Posted on 03/16/2012 7:39:59 AM PDT by seamusnh
In a conversation about abortion with a liberal friend of mine, I stated that human life begins at conception and that DNA proves it. This gave him pause to think and I believe that this may help others understand why someone opposes abortion:
1. Is the fetus's DNA human? Yes
2. Is that DNA the same as the mother, the father or any other human being? No.
3. Then as DNA defines who we are and is used to differentiate between people, how is it that the fetus is not a distinct human life?
This appears to help for a few reasons:
- A woman can do whatever she wants with her own body, but the fetus is not her own body as the DNA is different. Unlike her appendix, her tonsils, etc.
- In effect, the woman is holding the fetus as she would be holding a day old infant.
- Abortion should only be legal in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. In this case, it is choosing between two lives. Given modern medicine, this would hardly ever happen.
- The DNA argument takes religion out of the debate.
- If the Supreme Court had known about DNA in 1973, they may have ruled differently.
- Abortion in cases of rape is not justified. A crime has been committed but there is no reason to end the life of the fetus. Prosecute the criminal, not the innocent life.
Sometimes pro-abortion people will admit that it is a human life but it is still the woman's choice. Most are living in denial.
it’s pointless arguing this to the abortion worshipers.
Their rhetoric is so insincere and such false representation that what can you say things like
“keep your rosaries off my ovaries!”
“Keep your laws out of my bedroom”
I agree and I have used this argument.
Other questions;
Can DNA vote?
An egg and sperm are joined in a petrie dish, is that a human.
DNA from 3 people (it happened) are joined in a petrie dish, is that human?
DNA from a human and some other animal are joined (if it hasn’t happened it will), is that human?
Arguing the exception(s).
Interesting in debate, but should not be the basis of law.
IMHO...
I agree. What sets us apart as unique individuals versus a ‘tissue mass’ of someone else is we have unique DNA.
That's doubtful. DNA was discovered well before 1973, and the double-helix structure was modeled in the 1950s. While we did not know nearly as much about DNA, and while the Supreme Court may not have known much about it in 1973, the general idea of genes and chromosomes and Mendelian inheritace was well-known at the time (and all of your points remain accurate if you replace "DNA" with "chromosomes."
It's not that pro-abortion folks don't understand that a fetus is a human life, it's that they just don't care.
If the question is, “is it human life?”, I think it is self-evident that it is not an elm, a duck or a Pekingese.
——It’s not that pro-abortion folks don’t understand that a fetus is a human life, it’s that they just don’t care.——
When they want it dead, it’s a fetus. When they want to keep it, it’s a baby.
I’ve never in my 50 years heard anyone ask a pregnant woman, “how’s your fetus?”
However, my liberal BIL once referred to my wife’s “fetus,” and it gave us chills.
This is a highly successful argument to bring to teenagers.
I taught religious education class to 9th graders...an age where they have knowledge of the topic, but haven’t been brainwashed by the left yet. While the religious points that I presented were well received, it was the secular point that nailed the issue with them.
I’ve also added the following:
- sometime in the next three years, chances are good that one of your friends is going to get pregnant.
- your friend is going to come to you FIRST. Be prepared to know what to say to her. Don’t let her make the mistake of killing her own child, something that she’ll regret for the rest of her life.
Considering that DNA was being taught in junior high biology classes well before 1973, that statement is just wishful thinking. The USSC *knew* the truth, but turned it on its head to achieve a pre-ordained outcome.
Roe v Wade is jurisprudence on a par with Dred Scott, and for precisely the same reason. It stands science, truth, morality, and humanity on its head at the behest of a well-heeled, vocal, and fundamentally dishonest special interest group...
the infowarrior
Have you seen this somewhat recent video of Alexander Tsiaras at a TED conference on the visualization from conception to birth? I would think appropriate in a religious education class to 9th graders as well.
Can DNA vote?
No, but neither can a 6-yr old.
An egg and sperm are joined in a petrie dish, is that a human?
Yes, still a human being, which is why there was a movement to ‘find homes’ for fertile eggs that would not be used by the ‘parents’.
DNA from 3 people (it happened) are joined in a petrie dish, is that human?
Yes, still human.
DNA from a human and some other animal are joined (if it hasn’t happened it will), is that human?
A question there, but if such a creature was ever born I doubt that it could be arbitrarily put down like we do with other animals. It would certainly become a legal case.
You would be surprized how easy it can be to change minds. When my daughter miscarried a baby at 20 weeks gestation, a member of my church at the time commented, (very innocently) that a baby at that point was “just a mass of cells”. After all, that was all she was hearing. This was before the days of ultrasound images.
But the hospital had swaddled my grandson and taken pictures of him for the family.
When the woman saw the pictures of the baby she broke down and cried.
She both apologized and thanked me for showing her the truth, and has been pro-life from that day.
That DNA arguement is going to open some minds. I have always insisted the fetus was it’s own body. This will bolster that fact immensely.
Fact: Stem cells from embryonic aborted babies are presently used to make human eyes, skin etc.
Ergo the stem cells must be human, coz you can`t use a horse stem cell or pig stem cell to grow a human organ.
Otherwise you`d have pig eyes, horse skin, etc., GROWING.
FACT: Only Human stem Cells can Grow Human tissues.
Ergo the aborted baby at any stage is indisputably HUMAN.
Otherwise the woman is pregnant with a non-human fetus.
What??
Biology 101 says it`s impossible for a woman become pregnant by a horse.
Reductio ad absurdam.
Yep, and I think there’s an even stronger argument from the immune system.
The placenta has a barrier that keeps the mother’s immune system from the baby. If this barrier malfunctions, the mother’s immune system will attack the baby’s cells and kill it.
The very system whose sole job it is to distinguish what belongs to the body and what doesn’t, doesn’t recognize the baby as part of the mother.
So to prochoicers I have a simple response:
How can you claim that fetus as part of your body, when *your own body* says otherwise?
Wow! I remember when my daughter was about 3 or 4 months in the womb, I got an ultrasound picture of her. She had a cute little smile on her face.
I brought the picture to the office to show to some employees. One guy said she was cute and asked how far along she was, and when I told him about 3 or 4 months, it was obvious he was shocked and suddenly got uncomfortable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.