# Abortion and DNA: simple, logical thoughts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060 "2003-12-05T01:02:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/61 "2003-12-05T21:40:58Z")
You’re also trying to argue backwards from a final conclusion you’ve reached beforehand (it should be established that it is not OK to abort a fetus) in order to find a good intermediate conclusion that will support that final conclusion. Nothing wrong with planning your debating strategy that way (per se), but it tends to make you oblivious to leaps you make that aren’t compelling to the rest of us, and since you can’t logically _argue_ by defining your premise in terms of the conclusion you’re going to draw from it, that leaves you “begging the question”. Most of your material is set up to get your readers to say “Yeah, the fetus is human”. Now, your material tries to reach that point by arguing that the presence of human DNA makes the fetus human, but in response to critical comments and hypothetical situations posed by other posters here, you’ve ended up looping yourself in self-referential circles, sounding essentially like “The fetus is human if it has DNA which is the DNA of something that happens to be human, which is to say a person, not a tumor or a corpse, maybe unique but not necessarily, but if, you know, it’s the DNA of something we agree is human in the sense of a person with life in front of it, then, well, if the fetus has that, it’s human [and therefore abortion of the fetus is like killing adults and therefore wrong]”. It’s like saying “All naughty kids who have done the kind of wicked things that cause them to deserve a spanking should get spanked”. Or “All the red colors are red”. Or even “My cat’s breath smells like cat food”. ---
**Author:** ![artemis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/91b2a8/32.png) [@artemis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/artemis)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/62 "2003-12-05T22:30:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\ ***artemis** : I guess it’s an issue of the brain dead (and cadaver) having their “human life” _behind_ them and the fetus having its “human life” _in front_ of them. > > So, to summarize, personhood= human DNA + human life in front of them. Still won’t fly? \*\* Nope. The brain-dead body is still alive, in a strictly technical sense. The cells outside the brain are still carrying out their normal functions; the heart is still beating, the digestive system will still digest food, the lungs still perform gas exchange. The body still has “life” in front of it just as you or I do. So what makes it all right to pull the plug on a brain-dead body? If you say it’s O.K. because the brain-dead body has no “human life” in front of it, you’re using something other than the mere presence of human DNA in the cells to define a life as “human”. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/63 "2003-12-05T22:37:01Z")
> [@](#): > > personhood= human DNA + human life in front of them. You still have to address the issue of “how much human DNA” and “what kind of human DNA, i.e. defective or not”. As it is, it’s oversimplified, mainly because human DNA isn’t a totally uniform substance. It varies–some DNA has extra chromosomes; some DNA has missing chromosomes; and some DNA has defective chromosomes. [http://www.health.ri.gov/genetics/disorders.htm](http://www.health.ri.gov/genetics/disorders.htm) > [@](#): > > Genetic conditions can be caused by a mutation in a single gene, as in cystic fibrosis, phenylketonuria (PKU), thalassemia, Tay Sachs disease, and others. > > An extra or missing complete chromosome or a segment of a chromosome causes chromosomal disorders. Down syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome 21, and even though all of the genes may function normally, the individual has a disorder with specific characteristics. > > Multifactorial disorders are caused by a combination of small genetic variations, which together with possible environmental factors, can cause birth defects. These types of disorders have a tendency to recur in some families, but do not follow traditional patterns of inheritance. Some examples include cleft lip with or without cleft palate, spina bifida, pyloric stenosis and others. You can’t use a substance that varies as a standard, to set forth an official definition. Hershey bars are standardized; they don’t vary. So you can say, “A chocolate bar that is this particular, exact size and shape, and that has this particular, exact flavor and texture, always counts as a ‘Hershey bar’.” [In other words, it’s always a ‘person’.] But what if you took a box of 100 Hershey bars and opened them up, and some of them had only 7 squares, and some had 9, and some had 8 squares but with off-flavors or strange textures? According to your definition (“only those chocolate bars with this particular, exact size and shape, and this particular, exact flavor and texture are Hershey bars”), those would not be “Hershey bars”. They would not be “persons”. So if you want those “different” chocolate bars to be considered “Hershey bars” [persons], even if they don’t fit your definition, then–you’ll have to change your definition. ---
