Ok, so your point is that “DNA has fuck all to do with…”. And to support that you tell me about how some guy way back when that made up some rules?
My quote which you were replying to said that the only reason you can’t kill me legally (and morally) is because I possess human DNA. Do you really want to argue with that? :dubious: If so, come up with something better than Wasabi, or whatever his name was.
There’s plenty of reasons not to kill someone. Most agree it’s axiomatically wrong to kill a person - maybe any living thing - except under certain (usually extreme) circumstances.
Also, consider the existence of animal cruelty laws. You can be punished for killing animals. This means that the general rule isn’t something like “killing humans is wrong”; it’s probably rooted more in the idea that, again, it’s wrong to take life under any old circumstance.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think this path will work. It’s certainly a new one - so far as I know - but it seems a bit too arbitrary to hold up.
Your argument: It is illegal to kill humans. Humans possess human DNA. Therefore it is illegal to kill humans because they possess human DNA.
Unfortunately for you, your conclusion does not follow from the premises. Having human DNA is a side effect of being human, and not related to the fact that killing humans is illegal.
In fact, you have already acknowledged that there are instances where you can kill something with human DNA (re: tumors), so it’s obvious that possessing human DNA is not the deciding factor.
That is not a coherent, logical statement, sorry.
You tell me, what, other than DNA, makes a human a human?
I think this is called “begging the question”.
Aside from which the straw man you’re trying to build has been burned in effigy over and over and over again. For every two people who accept your premise that if a fetus is human it would not be ok to kill it via abortion, one of them will not agree with you that the fetus is human; meanwhile, four others will reject your premise in the first place, saying that it isn’t the “humanness” of something that makes it wrong for us to kill it, it’s something else (and the four of us will have four different standards). Hang it up. This is no way to convince anyone of anything.
By the way: just out of curiosity, do you believe that it is always wrong to kill a human being? Always, without exception? Capital punishment? Self defense? War? To protect your children from being killed by someone engaged in the attempt?
What about frozen human sperm cells in a sperm bank? They have human DNA. Is it “murder” to destroy them?
Is this sperm bank liable for mass murder? Or just incompetence?
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1068651187867
The court doesn’t seem to think so.
How about this sperm bank, who also lost someone’s samples? Are they guilty of murder?
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_535470.html?menu=
What about human stem cells? They have human DNA. Is it “murder” to destroy them? All those people doing research with stem cells, which inevitably means that many stem cells will be destroyed–are those people guilty of “murder”?
Your logic is faulty. You’re saying, “A thing that has human DNA equals a human being.” But there are many things that have human DNA that nevertheless are not human beings–tumors, sperm, stem cells. So it is not a true statement to say, “A thing that has human DNA equals a human being.” You will have to find some other way to define “what makes a human being”, because it is abundantly clear that mere possession of human DNA doesn’t cut it. If your only definition of “human being” is “that which possesses human DNA”, then you’ll have to include tumors, sperm cells, and stem cells as “human beings”.
See, the problem is that you’re taking the DNA thing too far. Sure, it’s illegal to kill humans (generally speaking). It’s also a fact that humans have human DNA.
However, the conclusion that one should draw from these facts is that it’s illegal to kill humans who possess human DNA. Not that it’s illegal to kill anything that possesses human DNA.
Otherwise, removing a tumor would be murder.
In other words, possession of human DNA is not what makes killing illegal. It’s just that every human that it is illegal to kill has human DNA. Hell, all humans are made up of atoms. Does that mean that it should be illegal to kill anything composed of atoms?
I believe the poster is saying that we don’t kill people simply because they’re people - not because they have human DNA.
That’s actually a very tough philosophical question, and I can’t easily answer it. But, not being able to answer it doesn’t mean that human DNA is the sole property that makes a being human.
One last thing. Human DNA is not necessarily alive, is it? If it isn’t, then it would be a poor qualifier with respect to what you can and can’t kill. I mean, my hair has my human DNA, I believe, but it’s legal for me to throw it in a fire.
… kind of a proof by counterexample, isn’t it?
Ok, I wanted to try to meet you Dopers on your robotical, logical level where you like to debate philosophy, but it didn’t work because tumors have teeth. I was wrong, apparently, because tumors have teeth. So, I won’t bother you with this old debate any longer. But at least I learned something…
And for the record, I am not trying to change anyone’s mind here. I am sharpening my opinions on your even sharper minds. Thank you.
