I think hauss’s primary mistake is the statement that it is DNA that “makes someone a human.” He’s confusing two different meanings of the word “makes.”
Yes, it is our DNA that originally “makes” us human, in the sense of causing our fertilized eggs to develop into humans as opposed to, say, chickens.
But it is not our DNA that “makes” us human, in the sense of constituting our humanness. In that sense, it’s our unique form of consciousness, not our physical characteristics, that defines our humanity, and is the foundation for the fact that we have unique rights that other animals don’t have. Yes, it’s partially based on DNA, but also dependent on many other factors, most of which occurring after leaving the womb.
Our rights as human beings are based on the **manifestations **of our DNA (among other things), not simply the **possession **of that DNA.
Not pouting at all. Like I said, I frequently use this board to improve/test my own thinking. My dad made a comment about DNA and abortion. I told him I liked his point and that I couldn’t think of a reason why his thinking was wrong, so I posted it here to test it. Seems that it failed due to information I didn’t know (tumors having human DNA, twins having identical genes) … I admitted as much in a slightly sarcastic way (just to take a parting poke) and then thanked you for indulging.
And again, if I wanted to change people’s minds, I certainly wouldn’t come here!
In my not at all humble opinion, to be human requires three things, and three things only:
Human DNA.
The act or culmination of growing from DNA into a full human
Something else I forgot
A tumor, though it has human DNA, will not ever become a person. An embryo, however small, will, assuming something doesn’t happen to it. It is alive and worthy of consideration at the moment of impregnation.
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
So, I am assuming in the past couple years they have cleared this up?
shodan: My point (although maybe unclear) was that a unique, living human being is what we should cherish and protect. But, the human DNA makes this happen. So, indirectly, we should protect human DNA, ie. a fetus, a twin.
No, SnoopyFan, it demonstably is NOT. Not unless you’re prepared to regard carcinomas as “people”.
It’s perfectly possible to defend the pro-life side of the abortion debate with reasoned arguments - but the OP’s argument was founded on a logical fallacy, and therefore deserved to be refuted. Don’t confuse refuting an obviously fallacious argument with refuting the entire pro-life position.
As Carl Sagan said, “Life is an unbroken chain dating back to nearly the origin of the Earth 4.6 billion years ago.”
What one or two dead guys in the grand scheme of things?
Seriously though, being human doesn’t guarantee you a full life. People who join armies expect that they might die. People living in mud huts in Africa or a million other places aren’t waving their DNA around like it’s some kind of free pass.
Also, I like what Richard Dawkins says in “Unweaving the rainbow” about humans and cell reproduction, which couldn’t be done without mitochondrea, which reproduce independently inside our cell like bacteria.
“Each one of us a city of cells, and each cell a town of bacteria. You are a giant megopolis od bacteria.”
Individuals with Turner’s Syndrome have a missing chromosome - they have one X chromosome and no Y or second X - they do not have a complete functional set of human DNA.
98 % of fetuses with this disorder die before birth - those that survive are of slightly shorter than average stature, generally of normal intelligence, but they fail to develop sexually and are sterile
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?
What about the other 4%? I don’t want to turn this into a genetic thread, but just wondering… smeghead. It’s hard to sense of how much has actually been completed so far.
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?
If so, would you be willing to mentally fuse this sole precursor (unique human DNA) together with actually being human to erase the moral difference between destroying a fetus and destroying an adult human? Hypothetically speaking, of course… just answer it!!
No, because DNA is more like a blueprint for a house than a house in itself.
DNA can develop into a human, after some time passes and inputs supplied (thru the umbilical connection). A blue print can be developed into a house, if someone supplies the materials.
Sure. But that’s like asking “if pigs had feathered wings, would you consider classifying them as birds?” Pigs don’t have wings - and the various examples already given concerning tumors/identical twins/people with Turner’s syndrome show the inherent problems with using DNA as the fundamental determenent of what is or is not “human”. The question doesn’t relate to anything in the real world.
No - because in your hypothetical world fresh corpses and brain-dead human bodies would also have the same “unique human DNA”, but for obvious reasons we don’t consider them people.
artemis: So, you don’t want to exclude messed up human DNA from my hypo? Isn’t “messed up” human DNA not really actual human DNA?
Shodan: I fully accept your reasoning. So, we are now taken back to my old post in which we debated about “probable/possible” human life being treated as actual human life, for moral purposes. Uh oh…
Humans with genetic diseases have “messed up DNA”. Are they still people? If they are, then “messed up DNA” must be real, actual human DNA.
And the DNA in a brain-dead body or a fresh cadaver is no more “messed up” than it was when the person was still living. Does that mean we have to consider brain-dead bodies and fresh cadavers “people” since they have unique, non-messed-up, actual human DNA in their cells?
Your “unique human DNA = personhood” argument simply won’t work, no matter how you try to spin it. Possessing human DNA may be necessary for personhood (at least until the first intelligent space alien lands on the planet), but it is clearly not sufficient in itself to make the possessor a person.
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?
You keep acting like DNA is some magical pixie dust. It’s a chemical. Your (human) DNA is very damn near identical to every other person’s DNA (and chimps and gorillas for that matter. Hell, mice don’t differ that much) in the world. The parts that differ are almost universally not even in coded regions of genes. The term “human DNA” is meaningless.
Hauss, you remind me of one of those Mars movies a few years ago where the guys are looking at a double helix, and one comments “that DNA looks human!” which is ridiculous.