So by the law of excluded middle, DNA determines Rights (at least in your proposal).Define commensurate; and define determine.
Stopping the selection process de facto stops development.It doesn't "stop" it. It prevents it from occurring.
In the same way, if I sterilize you, then I am de facto killing your unborn children.You can't kill children who haven't been conceived. You can only put an end to the prospect. The prospect of children is not the same as children.
What is your suggestion?It's already in the part you quoted.
Then the description of the genome needs expansion to include that which constitutes one's person.
Genetic coding contains errors. Every time you copy 725 megabytes of data, single bit errors are prone to occur. Also, environmental toxins and cosmic radiation can cause errors (mutations) in a human's genetic code.Are the distinctions a result of a dissimilar code or dissimilar expression?
The qualifier "all human life" necessarily includes convicts.
This is an irrelevant RED-HERRING (moot). The qualifier "all human life" necessarily includes convicts.
#1 it isn't a deterrent.
destroying life doesn't prove it's precious.
#3 it does undermine the axiom "all human life is precious".
Isn't the statement "all human life is precious" functionally identical to "no human life should be ended"?
OTHERWISE, HOW DOES IT INFORM ABORTION?
THIS IS THE EXACT SAME SCENARIO YOU OBJECTED TO REGARDING PARENTS ABANDONING THEIR CHILDREN.
BY DEPORTING (abandoning) HUMAN LIFE INTO LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS, YOU ARE NOT PROTECTING THEIR PRECIOUS HUMAN LIVES.
If they cared about the homeless half as much as they care about zygotes, then there would be no homeless people.
Please explain how bombing the middle-east "saves precious human lives".
OTHERWISE, HOW DOES IT INFORM ABORTION?My presumption would be that they don't believe the privacy of its mother is commensurate to that of the value of her child's life. I disagree. But they sustain this consistently throughout its development until the child is no longer dependent.
"all human life is precious" strongly implies that all human life should be protected and preserved at all costs, even and especially at the cost of personal privacy.
This AXIOM is fine and dandy as an axiom, however if it was taken seriously and to its logical conclusions, then no criminals would be executed, and in-fact all criminals would be given top-notch healthcare and their personal security would be protected at all costs.
(IFF) you want to argue that "all life is precious" simply means "some lives are valued by some people some of the time and other lives are sometimes more or less valuable than others depending on the situation" - (THEN) - ALL BETS ARE OFF AND YOUR "AXIOM" IS A SHAM.
"all human life is precious" strongly implies that all human life should be protected and preserved at all costs, even and especially at the cost of personal privacy.Interesting how that projection conveniently suits the context of the pro-life argument. I do not believe it means that which you state. I believe that the motto "all life is precious" is an argument for the inclusion of unborn children as it concerns the scope of legal protections afforded everyone.
In the case of the death penalty, the convict's life is recompense for the lives presumably taken.
Ok, so, "all human life is precious" means that we should sell people as slaves? Is that what you think it means?You however, are conflating preservation with value.
I'll accept your definitions.I don't think either of these terms are currently in dispute.
You're hair-splitting.
How would you do this? Redefine "individual human" as 99.99999999999% matching DNA?
In one of these cases, a woman's womb did not match her standard DNA swab and this resulted in her children being forcibly removed.
I explicitly said code.
All life? Citizen and non-citizen? Homed and homeless? Criminal and non-criminal?
What you are talking about would necessarily be more specific. "Unborn human life is precious" actually means very little, since "precious" is a QUALITATIVE-VALUE-JUDGEMENT.The only way it informs the so-called-pro-life case is IF IT APPLIES TO ALL HUMANS.
According to what theory? Now you're just making things up out of thin air.Exactly what part of "all human life is precious" explains this?
You need to modify your AXIOM.
Ok, so, "all human life is precious" means that we should sell people as slaves? Is that what you think it means?
I'm trying to be generous, but you're all over the map.
