Human DNA

[giddyup]

Got into a lively debate about abortion this AM and some questions came up to which no one was confident that they knew the answers.

Do sperm and egg contain human DNA or just it's building blocks?

Would it be better said that a fertilized egg contains human chromosomes rather than just human DNA (because individual spermatazoa and eggs contain human DNA?)?

What exactly would be the scientific stands on either side of this argument?

I tried to google this question but all I get are tangentially related scientific journal links that are tough on the layman...

[Azadre]

Got into a lively debate about abortion this AM and some questions came up to which no one was confident that they knew the answers.

Do sperm and egg contain human DNA or just it's building blocks?

Would it be better said that a fertilized egg contains human chromosomes rather than just human DNA (because individual spermatazoa and eggs contain human DNA?)?

What exactly would be the scientific stands on either side of this argument?

I tried to google this question but all I get are tangentially related scientific journal links that are tough on the layman...Sperm and Egg contain DNA. It is haploid DNA meaning in contains unpaired chromosomes. But the DNA is still DNA. It's just once the sperm and egg combine, they form diploid DNA and the chances for survivability increase because bad copies of genes could now have a working copy on the other strand. (see inherited diseases). Did that clear anything up?

[Sishir Chang]

^ Not every chromosome has its exact copy since if you are male there isn't a "Y" chromosome copy in the egg.

[Azadre]

^ Not every chromosome has its exact copy since if you are male there isn't a "Y" chromosome copy in the egg.
A human survives with two Xs. A human survives with one X. It's the Y that has some mutations which causes female to become male, but the X is still essiential. Reread "survivablity increases", as I intended to show that a human with only a Y will die, but an X&Y lives usually as a male.

[Ottomaton]

Kleinfelter's Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleinfelter%27s_syndrome) - You end up with XXY - more than a complete normal set

MtDNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA) - All mitochondrial DNA in the egg is a complete set, none comes in the sperm.

[zoork34]

A fertilized egg contains a human being. case closed. people can argue all they want about whether its right or wrong or not, or whether a few cells has a soul or a conciousness, but once one cell splits into two, that baby is a live and kicking (or at least dividing at a rapid rate)

[Azadre]

A fertilized egg contains a human being. case closed. people can argue all they want about whether its right or wrong or not, or whether a few cells has a soul or a conciousness, but once one cell splits into two, that baby is a live and kicking (or at least dividing at a rapid rate)
To be fair, a building is not considered complete once its ground has been broken and the blueprints are on site. Why should an embryo be considered a human being (from a non-theological viewpoint).

[Sishir Chang]

A human survives with two Xs. A human survives with one X. It's the Y that has some mutations which causes female to become male, but the X is still essiential. Reread "survivablity increases", as I intended to show that a human with only a Y will die, but an X&Y lives usually as a male.

I agree the X is essential and the Y can be considered a mutated X but that still goes to the point that in every case there won't be an copy of each chromosome.

[Sishir Chang]

To be fair, a building is not considered complete once its ground has been broken and the blueprints are on site. Why should an embryo be considered a human being (from a non-theological viewpoint).

Good point. An acorn isn't an oak tree.

[giddyup]

To be fair, a building is not considered complete once its ground has been broken and the blueprints are on site. Why should an embryo be considered a human being (from a non-theological viewpoint).
Does the building have a soul? Might or does the embryo?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So is it a counterpoint if someone says the a fertilized egg has human DNA for someone to say "so does a spermatazoa or an unfertilized egg!"

This is a re-cap of the conversation this AM and since I wasn't sure about the DNA thing with regard to sperm and egg I let it go... but something struck me as inaccurate; I just didn't know how to express it.

[Sishir Chang]

Does DNA = Soul?

If having a complete set of DNA is the standard for a soul then those millions of skin cells that you shed every day have a soul.

Everytime you scrub yourself in the shower or stand out in the sun you are killing souls.

Or if I clone you does that mean I've made a copy of your soul?

[Ottomaton]

My personal opinion is that you make a mistake in trying to characterize the opinion as before/after. In my experience everything in life is a steady curve from nothing to something and then back again to nothing, not a quantum state change. Part of the problem with talking about a soul is that nobody can actually seem to define what it is, talk about it in descriptive terms.

BTW, one could make the argument that killing a man with a soul is less injurious than killing someone without a soul, because the one with a soul continues, and the one without a soul ceases to be.

I'm reading a book about the post renaissance period and it talks about how casually Anne Boleyn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Boleyn), among others, went to her beheading, even joking with the axeman. This was because she was 100% sure that only her body was dying and her soul would soon be in heaven. This is apparently repeated quite often all throughout the post medieval period. If you have an eternal soul which goes to heaven, what does death mater?

