3 ms·

Is the DNA of the fetus, exactly the same as the woman's? If not then why not?

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
So you maintain "1 dna code = 1 person" ? That is easily disproven. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-... It can also lead to someone being of 2 blood types - so that they are compatible with both.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  That's not the exact question I asked.
  - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
    You're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it. The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA." I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
    - patrickg_zill 8y ago
      It is not a "DNA structure" it is a physically separate thing. And corner cases like Dwight Schrute have nothing to do with it. Portraying it as an accidental outgrowth, as if someone's body grew a second spleen as an adult, is intellectually dishonest.
      - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
        How about a very simple policy then: 1. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. 2. Quit trying to shove your ethical system on other people.
        barking 8y ago
        Shoving an ethical system on people is kinda what the rule of law is all about. There are even limits put on the age up to which it is lawful to kill a baby you know.
AlexandrB 8y ago
This question is utterly irrelevant to my point. I'm not saying that the fetus is part of the woman, I'm saying that the woman has the right to control what happens to her body - including removing a fetus before it comes to term - if she chooses to do so. Saying otherwise is equivalent to saying that under certain circumstances it's okay to force someone to keep another being alive for 9 months with continuous blood transfusions while exposing themselves to many dangerous, and potentially fatal, side effects.

So you maintain "1 dna code = 1 person" ? That is easily disproven. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-... It can also lead to someone being of 2 blood types - so that they are compatible with both.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
That's not the exact question I asked.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  You're right it's not the "question [you] asked". It's the underlying implication that question has loaded in it. The implication, stated roughly is the following: "A person can do what they want to their own body. And their body is defined by the DNA signature. Whereas a fetus has a different DNA structure than the body it is in, and therefore harming it is depriving it of human rights, because it has different DNA." I proved this implication wrong. If you feel that this implied statement is not indicative of your intent, please post your implication as a statement rather than engage in obfuscated writings.
  - patrickg_zill 8y ago
    It is not a "DNA structure" it is a physically separate thing. And corner cases like Dwight Schrute have nothing to do with it. Portraying it as an accidental outgrowth, as if someone's body grew a second spleen as an adult, is intellectually dishonest.
    - crankylinuxuser 8y ago
      How about a very simple policy then: 1. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. 2. Quit trying to shove your ethical system on other people.
      - barking 8y ago
        Shoving an ethical system on people is kinda what the rule of law is all about. There are even limits put on the age up to which it is lawful to kill a baby you know.

AlexandrB 8y ago

This question is utterly irrelevant to my point. I'm not saying that the fetus is part of the woman, I'm saying that the woman has the right to control what happens to her body - including removing a fetus before it comes to term - if she chooses to do so. Saying otherwise is equivalent to saying that under certain circumstances it's okay to force someone to keep another being alive for 9 months with continuous blood transfusions while exposing themselves to many dangerous, and potentially fatal, side effects.