How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[royal_archer]

You are right in this aspect. The issue of Feti vs child was what type of being it is. However both are complete beings. skin cells once removed from the original being are not complete beings nor do they have souls.*

But, skin cells have the exact same DNA as the fetus and child. DNA does not reveal if something is a complete being, nor does it say anything about a soul. It would appear DNA doesn’t matter in determining rights of anything.

We might also consider that a compete being has DNA only because each and every individual cell has DNA. If none of those individual cells has rights due to its DNA, then how would the complete being have rights due to its cells’ posession of DNA?

Looks like you will be more fun than the previous poster since you are making a seemingly rational arguement. However, in that arguement you have tried to change the context to suit your possition. The reference to DNA was context specific and I admire your attemt to twist the discussion.

DNA does identify what type of being something is. If you go to a police scene and find blood and that blood has human DNA then it will be investigated for murder. Not because of the harm to the blood but because of harm to the being the blood came from. If you find the DNA is the same as a cow you will not pursue murder charges. Humans have rights and other species do not. Humans prior to adult hood are children. Children have rights. each individual part of the human body does not have rights separate from the whole but the whole human does and it has rights over all of the pieces of its own body. My hair does not have rights in and of itself but I do and if you harm one hair of my head you will break the law. Not because the hair folicle has human DNA but because I as a whole have human DNA.

 

[royal_archer]

“Are you legaly allowed to harm other peoples skin? If you were to cut or bruise my skin you would be breaking the law.”

Sure I am. Let’s say a skin cell is in a petri dish. I destroy it in a medical test. Including its DNA.

Although this line is completely out of context and irrelevant to the original point I will address it.

Can you really go into a lab and get other peoples biological samples and destroy them with out the patients permission? Obviously you can not do that legally unless the biological material is abandoned by the being it belongs to. As an analogy, I can not harm your car but if you do a burn out. and abandon tire residue anyone can take that residue and harm it even though they could not harm it when it was still attached to the car or while you were making an effort to keep it under your control.

Or, let’s make it a matter of pro-choice. A woman has a beer and zaps a few brain cells and their DNA.

Those are her brain cells, they along with every other part of her body share her DNA. This of course does not give her the right to kill a baby which is a separate being with it’s own unique DNA.

But keep in mind that the government does restrict her from harming even her own cells in many ways.

The appeal to DNA doesn’t work.

The appeal to DNA in issolation of all other factors does not work. DNA proves that a child at all stages of development is human a being does not get conceived as a rabbit, then develop into a wildabeast, and then eventually change into a human. DNA shows that from the moment of conception that entity is a unique human.

 

[WillieWonka]

“Not because the hair folicle has human DNA but because I as a whole have human DNA.”

The whole skin cell has human DNA. So does the whole single cell, fertilized egg.

“Can you really go into a lab and get other peoples biological samples and destroy them with out the patients permission?”

Permission? If DNA confers rights, what does permission have to do with the question? If DNA confers a right, permission is meaningless. Can the fertilized single cell be destroyed with permission? Sounds pro-choice to me. What you are invoking is property rights under our legal system. I hope the anti-abortion folks are not using property rights as an argument.

“Those are her brain cells, they along with every other part of her body share her DNA. This of course does not give her the right to kill a baby which is a separate being with it’s own unique DNA.”

If DNA conferred rights, then each cell would have rights, and the woman would have no justification in killing those cells. Again, you are using property rights. Property rights would also allow her to determine what she keeps in her body (her property), and what she doesn’t. Property rights?

“But keep in mind that the government does restrict her from harming even her own cells in many ways.”

So what? Nor does it restrict her from aborting a fetus. What does government opinion have to do with inherent rights?

“The appeal to DNA in issolation of all other factors does not work. DNA proves that a child at all stages of development is human a being does not get conceived as a rabbit, then develop into a wildabeast, and then eventually change into a human. DNA shows that from the moment of conception that entity is a unique human.”

