Zygote not genetically unique?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr.Blank1.5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mr.Blank1.5

Guest
One of the major arguments against abortion is that human life begins at conception. Therefore, a zygote (the earliest step in human development) is a distinct human being.

According to Wikipedia however:
The unique genetic identity of the zygote is also challenged. In fertilization, chromosomes from each parent are combined in the same cell nucleus but remain independent; every chromosome in a diploid cell can be traced to one parent and not the other. Only during meiosis, in which gametes are formed, do these chromosomes cross over, exchanging bits of DNA to form unique genes not found in either parent, though this objection would also apply to the genome of an adult. However, gametes are not commonly considered to have personhood, perhaps because most of them are never involved in fertilization.
Click to expand...
I know this is Wikipedia we’re talking about, but suppose the zygote is not distinct from either of the parents. How would the argument stand up?
 
The zygote is genetically distinct from both parents. Neither the mother nor the father has the same genotype as the child.

However, that actually isn’t a very important consideration at all. What matters is that the child, even as a zygote, is a distinct individual.

Identical twins are not genetically distinct, but they are still two different individuals, two different persons.
 
Unique personhood is distinct from being genetically unique. Otherwise, identical twins would be one person, when they are clearly two.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
One of the major arguments against abortion is that human life begins at conception. Therefore, a zygote (the earliest step in human development) is a distinct human being.

According to Wikipedia however:

The unique genetic identity of the zygote is also challenged. In fertilization, chromosomes from each parent are combined in the same cell nucleus but remain independent; every chromosome in a diploid cell can be traced to one parent and not the other. Only during meiosis, in which gametes are formed, do these chromosomes cross over, exchanging bits of DNA to form unique genes not found in either parent, though this objection would also apply to the genome of an adult. However, gametes are not commonly considered to have personhood, perhaps because most of them are never involved in fertilization.

I know this is Wikipedia we’re talking about, but suppose the zygote is not distinct from either of the parents. How would the argument stand up?
Click to expand...
Wow, someone at Wiki is really confused about reproduction. Give me the link and I’ll correct this.

The gamete is formed after crossing over between chromosomes of both parents.

Gametes come in two forms: sperm and egg.

A Zygotes are formed from a sperm and an egg. Ergo, they contain a unique set of genes. Now, you can make the argument, that until the first cell division, there is no actual viable living thing. It will be if there is successful cell division, sometimes due to genetic anomalies there is not.

But this paragraph was written by someone who fell asleep in bio 101.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
One of the major arguments against abortion is that human life begins at conception. Therefore, a zygote (the earliest step in human development) is a distinct human being.

According to Wikipedia however:

I know this is Wikipedia we’re talking about, but suppose the zygote is not distinct from either of the parents. How would the argument stand up?
Click to expand...
Although Wiki is generally accurate, this is a matter of morals as much as science. Being 100% secular, Wiki also demonstrates the characteristics of the mass media as much as it does a purely information gathering source. Wiki tends toward the amoral, IMO. As well, look at the phraseology used: “challenged”. Name any field of endeavor, expressed opinion or concept that is promulgated that has not been challenged. And, just who is doing the challenging? And, why?

For the sake of discussion, let us leave DNA out of the equation. Simply put, name a living human being who did not begin life as a zygote.
 
po18guy said:
Although Wiki is generally accurate,.
Click to expand...
Not in this case, however. Human beings really are not a matter of morals as well as science. Its either a person or a dog, you now? Or nothing viable.

Theology tells us God imbues the human being with a spiritual soul. Unlike a dog, or a thing not viable, like a single gamete.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Not in this case, however. Human beings really are not a matter of morals as well as science. Its either a person or a dog, you now? Or nothing viable.

Theology tells us God imbues the human being with a spiritual soul. Unlike a dog, or a thing not viable, like a single gamete.
Click to expand...
Now, now! I said “generally” Is not a fertilized human egg both morally and scientifically human? They are arguing the science so as to attack the morality, IMO.
 
Mr.Blank1.5 said:
One of the major arguments against abortion is that human life begins at conception. Therefore, a zygote (the earliest step in human development) is a distinct human being.