[thadeus]

Really, people need to stop pretending to have some absolute divine moral highground on this issue, or an absolutely objective scientific position on this issue, because neither of those things really exists.

This is a culture war about who gets to determine what 'life' is, and it's taking place between two branches that have become pretty typical of most of the culture wars - the irrationalist/religious viewpoint, and the rationalist/scientific viewpoint.

It has nothing to do with discovering the truth, and everything to do with establishing truth. It's a control issue, not a moral/rational one.

(there are other control binaries here: man/woman, public/private, etc., but the strongest is between what I've mentioned above).

[Space Ghost]

Really, people need to stop pretending to have some absolute divine moral highground on this issue, or an absolutely objective scientific position on this issue, because neither of those things really exists.


How do you know these things don't exist?? It's a little unfair to say this isn't a moral issue when people believe the fertilization of an egg is a baby. Killing a baby is unmoral. You have no right either to dictate what is and isn't.

IMO, whether you call it a fetus or a baby, life is born at the point of conception. It isnt a maligment piece of tissue that will eventually turn into a man.

1) When, w/out a doubt, does a fetus turn into a baby?

2) I don't understand why the law can say its ok to abort fetus/baby but its wrong to cause a woman to miscarriage and be tried for murder/manslaughter. PICK ONE and stick to your story.

[MR. MEOWGI]

How do you know these things don't exist?? It's a little unfair to say this isn't a moral issue when people believe the fertilization of an egg is a baby. Killing a baby is unmoral. You have no right either to dictate what is and isn't.

IMO, whether you call it a fetus or a baby, life is born at the point of conception. It isnt a maligment piece of tissue that will eventually turn into a man.

1) When, w/out a doubt, does a fetus turn into a baby?

2) I don't understand why the law can say its ok to abort fetus/baby but its wrong to cause a woman to miscarriage and be tried for murder/manslaughter. PICK ONE and stick to your story.


So should birth control that prevents implantation be illegal if abortions become illegal?

[Ottomaton]

I don't understand why the law can say its ok to abort fetus/baby but its wrong to cause a woman to miscarriage and be tried for murder/manslaughter.

I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that this is part of the abortion tug-of-war; sort of a place where anti-abortion people can get some leverage without directly taking on Roe v. Wade.

In other words the inconsistency is part of the struggle between the viewpoints.

[Invisible Fan]

Really, people need to stop pretending to have some absolute divine moral highground on this issue, or an absolutely objective scientific position on this issue, because neither of those things really exists.

This is a culture war about who gets to determine what 'life' is, and it's taking place between two branches that have become pretty typical of most of the culture wars - the irrationalist/religious viewpoint, and the rationalist/scientific viewpoint.

It has nothing to do with discovering the truth, and everything to do with establishing truth. It's a control issue, not a moral/rational one.

(there are other control binaries here: man/woman, public/private, etc., but the strongest is between what I've mentioned above).

I agree somewhat. There is an underlying moral issue when it comes to fundamental concepts of life, but the answer is how society treats life in general, not some arbitrary beachheads where we look for science or government intervention for quick fixes.

[giddyup]

Does DNA = Soul?
I don't know but I'm not hung up on just DNA.

I'm trying to find the LCD which details us as human. Typically I've heard the human DNA argument but then someone today said that simple sperm and unfertilized egg have human DNA.

That appears to be, to some extent, true but far from a climactic argument.

I didn't know enough to correct (and I damn sure wasn't going to capitulate!) so I'm trying to get more information on the best way to express my viewpoint.

I've held this position since 1979 or so about a decade before I started a life of regular church attendance and spiritual exercise and investigation.

That about kills thadeus' encapsulation of the confrontation.

I define life as beginning "when it began." I can't know the exact moment that that is, but I can feel certain it is safer to say that it began in an instance long forgotten rather than one that meets science's best benchmark for today and allows me to have my way with the mass of cells.

Other pro-Choice people seem to want to posit that point somewhere along the way that they think the creature deserves empathy... or something. I'm not sure how they got to thinking that they are so omniscient or omnipotent so as to be justified in making that determination of life or death

[Ottomaton]

Other pro-Choice people seem to want to posit that point somewhere along the way that they think the creature deserves empathy... or something. I'm not sure how they got to thinking that they are so omniscient or omnipotent so as to be justified in making that determination of life or death

Technically, sperm are alive. Why do you think that you are so omniscent or omnipotent that you can say that at one point the sperm is not valuable, while at another what the sperm turns into is valuable. You horrible, self-deluded, meglomaniac! Who are you to judge!

