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”.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.