According to Wikipedia however:
The unique genetic identity of the zygote is also challenged. In fertilization, chromosomes from each parent are combined in the same cell nucleus but remain independent; every chromosome in a diploid cell can be traced to one parent and not the other. Only during meiosis, in which gametes are formed, do these chromosomes cross over, exchanging bits of DNA to form unique genes not found in either parent, though this objection would also apply to the genome of an adult. However, gametes are not commonly considered to have personhood, perhaps because most of them are never involved in fertilization.
Click to expand...
Wow - that’s way below even Wikipedia’s standard for scholarship. The argument, if examined carefully, is actually a testament to the zygote’s unique genetic identity.

Due to crossing over in meiosis, the chromosomes in the zygote are different from both corresponding chromosomes in each parent.

Say there are 4 grandparents: A, B, C, D

We will look at the chromosomes the parents receive from them:

Parent X has the following Chromosome pair:
AAAAAAAA (from her father)
BBBBBBBB (from her mother)

Parent Y has this chromosome pair:
CCCCCCCC (from his father)
DDDDDDDD (from his mother)

X and Y marry each other and God blesses them with a child (Z). Due to crossing over, the lucky gametes happen to contain the following copies of the chromosome:
ABBBAAAA
CCCDDCDC

Neither chromosome matches either of the parents’ chromosomes for the same pair. Further, when Z hits puberty, the gametes (s)he will produce include the following:
ABBBDCDC
ABCDACDC
CCCBAAAA
CBBDAADC

There are dozens of possibilities in this hypothetical. Considering that the shortest human DNA strand contains more characters than allowed in one post, the possibilities in real life are incalculable. A person could spend a whole life producing gametes and never make the same one twice.
Click to expand...
 
po18guy said:
Now, now! I said “generally” Is not a fertilized human egg both morally and scientifically human? They are arguing the science so as to attack the morality, IMO.
Click to expand...
No, someone just messed up. Like I said, give me the link and I’ll fix it.
 
po18guy said:
I was writing only based on principle and not addressing any specifics. No link. Seems like I am missing something?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was writing with a false assumption,. The OP gave a wiki quote and my original response to him was it was factually incorrect and if he gave me a link to the page I would fix it, so I was referring to my own earlier post. Of course, no reason you should make the connection. Again, sorry to be unclear.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Sorry, I was writing with a false assumption,. The OP gave a wiki quote and my original response to him was it was factually incorrect and if he gave me a link to the page I would fix it, so I was referring to my own earlier post. Of course, no reason you should make the connection. Again, sorry to be unclear.
Click to expand...
As well, I saw that OP’s final sentence was a hypothetical. I do not like hypotheticals.
 
If a zgote is not genetically unique, then what is it? a dog? or maybe a beet? Only asking, since I have asked a pro-choice person that question, I can’t get a answare.
 
Zygote has its own 46 chromosome unique genetic code which is neither the father’s or the mother’s. Now, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn person a unique person.

Zygote contains half the DNA from father, and half from mother. Because of this combination of both it has a different genetic makeup than parents, and is a completely different being.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Zygote has its own 46 chromosome unique genetic code which is neither the father’s or the mother’s. Now, no new genetic information is needed to make the unborn person a unique person.

Zygote contains half the DNA from father, and half from mother. Because of this combination of both it has a different genetic makeup than parents, and is a completely different being.
Click to expand...
However, even if the child were a perfect genetic clone of either parent, it would still be a unique individual, who’s life is sacred. Cloning of course is an immoral method of reproduction, but the child potentially conceived by this method would still be fully human.
 
runningdude said:
However, even if the child were a perfect genetic clone of either parent, it would still be a unique individual, who’s life is sacred. Cloning of course is an immoral method of reproduction, but the child potentially conceived by this method would still be fully human.
Click to expand...
👍 This is also the case for identical twins (nature’s clones).
 
The government got too involved in 1973 when it said that an unborn child is not a person. The world has been down this slippery slope of “non-persons” before.

Could the government ever declare us to be “non-persons?” That idea is not so far fetched as it sounds. I do not think that we have considered the full implication of Roe vs. Wade.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top