Again, you ignore the difference between something killed and something alive and pretend that science agrees with you. There is a difference between a living organism and something dead, this is true. But it doesn't change what it was before you killed it.
Science can’t tell what it was “before”. Just like science can not tell if a piece of oak was from a tree or from a table or from an acorn so science can not determine if you killed a tree (cut it down) or knocked a piece of wood off your table or if there ever was a tree. It follows science (DNA) can not tell if something was a human being, a piece of liver or a flake of skin. That’s the point. DNA does not prove if something is a human being or ever was a human being. All science proves is what the material is.
It’s like holding a brick in one’s hand and trying to prove it came from a house or a walkway or a garden wall. There is no way of proving that simply by holding the brick. All one can determine is if it’s a brick.
An organism has to have the necessary components to carry on the processes of life. Considering 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort it’s both reasonable and logical to conclude many fertilized cells do not have the necessary components to carry on the processes of life.
As I noted earlier if one used the same criteria as anti-abortionists use regarding “proof” it would be immediately dismissed.
Again, absolutely ridiculous. Ignoring the difference between a living organism and something dead doesn't change that it is something killed.
If this were the case you would never be able to convict anybody of murder because the corpse is no longer a "person"...
You’re assuming every fertilized cell has the necessary components to develop into a human being or is a human being when we don’t know what the cell contains. We barely know how a few genes work and there are thousands where we don’t have any idea what their purpose is. It’s like looking at the casing of a desk top computer and saying it’s a functioning computer. We have no idea what parts may be missing inside until we actually try to run it.
As for murder convictions many convictions occurred before the discovery of DNA.
The human organism is a human organism, there is nothing to accomplish it is what it is.
Again, we don’t know if it contains the all the parts necessary to be classified as an organism. We have no idea why 50% of them spontaneously abort. It’s reasonable to conclude that if they did contain all the necessary parts they would not spontaneously abort. They would grow to full term.
Now we're again into the philosophy rather than the science. They are a human organism, even 5th grade science will tell you that. There's nothing to talk about because you simply ignore science and pretend it isn't what it is.
Again, we don’t know. We don’t even know what the thousands of genes do that human beings have. So, we don’t know what the genes do and we don’t know what genes the fertilized cell may or may not contain, yet, anti-abortionists are running around yelling “proof!” Proof of what? Proof that a fertilized cell is composed of human material. That’s the extent of the proof and I doubt anyone has a problem with that. It’s the extrapolation that due to knowing a fertilized cell contains human material it must contain all the material necessary to become or be considered a human being. That's a big and unjustified leap.
No, it would not. Proof is simply the reality that the human organism begins life at conception. Whether it is a "person" or legal to kill at that level of development is the question, but pretending it is anything other than human progeny is pretense, an attempt to dehumanize so that you can feel good.
Again, we do not know if the cell is an organism. However, we do know that an organism is supposed to be capable of carrying on the processes of life and 50% of fertilized cells do not carry on the processes of life. They spontaneously abort. To say because DNA can tell if the cell is composed of human material it proves it’s a human being is absurd. What reasonable person would conclude such shoddy “evidence” to be acceptable?
I understand that those who support killing progeny will always use argument outside of science. Is it a "person"? That is philosophy, and the only actual argument that can exist. Deliberately pretending that 2 plus 2 is 5 will never make it 5, nor will pretending that human progeny isn't a human organism make that organism anything other than what it is.
Again, what is the proof? If one wishes to defer to science let’s see the science. Show us that the fertilized cell contains the necessary ingredients. Of course, that’s impossible because science doesn’t even know what ingredients are necessary, let along whether the cell contains it.
The anti-abortionist argument is nothing more than superstition combined with speculation and a large dose of “because I say so.” Their argument is no different than that used by those who claimed the soul entered male fetuses before it entered female fetuses and quickening was “proof” the soul had entered. Nothing but unsubstantiated nonsense and they have the gall to say science proves their position. It does no such thing. Furthermore, if, as a society, we are going to regulate the body and reproductive system of half the population we better be damn sure fertilized cells are "persons" or human beings. We have to see uncontested science, proof the cell does contain all the necessary ingredients and are capable of coming to full term and in order to do that we have a long, long way to go.