**Author:** ![Joe\_Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Joe\_Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Random)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/64 "2003-12-05T22:44:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > **_If_ it could be proven that tumors _do not_ have unique DNA and each twin _does_ have unique DNA, and fetuses _do_ have unique DNA, then would you all be willing to place more of an emphasis on unique human DNA as the sole, fundamental precursor/antecedent to personhood?** No. This is mainly because I would gladly assign personhood, along with all rights and responsibilities that being a “person” entails, to a sentient alien species or artificial intelligence. To me, being a _person_ is not the same thing as being _human_; Personhood is a result of function rather than of construction. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/65 "2003-12-05T23:02:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joe Random \* > \*\*Personhood is a result of function rather than of construction . \*\* I felt that this was worthy of emphasis and repetition - an excellent and succinct encapsulation of the issue. ---
**Author:** ![hauss](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5fc32e/32.png) [@hauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hauss)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/66 "2003-12-05T23:12:17Z")
Just to gain an even more complete understanding of your thoughts: If it were possible to see into the future and know _for a fact_ that a given fetus would live a meaningful, healthy life, would it still be ok to abort this fetus? I’m not trying to debate anymore, just curious. You guys have made your good points… ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/67 "2003-12-05T23:22:59Z")
In your hypothetical, what is the reason for wanting to abort the fetus? Also, who gets to make the decision? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/68 "2003-12-05T23:28:24Z")
Also, to turn your question around; if you could look into the future and know for a fact that a given fetus would grow up to be a brutal serial killer, and the power to make policies was yours alone, would you grant the pregnant woman the choice to terminate? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/69 "2003-12-05T23:34:29Z")
I don’t have to like the choice someone else makes, but since I do value my own choices; I have to respect theirs. This is not about a baby having no value. This is about weighing values and sometimes making tough decisions. I doubt these decisions are made as lightly as some people believe they are. If we could look into the future as far as our children are concerned, we would sometimes be more likely to get an abortion, not less. I am pro-life, but that can only apply to my personal choices. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2003, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/70 "2003-12-05T23:37:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\*I was replying to someone who said something like, “Why are you trying to change people’s minds…”. I simply replied by saying, “If I wanted to change people’s minds, I wouldn’t come here.” That was my proof for defending my motivation as purely testing a hypothesis. > > Besides, I have already said I am wrong. Did you not pick up on that? \*\* My apologies; I mistook your comments for something else. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/71 "2003-12-06T04:46:08Z")
Heck, I’ll stipulate that fetusses have unique human DNA. I’ll even stipulate they have sentience, feelings of goodwill and a tendency to side with left-of-center political platforms. Even stipulating all that, I still think abortion rights are necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/72 "2003-12-06T07:37:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\*I remember recently reading that scientists couldn’t quite agree on how many genes there are. Some say ~70k, while other say 150k, IIRC. Something about how they couldn’t agree on exactly what constitutes a “gene”. Do you remember what I’m talking about? > [http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Genes-Number-Disputed.htm](http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Genes-Number-Disputed.htm) > > So, I am assuming in the past couple years they have cleared this up? \*\* That’s completely irrelevant. It’s a whole different question. You don’t need to know the number of genes to know if two pieces of DNA are identical or not. Google “cot curves” if you want an example. ---
**Author:** ![CrazyCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dfb087/32.png) [@CrazyCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CrazyCatLady)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2003, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/73 "2003-12-06T16:51:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by hauss \* > \*\*If it were possible to see into the future and know _for a fact_ that a given fetus would live a meaningful, healthy life, would it still be ok to abort this fetus? \*\* Sure thing, if doing so were any road in the best interests of the woman, as her rights and interests trump those of the fetus. All sets of human DNA are equal, but some are more equal than others. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060/74 "2003-12-07T05:07:32Z")
What **Bryan Elkers** and **CrazyCatLady** said. The right to an abortion does not hinge on the status of the fetus _per se_, but on the right of people to not be an incubator when being an incubator is not what they want to do. If you were somehow growing my neighbor’s uterus I’d grant her the right to abort you, and I have no doubt that you are in complete possession of entirely human DNA and are probably otherwise destined to live a meaningful healthy life, give or take. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-dna-simple-logical-thoughts/217060.md?page=3)