DNA indicates the entity is of the human species, much like the acorn and oak tree are both of the oak species. I agree the entity does not change from a rabbit species to human species. Nor do we see rabbit species turning into wildebeasts. Does anyone say this? But Aquinas is interesting here. He holds that the developing entity moves through a vegative state, followed by an animal state, followed by a rational state. That’s not quite as dramatic as rabbit to wildebeast to human, but worth considering.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

 

[vz71]

The appeal to DNA doesn’t work.

the appeal to DNA alone does not work.

All the DNA does is prove the child is human and a seperate being from the mother or father.

 

[WillieWonka]

“All the DNA does is prove the child is human and a seperate being from the mother or father.”

Sure. DNA is unique, and for any species its expression results in a unique being. I don’t think there is any argument about that from any quarter. Is there?

But, just for fun, are twins two unique beings? They have the same DNA. Or how about the cloned dog? Both donor and clone have the same DNA. Are they unique? If they are, it is not dependent on DNA.

 

[graceandglory]

I think that all these things could be done without “bringing religion into it,” or “being judgemental.” Just pressure Hollywood to bring up some outrage when a friend discovers her friend has lost her virginity: What??? Are you crazy? You could conceive a baby–have you thought of that? --Well, we used abc!–Yes, but abc doesn’t always work. You’re being really irresponsible! Just the way they never have any good guys smoking anymore!!!

I am sure there are a lot of good ideas out there, and I think that discussing them is a good idea, and maybe something will percolate out of those discussions.
.

What is needed is education on Pro Life Apologetics.
This is a good resource.
lifeprinciples.net/MessagePersonhood.html
and
robertspitzer.org/lpaudio.htm

Moral people don’t have abortions.
It doesn’t have to be a religious argument. It’s about life and dignity of the human person. It can be about ethics and logic. It’s about the the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…In that order. My pursuit of happiness cannot trump someone else’s life.

These are the best resources I’ve found, especially for arguing for life in an academic setting.

 

[limerick]

“DNA of a fetus is the same as it is for the same infant, the same child, the same adolescent, the same adult, the same senior, the same cadaver. Ergo, same should have the same rights. Am I close?”

Yes. Very close. Don’t forget the DNA is also the same for the skin cell. So, remember, Royal Archer asked, “What exacty is the DNA make up of a “Feti” that makes it different than a child?”

And, I ask, “What exacty is the DNA make up of a “Feti” that makes it different than a skin cell?”

Does the skin cell have the same rights?

If a skin cell wants to get up at 4:45 a.m., guzzle down two cups of coffee, get dressed in his skin cell outfit and drive to work in traffic, slave all day for little wages, and return home to his little skin cell wife who resents having to cook him dinner and turns away from him in bed, he can have at it. I’m not certain everyone has the right to be cherished, but one thing I do know is everyone has the right to be despised.

As for royal archer: never heard of him.

Limerick

 

[WillieWonka]

“I’m not certain everyone has the right to be cherished, but one thing I do know is everyone has the right to be despised.”

A right for one implies a balancing obligation for others. Are we all then obligated to despise folks? Who must we despise? To whom do you turn when demanding your right to be despised?

 

[limerick]

“I’m not certain everyone has the right to be cherished, but one thing I do know is everyone has the right to be despised.”

A right for one implies a balancing obligation for others. Are we all then obligated to despise folks? Who must we despise? To whom do you turn when demanding your right to be despised?

I disagree that a right for one implies a balancing obligation for others. That’s as if to say out of your four children, you love them all equally, and you do so because you must, that morality demands that of you. And this is not about your obligation: it is about my right. No one should be forced to feel or do or think a particular thing; hence, we love whom we love and we despise whom we despise. Equality has nothing to do with it.

Not everyone behaves like a lovable darling. But most people, most of the time say or do things that are despicable. We earn contempt much more easily than we “earn” love.

Limerick

 

[royal_archer]

“Not because the hair folicle has human DNA but because I as a whole have human DNA.”

