so there are tumors with teeth. Well, what did the tumor do with those teeth? It didn’t chew a salisbury steak with them and then grow a repair a jaw muscle with them. Sorry, not human! (But cool little fact to know)
You bring up an interesting point. The idea that we can define “other humans” as those with human DNA not identical to our own. This would remove the “every sperm is sacred” objection.
However, you need to develop something more. Corpses have human DNA which is obviously not yours. And while we are at it, how will we definitively distinguish human DNA?
You’re kidding, right? Do you know the process by which identical twins are formed? If you come back and say you really don’t know, I’ll dig up a “cite” for you.
Yes! That’s what makes them identical twins! They come from the same egg/sperm union that splits. You can just do a Google search on “dna” and “identical twins”, but here’s a most appropriate cite.
I wouldn’t call it a full stop so much as a rolling rubberneck.
See, somewhere between Menel’s discovery in 1865 of hereditary traits and Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double helix in 1953, we, the people of the world, learned about those funny squiggly things called DNA.
Mankind, however, learned about killing a long time before that. Take Hammurabi. Please! No, I’m just kidding, if you did that we’d have to take a Hammurabi from you in retribution. But he invented this nice thing called the Code of Hammurabi way way back yonder 'bout 3800 years ago.
Here’s his code, if you’re interested. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
It has the word “kill” in it 14 times. I couldn’t find the word DNA but then I only gave it a brief once over. Maybe your search will be more fruitful.
My point, if you were at all curious, is that DNA has fuck all to do with death or murder or abortion. I list all three because those words aren’t synonyms. Hell, according to the US Supreme Court, the third is barely even related to the first two.
Interesting. So, twins are truly identical. Me not being a scientist, I still doubt they know enough about genomes to make a statement like that, but if it really is true…
… I’d have to say that killing a twin is immoral/murder/illegal because they both have DNA that produces a different unique human being. Before you roll your eyes, I do concede, after learning this bit today, that they are indeed physically non-unique. But, their like genes do indeed produce a unique human being after living for a given amount of time, and it is that acheived uniqueness I believe we should all value and protect. Isn’t that what we strive to protect?
I hope that is a fair extension of my logic. Although I started talking about physical uniqueness, my underlying point (which I did not make clear) was that it’s the physical human DNA that produces a unique creature in essence (not physically). Those twins will undoubtedly have different mannersims and hobbies. And that fetus, no matter how many other fetuses it shares a womb with is still a unique being in essence.
Again, I doubt mankind knows enough to say that those twins are exactly alike. But I concede it’s certainly not a far-fetched proposition to say so. Interesting point, Apos. But I believe my point is not wounded enough by this one anecdotal twin situation. Even if the twins’ DNA is not fully unique, it’s still fairly unique. (6 billion people, only one other like it) Right?
Now that the human genome has been read, I should be able to download the entire human DNA and make a modified version on my PC. Are you suggesting that if I delete this modified file, I am committing murder?
Yes, they do. Their DNA sequences are generally similar to, but NOT identical to, the DNA sequence of the patient’s normal cells.
(In fact, some of those sequence differences are commonly used for diagnostic purposes.)
Yes.
According to the definition of “human being” you proposed in your OP, a malignant tumor IS a human being. As most people don’t regard cancerous lumps as human, this suggests a serious problem with your definition.
Google is your friend - look up the word “teratoma”.
I don’t think so. If one of the twins had sex with two women, the outcome would be exactly the same as if the twins had sex with one women each. Genetically speaking, twins are indeed redundant.
[QUOTE] Originally posted by hauss
Simplest, MOST FUNDAMENTAL answer possible: human DNA.{/quote]
Lots of stuff got human DNA in them. Like your hair.
No, that’s because that being is a human being, not because it has human DNA. I know, complicated concept…
Again, no. Human DNA is a necessary but not sufficient condition for something to be a human. More specifically, a human being. As it was pointed out, indentical n-lets (sorry, don’t know the medical term) all have identical DNA. By this line of logic, all but one of them can be, uh, “pruned.”
So do my skin cells. I kill tons of them everyday.
So if the DNA is the same as the mothers, say, in the case of cloning, it’s fine to kill it? :dubious: