I don’t see what that says and why it alters things. If, for example, the genetic material was identical to that of the mother, and then implanted, I don’t see conceptually why that group of cells should be treated any different to the group of cells after conception.
I also don’t see, conceptually, why the combined genetic material should be treated any differently to the same genetic material a nanosecond before combination.
My opposition to abortion certainly has a religious component, but I don’t think drawing the line at conception is abitrary. As Mr. Moto says, a zygote the moment after conception has all the DNA and unique markers of a separate individual apart from either of the parents. I’m not sure at what point this individual organism becomes a person, it is sometime after conception but well before birth. Drawing the line at conception errs on the side of caution.
But don’t the ovum and sperm before conception have “all the DNA and unique markers of a separate individual”? Again, I just don’t see the difference one nanosecond before and after they merge.
No, of course not, no more than I think it’s wrong that you have a bag of chocolate chips and a canister of oatmeal and don’t allow them to become cookies.
The cells in question don’t have a potential to be person unless they’re combined. No one’s under any obligation to allow that to happen, and frankly, if you’re not interested in being a parent, I’m far happier if you take active measures to keep it from happening. It’s only when people do allow it to happen that moral issues arrive.
Did you honestly expect many people to answer yes? If so, do you also expect us to go around bad mouthing people like priests, nuns, and the asexual who deliberately and selfishly insist on not procreating?
No. Each sperm cell and each ovum have part of a person’s DNA. By themselves they don’t have any DNA that is different from the person whose body they came from, and by themselves they only contain half the genetic code required to make another person.
I think you might be making definitions suit your argument here. After all why is the fertilized egg called a fertilized egg or zygote if there is no difference from the ovum?
Clearly there is a difference - a biological one. Theology has nothing to do with this difference, though it might have a opinion in how someone treats that zygote. Of course, a well-developed theology will also have notions about how to treat humans at every stage of development, so that is no surprise.
You asked whether there was a nonreligious basis for considering that humanity begins at conception - well, there is a pretty clear one based on genetics. Now, whether this being has the rights of personhood or is worthy of protection and care is up for debate, perhaps, but the separate genetic nature of the zygote is not, that is just a plain fact.
Well clearly there is a difference between a fertilized ovum and an ovum. Though I actually asked for a difference between the fertilized ovum and an ovum and sperm the nanosecond before fertilization.
But implicit in that is if there is a difference which is relevant to treating them differently that isn’t based on religion. If I ask someone if there was a difference between two applicants for a job, them turning round and saying “Applicant one was a redhead and applicant two blond” is pretty dumb. I would have thought it apparent in that question that I was asking if there was a relevant difference to justify one getting the job.
And I still don’t think you have demonstrated a genetic basis for saying humanity starts at conception. I particularly don’t think you have demonstrated any rational non-religious basis for treating a sperm and ovum the nanosecond before fertilization differently from a fertilized ovum the nanosecond after fertilization.
I think by insisting that the question was whether they were identical or not you are avoiding the real issue.
+1
And I’m also a pro-choicer. Pro-life in that I think when possible it’s best to avoid conception in the first place and having the kid (raising it yourself or giving it into adoption) if the pregnancy was unwanted, but pro-choice in that I don’t think I should be wagging fingers in front of the nose of a pregnant woman (or child) in distress. I’m not the one who’s carrying that kid, I can not make the choice for them.
I think the “unique genetic code” argument is weak. I have two sisters. They are unique human beings, but they do not have a unique genetic code. They have identical genetic codes, because they are naturally occurring clones, also known as identical twins.
If the uniting of egg and sperm creates a unique human being, then at one point my two sisters were one person, because they were created from a single zygote that at some point split in two and developed into two embryos.
And sometimes the opposite occurs–two zygotes will fuse, to create one embryo with two somatic cell lines. Chimera (genetics) - Wikipedia
It seems to me that if a unique zygote can split in two and form two human beings, or if two zygotes can merge to form one human being, then the unique personhood of the zygote is called into question.