Just for fun, I’m going to go back and respond to the OP.
shrugs so what? malignant tumors have human DNA too, and I, for one, am glad every time one is killed. Note that I’m not equating fetuses with tumors, just pointing out the fact that possessing human DNA means very little.
So do some tumors.
So a tumor is a human being? My hair is a human being? My skin cells are human beings?
No, not every “thing” possessing human DNA is a human being.
Shoot a serial killer, kill a human being.
My point being, just being human is not enough to guarantee a right to life. I won’t argue that a fetus isn’t human. However, I will argue that it’s not a person.
No, you were wrong because tumors have human DNA, the same as you, me, and every fetus.
Then I suggest that you brush up on your logic. You said, quite literally, that every “thing” with human DNA is human. That is quite obviously a false statement, and thus any “logic” based on said statement is flawed.
Well, hey, if you’re gonna play in Great Debates, you’ll have to have thicker skin than that. 
Look, just because we didn’t all stand up and shout, “By Jove, he’s right!” and slap you on the back for single-handedly cutting through the Gordian knot that surrounds the entire abortion controversy with your brilliant insights doesn’t mean you’re not welcome, or that we hate you and don’t want to talk to you. You actually got a respectable number of decent posts to your thread. If you were totally off-the-wall, you’d have gotten about four relatively decent responses, and after that just ridicule. So you’re actually doing pretty good.
Very few people have “total acceptance and agreement” happen to them in GD. As a matter of fact, I can’t remember a single time when we ever jumped up and shouted, “By Jove, he’s right!” to a Great Debates OP. Most of the time, what they get is a vigorous, and sometimes downright nasty rebuttal (see Buckner’s sticky at the top of the forum). Sometimes it’s a complete free-for-all that ends up getting thrown into the Pit.
So you’re getting off easy here, dude. All you’ve gotten from us is disagreement–all we’re saying is, “Um, no, we disagree with your definition”. We’re not saying we hate you. We just disagree with you.
So if you’re gonna go off and pout because folks disagreed with you, then you’d better stick to MPSIMS and IMHO.
…and of course I was addressing Hauss, not Joe Random.
How is that not coherent and logical?
You are saying that a being is a human not because he is human but because he has human DNA? 
Human-ness is not the same as human DNA. As it was pointed out to the very first reply to your OP, bacteria injected with human DNA would not magically become human beings.
Well, I am a scientist, working in a genetics lab, so stop doubting. We know enough. It’s true.
Twins are genetically identical, yes, but they have different fingerprints 
Your argument is correct, OP, but you’re never going to convince people here. Fight the good fight in real life, minds are locked up tight as a drum here on the boards (on both sides).
hauss - You should have brought up God and abortion. They like that more. That makes a really lively discussion.:eek:
It is illegal to kill people because they are people. Identical twins are genetically the same, but are different people - this would seem to suggest that, while DNA might (and does, in my opinion) represent the machinery whereby a person comes into existence, that the process of development is what creates the actual person/personality.
It would be convenient for the pro-life contingent if there were some instantaneous moment at which personality springs into existence, fully formed, but all the evidence seems to point toward it being a gradual process. I suppose it would actually be convenient for both camps in the debate if things were so cut-and-dried, but they aren’t.
All the law has done is to choose some arbitrary point in that continuum after which it is comfortable granting the status of a person. But even that isn’t the whole consideration because it isn’t just a case of whether ‘this thing is a person’, the decision has to include 'this thing that may or may not be a person cannot survive alone outside of this woman’s uterus, will and should we compel her to maintain her hospitality toward it"
For the record, I have incredibly mixed and varied feelings on the whole abortion debate and I cannot readily identify with either of the two major ‘sides’, but it seems to me that this thread is a post hoc attempt to support an existing conviction with new data.
Hmmm? As an observer of human nature who has DNA of the higest order it pained me to note the pavlovian gand bang that occured when hauss offered that life can be functionally conceptulized as being simply a bio-chemical continuance of DNA.
Hmmm? The Freud in me immediately wondered why the boards reaction was so adamant and closed. Don’t the lot of you find pride in your state of being a human being? If not then your DNA (and mine) is done.
By the way, hauss is wrong. A human being is simply DNA interacting with the external environment.
(Whew! That was close. I made it all the way through this post without calling anybody a babykiller.)
But hauss didn’t offer that life can be functionally conceptulized as being simply a bio-chemical continuance of DNA.
Rather, hauss asserted that basic human rights were fundamentally rooted on the possession of unique DNA.
I don’t think it’s the same argument.