Indeed–in general, accusing your political opponents of insincerity is nothing more than intellectual laziness and a failure of imagination. THere are hundreds of millions of people out there who believe some truly remarkable hateful bullshit, bullshit that staggers the mind that they can believe–but they believe it.
Except in extreme circumstances (Frank Luntz claiming that “Orwellian language” is a compliment about clarity and precision, for example), it’s best to assume that your opponents are sincere, however misguided that makes them.
That’s not how subsets work. A subset, by definition, doesn’t contain anything that isn’t in the set it’s a subset of.
If you want to use set terminology, you could say that the fertilized egg’s DNA is a subset of the union of the father’s DNA and the mother’s DNA. But it’s not a subset of either one individually.
Sorry. Young Earth Creationism. People who believe the Christian origin myth is literally true, and that God created the earth some 6,000 years ago. There’s absolutely no scientific argument you could make to support that position. But… I can understand the argument that once you’ve created a uniquely new human genome in a fertilized cell, that a human being has been created. I don’t agree with it, but at least it has some basis in science.
But then we have to go back to the prior problem; a fertilised egg that has split into twins means you’ve now got two clumps with the same DNA. Are they therefore each part of each other’s body?
If we were to expose a sperm or unfertilised egg to radiation, or alter the DNA of it via some other means, would we have created something which is only a subset of its own body?
I’m far from an expert on this, I have to admit. But that makes me wonder; would it also, technically speaking, be correct to say that the DNA of a sperm, or of an unfertilised egg, was not 100% identical to that of the producer?
More importantly, the DNA gets shuffled around during Meiosis, so the resultant chromosomes are not 1-1 identical. The step where this happens is called chromosomal crossover
It wasn’t really an “argument,” only an attempt to come up with an analogy. The problem is that no analogy can exist. To make it work, a “magic statue” is the only way.
The value of the analogy is that it illustrates the belief that many of us have, that the fetus is not a person. It’s a rebuttal to “There’s a man in your living room” analogy put forward by others.
Ah - I was looking for an expression from the abortion debate. No wonder I did not find anything :smack:
To answer your question:
The most common stance that I see among pro-life people is that they believe that an embryo from the moment of conception onwards has an innate value. That value trumps the right of self-determination of the woman in whose body the embryo resides. Hence the woman has no legitimate right to have an abortion. I disagree with that stance but I see no reason to assume that those who support it are insincere about it.
As for creationism. To me that is pretty far out there. But there is solid evidence that people occasionally believe - quite sincerely - in things that are pretty far out there. (The year 1848 comes to mind.)
When the DNA from mommy and daddy combine to form babby, some parts of mommy’s chromosomes ends up on what was originally daddy’s chromosome, and vice versa. If you pulled apart babby’s chromosome’s, they would not look exactly like mommy’s or daddy’s chromosomes.
Thank you, I appreciate it. They do this during the initial split into twins, not just in the initial fertilisation? From your earlier post, you say this occurs during meiosis rather than fertilisation, so wouldn’t that mean a shuffle-change in sperm and unfertilised egg cells?
Sorry, that is not part of the twinning process. It’s part of the fertilization process. I was answering your question about “the producer”, which I took to mean one of the parents.
I’m confused now. I took you earlier to mean that the DNA of identical twins isn’t technically 100% identical, and then in your later post that that was because of the process you were talking about. Am I reading you right? Because if it’s part of the fertilisation process, and not the twinning process, it would seem like that event would only make a difference with non-identical twins.
OK, let’s back up because there are two different issues.
Identical Twins are not Identical: Some small variation is usually seen, generally in areas where genes can make multiple copies of themselves.
Your chromosomes are not the same as your parents’ chromosomes (and this has nothing to do with the twinning process, it happens to everyone) because chromosomes from the two parents “crossover” and exchange material during meiosis. If we looked at one pair of your Chromosome #3, for example, it’s not going to look your dad’s or your mom’s Chromosome #3, but it will have some of both on it. This adds to the genetic diversity because genes don’t act in isolation-- some act in different ways depending on where they are in relation to other genes.
Thanks very much for the explanations. It seems as though it’s more like not all identical twins are 100% genetically identical, if I’m reading that snippet correctly.
The second part doesn’t really matter for the purposes of this discussion, since I think we’re in agreement that overall there’s a difference anyway between offspring and their parents… but it’s always interesting to learn something new. Thank you.
Do you happen to know how long that process takes? I am curious and you seem to be quite knowledgeable in these things. At what point is the new DNA complete?
There is no such assumption regarding the personhood of the unborn in making the trespasser analogy. Rather, the trespasser analogy is to illustrate that an intrusion into one’s home even if by something that is by any measure a person is not something the homeowner has to tolerate. When we move to considering an unwanted pregnancy, where the intensity of the invasion is far more personal and immediate, it’s irrelevant if the fetus is considered a person (your second observation is quite correct but it’s a feature, not a flaw) because we’ve already established that a person’s presence does not have to be tolerated even under far less trying conditions (i.e. they are merely in your home and not your body).
If anyone wants to call the fetus a person, fine, whatever. A homeowner doesn’t have to tolerate an unwanted person in their home, so it’s hard to argue that a woman must tolerate a person (if we choose to call the fetus such) in her body.
Your scenario doesn’t work for me because in addition to a purely fictional element that is not even hypothetically possible by any reasonable standard, it’s also utterly arbitrary. It could, in fact, be boiled down to a six-word summary:
“First trimester abortion okay; afterward, no.”
The specifics of the magical premise don’t really matter - instead of a statue coming to life, you could tell the tale of a magical unicorn who comes to Earth and proclaims “First trimester abortion okay; afterward, no.”, and thus establishes the law on the matter. Further, why three months? Had you said “A fetus becomes a person when it starts manifesting X physical features, which typically develop at around three months”, and you could demonstrate why those features were distinctive and necessary in what we normally consider personhood, then maybe you’d have something to work with.
It wouldn’t matter to me, though; even if we grant that the fetus is a person, I see a situation where the rights of Person A (the mother) are in conflict with the rights of Person B (the fetus), and I’ve made my various moral and social calculations and concluded that Person A should win. I can imagine extreme circumstances where the calculation goes to Person B, but while this is not as unlikely as magical statues, I’m not expecting it any time soon.
It may seem like a hairsplit, but what I said was it was not a rational argument. I have no comments to make about you personally.