Yeah, but the point of “unique” in the prolife argument is only that the embryo’s DNA is different from their parents and therefore not a part of a woman’s body the same way something with only her DNA is.
Now, if we ever get to point in human cloning where a person can clone themselves absent of any other DNA…
Together they do, whether merged or not. So I don’t see how genetics can be used to distinguish the nanosecond before and the nanosecond after fertilization.
First of all, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having religious reasons for being pro-choice. I’m not trying to convince anyone else that religious logic is binding on them.
But I think the difference is obvious between two half-cells (the ovum and sperm) and the fertilized ovum. An ovum or sperm does not grow or reproduce itself and has no potential to become anything more.
I didn’t mean to imply there was anything wrong with having religious reasons for it. I just don’t understand it if not religious based.
You are right that an ovum or sperm will not grow alone. But that doesn’t justify the distinction between support for contraception and opposition to abortion. Contraception is deliberately preventing the sperm from fertilizing the ovum, preventing them from growing. Abortion is the destruction of the fertilized ovum, preventing it from growing.
I don’t see why a person would, absent a religious view stating that something happens at conception, like the creation of a soul, think it is different to prevent the conception from occuring a nanosecond before, as opposed to destroy the fertilized egg a nanosecond after.
Does “pro-lifer” include people opposed to abortion to the 9th month? No, the crime of such abortions are not based on the fetus becoming human, since the fetus is already human.
Even though I’m a Christian I think my pro-life view is pretty secular. My views are pretty simple.
A lot of pro-choicers (not all) do not have many reservations about killing the unborn child while it is in the womb but think it’s wrong after it’s born. This makes it sound like when it comes out the air magically transforms it into a human. What about a premature baby? Let’s say a baby has to come out in 5 months. So up until that time it’s not a human person, but then once it’s born it automatically becomes a person. Seems to me that location is poor way to judge the humanity or personhood of a fetus. To me, since the sperm and egg joining is the start of a new life, that’s where the personhood and humanity should start.
But of course I am aware that for some pro-choicers it’s not whether or not the fetus is human or a person or not, it’s where the baby is located. If it’s in the mother’s womb, then they believe that the mother has the right to abort it even if it is a human being and a person. I’m obviously against that argument too.
Your posts on this subject over the years is cite enough, what i believe is the revealed truth causes a immediate denial reaction from you, a defense mechanism to prevent some pain of your heart. I’d more the WAG that you have a personal issue with abortion, and you need this level of denial to get on with life. Beyond denial is healing, but it involves pain, but going through that pain leads to healing and a much better and happier life.
You don’t understand the difference between preventing something and destroying something that’s already ocurred?
What’s the difference between a fetus minutes before it emerges from the birth canal, and minutes after? There is even less distinction there. The distinction between two separate half-cells and an embryo is a much brighter line.
I don’t draw a bright line distinction there based on a fundamental difference between the born child and the fetus. I’m not sure there is any simplistic bright line.
And no, in this situation I don’t see the difference between preventing the conception, which destroys the sperm and the egg, and preventing implantation, for example, which destroys the fused sperm and egg. Seems like the same result to me, again, absent something non-genetically based happening at the moment of conception.
Guess again. I never wanted children and have never been pregnant. But I do not like the idea of anyone using a woman’s body without her permission, and I absolutely despise the terroristic tactics of the anti-abortion group. If you don’t think something that is legal should be legal, work at chaging the law (and good luck with that). But don’t harrass and kill people who are obeying the law.
The fact that the whole “abortion causes breast cancer” is constantly being used by the anti-abortion groups, yet this has never been proven in an unbiased study, ias despicable.
Annie, you refer to “the terroristic tactics of the anti-abortion group” and “the whole “abortion causes breast cancer” … used by the anti-abortion groups” and suggest that instead they work at changing the law.
I hope you realize that 99% of pro-life activists (of which I am not one) do persue legal avenues and don’t engage in “terrorist tactics.” You seem to be accusing them all.
Every time I see the anti-abortion people picketting the local Planned Parenthood, my opinion of them gets lower. Let’s face facts: They have committed more illegal and vioolent acts than the pro-choice group.