[giddyup]

Technically, sperm are alive. Why do you think that you are so omniscent or omnipotent that you can say that at one point the sperm is not valuable, while at another what the sperm turns into is valuable. You horrible, self-deluded, meglomaniac! Who are you to judge!
Get a life... Automaton! :eek:

[Azadre]

Does the building have a soul? Might or does the embryo?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So is it a counterpoint if someone says the a fertilized egg has human DNA for someone to say "so does a spermatazoa or an unfertilized egg!"

This is a re-cap of the conversation this AM and since I wasn't sure about the DNA thing with regard to sperm and egg I let it go... but something struck me as inaccurate; I just didn't know how to express it.
The soul is theological in origin and existence. Try again.

[thadeus]

You have no right either to dictate what is and isn't.

And neither do you. That's why there's so much debate on this topic - neither 'side' can claim to hold either absolute truth or moral superiority.

Though individuals may claim the issue is a moral one, and may even feel such a moral imperative, when it becomes part of a public debate - whether abortion should be legal, or illegal - the origin of the opinion is not as important as which side who gets to make the decision. This is a power struggle between two groups who hold opposing viewpoints. The question, in the final analysis, is not 'is it right or wrong?' - the question is 'who gets to shape the world in their own image?' Because this is a question of absolutes - it must be a yes, or it must be a no - there are two 'sides' to the debate. There are other ways to answer this question besides a simple yes or no - "yes to some ways, no to others." or "if you disagree with abortion, then you are free NOT to have one, but otherwise, mind your own business" and so on, but because of the nature of public debate and the forums (whether legal or unofficial) push people to adopt a position simply to oppose positions they wouldn't want to live according to.

For example: I'm not 'in favor' of abortion, but I don't feel that people with religious/moral concerns should be given the power to dictate the issue to people who may not hold the same religion/morality. But, when the issue becomes a question of absolutes, when it enters the public sphere and is not simply a personal opinion, this becomes a 'no, abortion is not immoral' - you'll note that I'm not actually saying that at all. I'm saying 'I don't know' - but the corrolary of that is that I'm also saying 'and I don't believe you know either.'

We use discussion, appeals to divine sanction, scientific rationales, rational argument, emotional appeals because those are the methods we have for resolving disagreements, and it's less to resolve a disagreement than it is to attract more voices to our viewpoint because, really, this is going to play out as little more than a numbers game. The side with the most members wins (not factoring in the inertia of current law). Not because any one of them is 'correct'. Both sides believe they are 'correct', but because of the nature of the question, neither can provide absolute, irrefutable proof of their own rightness.

Man is the measure of all things, and some men believe that their God is the supreme ruler while others believe that 'reason' occupies the same role.

Who's right? Frankly, I'm not sure that either perspective exists in the form that its adherents contend.

[giddyup]

The soul is theological in origin and existence. Try again.
Is that your way of saying it is not real?

[Azadre]

Is that your way of saying it is not real?
I am not addrressing the theological points of the issuse. There are answers that can be made that do not require faith.

[giddyup]

I am not addrressing the theological points of the issuse. There are answers that can be made that do not require faith.
Eh, I don't know. You're the one who introduced the building/embryo comparison.

An embryo has Life. That alone distinguishes it from a building. Did you overlook that?

A soul would seem to be the next step.

[GladiatoRowdy]

2) I don't understand why the law can say its ok to abort fetus/baby but its wrong to cause a woman to miscarriage and be tried for murder/manslaughter. PICK ONE and stick to your story.

It is all about intent.

If the woman intends to have the baby and someone directly causes her to have a miscarriage, it is a crime because the woman intended to bring the fetus to term and bear it, as is her choice.

If the woman has decided to abort the fetus, that a choice that she and her doctor can make and should be able to make without interference from the government.

[giddyup]

It is all about intent.

If the woman intends to have the baby and someone directly causes her to have a miscarriage, it is a crime because the woman intended to bring the fetus to term and bear it, as is her choice.

If the woman has decided to abort the fetus, that a choice that she and her doctor can make and should be able to make without interference from the government.
What if she hasn't yet made up her mind? What would the state then do?

Or if she and the child are killed, would the state pursue double homicide because we can't ascertain her wishes from the grave?

Hello Slippery Slope!

[Ottomaton]

Eh, I don't know. You're the one who introduced the building/embryo comparison.

An embryo has Life. That alone distinguishes it from a building. Did you overlook that?

A soul would seem to be the next step.

A tree has life, does it have a soul? Why would a soul seem to be the next step? It doesn't seem to me that a soul, which we can't even define, naturally follows life.

