Human DNA

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?

 

^ 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.

 

Kleinfelter's Syndrome - You end up with XXY - more than a complete normal set

MtDNA - All mitochondrial DNA in the egg is a complete set, none comes in the sperm.

 

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).

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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, 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?

 

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).

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!