The whole skin cell has human DNA. So does the whole single cell, fertilized egg.?

you are ignoring where I said: “The appeal to DNA in issolation of all other factors does not work.” DNA does not say if something is a complete being, just what type of being it is.

“Can you really go into a lab and get other peoples biological samples and destroy them with out the patients permission?”

Permission? If DNA confers rights, what does permission have to do with the question? If DNA confers a right, permission is meaningless. Can the fertilized single cell be destroyed with permission? Sounds pro-choice to me. What you are invoking is property rights under our legal system. I hope the anti-abortion folks are not using property rights as an argument.?

Once again you are attempting to mis-apply my comment. The being has rights over its parts. A part does not have rights on its own outside of the being. An egg after conception becomes a being.

“Those are her brain cells, they along with every other part of her body share her DNA. This of course does not give her the right to kill a baby which is a separate being with it’s own unique DNA.”

If DNA conferred rights, then each cell would have rights, and the woman would have no justification in killing those cells. Again, you are using property rights. Property rights would also allow her to determine what she keeps in her body (her property), and what she doesn’t. Property rights??

She has rights over her body not the body of another. However with a child she has created the situation where the child is in need and is obligated to provide that need. If you come onto an accident scene and provide first aid in the form of direct presure over a wound and then, on a whim walk away to leave the person to die, you will be prosecuted.

“But keep in mind that the government does restrict her from harming even her own cells in many ways.”

So what? Nor does it restrict her from aborting a fetus. What does government opinion have to do with inherent rights??

So do you agree with her “right” to do drugs, committ suicide, or engage in prostitution? all of which are illegal in most states.

“The appeal to DNA in issolation of all other factors does not work. DNA proves that a child at all stages of development is human a being does not get conceived as a rabbit, then develop into a wildabeast, and then eventually change into a human. DNA shows that from the moment of conception that entity is a unique human.”

DNA indicates the entity is of the human species, much like the acorn and oak tree are both of the oak species. I agree the entity does not change from a rabbit species to human species. Nor do we see rabbit species turning into wildebeasts. Does anyone say this? But Aquinas is interesting here. He holds that the developing entity moves through a vegative state, followed by an animal state, followed by a rational state. That’s not quite as dramatic as rabbit to wildebeast to human, but worth considering.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

So do you feel it is ok to murder people who are irrationale or vegitative?

 

[royal_archer]

“All the DNA does is prove the child is human and a seperate being from the mother or father.”

Sure. DNA is unique, and for any species its expression results in a unique being. I don’t think there is any argument about that from any quarter. Is there?

But, just for fun, are twins two unique beings? They have the same DNA. Or how about the cloned dog? Both donor and clone have the same DNA. Are they unique? If they are, it is not dependent on DNA.

These examples are where the two can opperate independently and there for have control over their own destiny.

Good question but I would have been more impressed if you stated the case of siamese twins. where they are dependent on each other.

 

[WillieWonka]

“No one should be forced to feel or do or think a particular thing; hence, we love whom we love and we despise whom we despise. Equality has nothing to do with it.”

1. You claim a right to be despised. Suppose nobody deapises you. Is your right being violated?
2. A balancing obligation does not imply equality. For example, think of some right you have that does not impose a balancing obligation on someone else. Which one?

 

[royal_archer]

“I’m not certain everyone has the right to be cherished, but one thing I do know is everyone has the right to be despised.”

A right for one implies a balancing obligation for others. Are we all then obligated to despise folks? Who must we despise? To whom do you turn when demanding your right to be despised?

It does not imply an obligation for others it implies a restriction on society in general. For instance you have the right to eat. I can’t stop you from going to the grocery store (as long as you do not harm anyone else in the process) However, no other person has the obligation to pay for your food.

 

[WillieWonka]

“An egg after conception becomes a being.”

What is a being?

“So do you agree with her “right” to do drugs, committ suicide, or engage in prostitution? all of which are illegal in most states.”

