Embryo's DNA different than mother's

  • Thread starter Thread starter rnrogers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rnrogers

Guest
I heard on Catholic radio or read in our diocesan newspaper that an embryo’s DNA is proven to be different than it’s mother’s DNA. Thus making the point that an individual human life exists in the womb from conception. I would like to find a ref. source for this.
 
rnrogers said:
I heard on Catholic radio or read in our diocesan newspaper that an embryo’s DNA is proven to be different than it’s mother’s DNA. Thus making the point that an individual human life exists in the womb from conception. I would like to find a ref. source for this.
Click to expand...
Try any biology textbook describing the formation of the embryo. It would say this.
This statement from wikepedia can confirmed is said text book:
The development of the embryo is called embryogenesis. In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote that has half of the DNA of each of two parents.
Click to expand...
 
rnrogers said:
I heard on Catholic radio or read in our diocesan newspaper that an embryo’s DNA is proven to be different than it’s mother’s DNA. Thus making the point that an individual human life exists in the womb from conception. I would like to find a ref. source for this.
Click to expand...
Actually, I don’t think even the staunchest abortion supporter would deny that the DNA is different. That is an indisputable scientific fact.

Peace

Tim
 
rnrogers said:
I heard on Catholic radio or read in our diocesan newspaper that an embryo’s DNA is proven to be different than it’s mother’s DNA. Thus making the point that an individual human life exists in the womb from conception. I would like to find a ref. source for this.
Click to expand...
The fact that the DNA of an embryo is different from that of the mother is one of those obvious facts that you probably ***won’t ***find in a textbook simply because it’s (almost ridiculously, no offense) obvious.

For example, if the DNA were the same, all children would be female. Think about it.

…this was something the op didn’t already know? what are they teaching in the schools these days?

But the fact the DNA is different is not proof that the embryo is a person. If you take an embryo and divide it so that it becomes twins, freeze one, and years later implant the embryonic twin in the uterus of the other twin, the defrosted implanted embryo would have the ***same ***DNA as the mother, yet still be a person.
 
Apollos said:
The fact that the DNA of an embryo is different from that of the mother is one of those obvious facts that you probably ***won’t ***find in a textbook simply because it’s (almost ridiculously, no offense) obvious.

For example, if the DNA were the same, all children would be female. Think about it.

…this was something the op didn’t already know? what are they teaching in the schools these days?

But the fact the DNA is different is not proof that the embryo is a person. If you take an embryo and divide it so that it becomes twins, freeze one, and years later implant the embryonic twin in the uterus of the other twin, the defrosted implanted embryo would have the ***same ***DNA as the mother, yet still be a person.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it can divide into twins anymore once it reaches the embryo stage. I am pretty sure that has to happen in the first 14 days.
 
rnrogers said:
I heard on Catholic radio or read in our diocesan newspaper that an embryo’s DNA is proven to be different than it’s mother’s DNA. Thus making the point that an individual human life exists in the womb from conception. I would like to find a ref. source for this.
Click to expand...
Uh, yeah, that is basic biology - elementary biology. We touch on this in 5th grade science, and they go more in depth on this exact thing in 6th grade science.

How old are you?
 
Right. No one argues that an embryo is not a human being. I mean, when I went to the ob/gyn after a positive pregnancy test it’s not like the dr. said ‘Now, let’s see if you’re having a chair, a Volkswagen, or a person!’ The pro-choice camp does not argue that this is not a human being. They argue that it is not a person, worthy of rights. Different matter entirely.
 
buffalo said:
Their DNA is unique. Very very close but there are minor differences.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right, if you’re looking at the epigenetics, sure, and CNV, I guess I wasn’t thinking about that, but as far as I know, there isn’t a commercially available test on the market that could tell the difference between the DNA of identical twins.🤷
 
buffalo said:
Their DNA is unique. Very very close but there are minor differences.
Click to expand...
Yes, you’re right, if you’re looking at the epigenetics, sure, and CNV, too. I guess I wasn’t thinking about that. 😊
 
rwillenborg said:
Right. No one argues that an embryo is not a human being. I mean, when I went to the ob/gyn after a positive pregnancy test it’s not like the dr. said ‘Now, let’s see if you’re having a chair, a Volkswagen, or a person!’ The pro-choice camp does not argue that this is not a human being. They argue that it is not a person, worthy of rights. Different matter entirely.
Click to expand...
Because personage requires viability. Or senses. Or consciousness. Or free will. Or rational thought. Or some combination of the aforementioned. Or other traits I’ve left out. Sometimes it changes, depending on what they have to argue against.

Can anyone say ‘arbitrary’? 🤷
 
Yes, this is basic biology. But it may not be surprising that the OP has not heard it, depending on his age and education. Precisely because of the abortion controversy, those on the pro-choice side don’t often advert to it. The mother and father each contribute one half of the DNA to the formation of the zygote, which is the beginning of a new and distinct individual of the human species.
 
PatrickSebast said:
I don’t think it can divide into twins anymore once it reaches the embryo stage. I am pretty sure that has to happen in the first 14 days.
Click to expand...
Which sort of gives some support to the idea of “ensoulment” at some time after conception.
I am NOT suggesting this detracts from the fact that the embryo IS a person from conception.
 
didymus said:
Which sort of gives some support to the idea of “ensoulment” at some time after conception.
I am NOT suggesting this detracts from the fact that the embryo IS a person from conception.
Click to expand...
I’m prepared to admit, with Aristotle and Aquinas, that it’s not a person until it has a human soul, and that there is nothing wrong with abortion before that time.
 
But since the soul is the animating principle of a living being, and the new human is a living being from conception forward, it must have a soul.

I’d rather go with the biology than speculate about the soul, which cannot be observed.

Nevertheless, in the case of twins, one can speculate that either two souls were present from conception, or that God creates a second soul when the twinning occurs.
 
If people want to place person-hood at 14 days after conception I don’t have much of a problem with that, miscarriage is exceedingly common in that time period (and often mistaken for a heavy period) so it relieves some of the questions that can arise from the moment of conception concept. It isn’t like getting an abortion, or even detecting it in the first 14 days is practical anyway so it certainly wouldn’t advance that cause any.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top