If you want to have faith in a soul, that is one thing. But to try and logically or scientifically demonstrate that a soul exists, or even define a soul in anything more than terms descriptive of its functionality, is fruitless. Wiser men than you or I have tried without luck.

[MR. MEOWGI]

From Wiki

Buddhism teaches that all things are impermanent, in a constant state of flux; all is transient, and no abiding state exists by itself. This applies to humanity, as much as to anything else in the cosmos; thus, there is no unchanging and abiding self. Our sense of "I" or "me" is simply a sense, belonging to the ever-changing entity, that (conventionally speaking) is us, our body, and mind.

Sorry. There are no souls. Your sense of "I" will not last forever. :)

[giddyup]

A tree has life, does it have a soul? Why would a soul seem to be the next step? It doesn't seem to me that a soul, which we can't even define, naturally follows life.

If you want to have faith in a soul, that is one thing. But to try and logically or scientifically demonstrate that a soul exists, or even define a soul in anything more than terms descriptive of its functionality, is fruitless. Wiser men than you or I have tried without luck.
By "the next step" I didn't mean that everybody/thing goes there; I just meant it was something beyond "mere" life.

Not every lifeform probably has a soul. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that a soul exists but since we have laws, and many of those laws reflect moral values, our legal system seems to pre-suppose a soul for humans.

The pro-Choice movement seems to be about defining Life in such a way that a choice to abort can be made about a lifeform "conveniently" without a soul. That's a reach-- a huge one for all the very reasons you've cited... WE JUST DON'T AND CAN'T KNOW.

It's less of a reach to just assume that any new human life has a soul. In fact, I'm not reaching at all. Let it be. :)

[Sishir Chang]

By "the next step" I didn't mean that everybody/thing goes there; I just meant it was something beyond "mere" life.

Not every lifeform probably has a soul.

But how do you decide then that there is a soul in a fertilized embryo?

A single cell human embryo is about as complex as an amoeba so does that mean amoebas have souls too?

Your argument that our laws presume humans have souls is probably closer to that humans have rationality and awareness.

[giddyup]

I'm guilty of being human-centric. I guess you're not... ;)

[Azadre]

Eh, I don't know. You're the one who introduced the building/embryo comparison.

An embryo has Life. That alone distinguishes it from a building. Did you overlook that?

A soul would seem to be the next step.
You could argue that the building has the soul too, after it is built and opened. People go on with their business in the building. The building is used as a headquarters, an office, and even a factory. The human soul is the same. And yet, just as a broken ground and blueprints do not make the workings of the building, our syngamy (egg + sperm) means nothing initially. We have potential to achieve great things once we've developed into something tangible. But until then, we're just blueprints and land.

To make the case for the importance of human life at this stage you need to look no further than investment. Your body has invested dozens of chemicals dedicated to reproduction. You are carrying on your gene pool. Your blueprints and land are YOUR investment. The owner of the building doesn't want to see his building become run down, just as parents do not want to see their children become run down. As much as we worry about money and dreams when we look at having children, we forget that children aren't that elaborate. One can still acheive their goals, become wealthy, and be apart of a healty family if they understand the investment from them.

You don't need to bring theology into this argument.

[Sishir Chang]

I'm guilty of being human-centric. I guess you're not... ;)

I'm happen to believe that humans are more than a single cell.

[hotballa]

I'm happen to believe that humans are more than a single cell.

duh then we'd be paramecium :rolleyes:

cmon Sishir, any asian guy worth his salt had this beat into him in 7th grade in his attempt to become the doctor that our parents wanted us to be :D

...j/k

[Ottomaton]

Not every lifeform probably has a soul. I wasn't trying to demonstrate that a soul exists but since we have laws, and many of those laws reflect moral values, our legal system seems to pre-suppose a soul for humans.


I disagree with this statement. I see no indication that the legal system is in any way concerned with the absence or presence of a soul. I did a boolian search on the United States Criminal Code on the Cornell Law School website and the words 'soul', 'eternal' and 'god' do not appear. The word 'spirit' appears, but only in ways that are irrelevant (i.e. the spirit of the law).


It's less of a reach to just assume that any new human life has a soul. In fact, I'm not reaching at all. Let it be.


Since we are erring on the side of caution, shouldn't we provide full legal right, for instance, to gorillas, or chimpanzees, or dolphins and maybe a few other species? And while we are at it we can assume that their embryos have souls too.

I am really not being difficult for the sake of being difficult. It appears to me that you have set some rather arbitrary lines of division, and seem to believe that there is no question about where those lines are set. But things that you say are obvious or can be assumed do not appear that way to me at all.