Of course I do. Do you see rights as being determined by government? Obama decides? What’s the state criminal penalty for suidcide?

“So do you feel it is ok to murder people who are irrationale or vegitative?”

It’s never right to murder since murder is already defined as unjustfied and wrongful killing. By definition, murder is not OK. You need a tighter question here.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

 

[WillieWonka]

“These examples are where the two can opperate independently and there for have control over their own destiny.”

Can we agree that has nothing to do with DNA?

“It does not imply an obligation for others it implies a restriction on society in general. For instance you have the right to eat. I can’t stop you from going to the grocery store (as long as you do not harm anyone else in the process) However, no other person has the obligation to pay for your food.”

That is certainly an obligation on the part of all the members of society. Each and every individual. They all have an obligation to refrain from interferring with your trip to the Qwik-Pic.

 

[royal_archer]

“These examples are where the two can opperate independently and there for have control over their own destiny.”

Can we agree that has nothing to do with DNA?

“It does not imply an obligation for others it implies a restriction on society in general. For instance you have the right to eat. I can’t stop you from going to the grocery store (as long as you do not harm anyone else in the process) However, no other person has the obligation to pay for your food.”

That is certainly an obligation on the part of all the members of society. Each and every individual. They all have an obligation to refrain from interferring with your trip to the Qwik-Pic.

DNA proves the entity is human and separate from the mother.

 

[royal_archer]

“An egg after conception becomes a being.”

What is a being?

“So do you agree with her “right” to do drugs, committ suicide, or engage in prostitution? all of which are illegal in most states.”

Of course I do. Do you see rights as being determined by government? Obama decides? What’s the state criminal penalty for suidcide?

“So do you feel it is ok to murder people who are irrationale or vegitative?”

It’s never right to murder since murder is already defined as unjustfied and wrongful killing. By definition, murder is not OK. You need a tighter question here.

Is an acorn an oak tree?

Glad to see you are consistent with people harming their own bodies.

So why do you feel it is OK to murder a person in the early stages of development?

To say acorn vs tree implies two different phases of development. They are the same thing in different stages of development.

 

[WillieWonka]

“DNA proves the entity is human and separate from the mother”

Has there ever been any dispute about that? If so, who says the entity is not separate from the mother?

 

[WillieWonka]

“An egg after conception becomes a being.”

What is a being?

“Glad to see you are consistent with people harming their own bodies.”

I am quite content for folks to do as they please with their own bodies. Look how fat so many are. Why does that make you glad?

“So why do you feel it is OK to murder a person in the early stages of development?”

As I said before, I don’t think murder is ever OK because murder is defined as being not OK.

“To say acorn vs tree implies two different phases of development. They are the same thing in different stages of development.”

So an acorn is an oak tree?

Here’s an old thought experiment that’s been around forever. You are in a burning building. You can rescue a one-year-old baby or a cooler with 100 human embryos. You can’t rescue both, and you are certain the one you do not rescue will perish. Do you rescue the one-year-old or the embryos? Who here would rescue the embryos and let the one-year-old cook?

 

[limerick]

“No one should be forced to feel or do or think a particular thing; hence, we love whom we love and we despise whom we despise. Equality has nothing to do with it.”

1. You claim a right to be despised. Suppose nobody deapises you. Is your right being violated?
2. A balancing obligation does not imply equality. For example, think of some right you have that does not impose a balancing obligation on someone else. Which one?

**1. A human right does not demand action. The right to cross the street with the light does not demand that one cross the street if one is headed in another direction. We all do things to attract negative thoughts, feelings or actions from others. This does not mean those thoughts, feelings or actions will come to pass. We simply have a right to them. If no one despises me, fine. If someone does despise me that, too, is fine. No rights are being violated in either scenario.

1. I believe it is incumbent upon you** to “think of some right [Limerick has] that does not impose a balancing obligation on someone else.” I will not argue your position for you.

Limerick