Please explain how you would make the statement "all human life is precious" more specifically about "anti-abortion" and less about preserving human life.Because it seems to me that "pro-life" means "pro-life for immigrants" and "pro-life for criminals" and "pro-life for foreign non-combatants" and "pro-life for the homeless".Pro-life doesn't even specify human life. Don't kill pigs and chickens and cows either you PRO-LIFER?!
I'll leave it to you. Your response to my saying that I never stated that rights were commensurate to DNA content spurred you to invoke the law of excluded middle to conclude DNA determines rights. Elaborate.
You're hair-splitting.No, I'm not. Prevent is different from stop. Stop is to end an occurrence, which necessitates that it occurs.
To prevent is to put an end to its ever occurring, which does not necessitate that it occurs. No one disputes that humans are necessary; no one disputes that sperm and ovum are necessary.
But that's not the inception of human development.
They're essential inputs, no doubt. But the catalyst is fertilization.
How would you do this? Redefine "individual human" as 99.99999999999% matching DNA?Not necessary; the only thing needed is to determine what is exclusively his.
In one of these cases, a woman's womb did not match her standard DNA swab and this resulted in her children being forcibly removed.Reference?
I explicitly said code.Reference?
Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N
Are you suggesting that personhood determines human rights? Y/N
I can prevent someone from dying and I can stop someone from dying. It's essentially the same thing.To prevent is to put an end to its ever occurring, which does not necessitate that it occurs. No one disputes that humans are necessary; no one disputes that sperm and ovum are necessary.You're making a distinction without a difference.But that's not the inception of human development.The "inception of human development" is the selection process which begins with survival instinct.They're essential inputs, no doubt. But the catalyst is fertilization.The catalyst is human survival instinct.Your start-point appears to be arbitrary.
This is going to vary from one person to the next and would require nearly catastrophic testing to verify.
DNA uniqueness is an impractical standard by which to determine personhood.
Mutations in the DNA have also been noted with the introduction of certain viruses into the body. In fact, this is a method by which “gene therapy” is being studied in depth. Scientists and medical researchers are using small virus cells, usually of common illnesses like colds, to change small parts of gene expression, since it is known that viruses may rewrite some of the DNA code. [LINK]
Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/NY.Are you suggesting that personhood determines human rights? Y/NY.
Amazing. Where does it state that the children were forcibly removed?
But doesn't the link primarily focus on gene expression (e.g. tight skin, hair color, brain cells, etc...) especially when it mentions that the codes "aren't working well" as opposed to the codes being distinct? Even when it makes reference to the code, it makes an immediate mention of its expression. Other than the mention of viruses being able to rewrite the code, isn't most of its conclusions derived from gene expression? (I'm genuinely curious.)
This is going to vary from one person to the next and would require nearly catastrophic testing to verify.Why catastrophic?
The catalyst is human survival instinct.Your start-point appears to be arbitrary.I'm not arguing over this, anymore.
Case closed. You have stated that DNA determines human rights.And therefore, (IFF) DNA determines human rights (THEN) any creature with 97% DNA matching a human should be granted 97% human rights.
Just watch the first 43 seconds, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFf5gKiTGlo
Not all of your cells have identical DNA coding. The human chimera example closes the case on that.
The fact that viruses and cosmic rays can damage your DNA coding also confirms that "not all of your cells have identical DNA coding".
Gene expression is interesting, but I fail to see how it's relevant to this discussion.
Another interesting side-note about DNA uniformity, mothers get contaminated with human cells from their embryos.
I'll consider that a "dropped argument".
And therefore, (IFF) DNA determines human rights (THEN) any creature with 97% DNA matching a human should be granted 97% human rights.Try again. First, define determine and commensurate.
Fairchild's attorney was determined to solve the mystery. That's when he came across Keegan's chimera story in the New England Journal of Medicine."I asked the judge to postpone the case until these tests could be done," Tindell said.
Not all of your cells have identical DNA coding. The human chimera example closes the case on that.A rare case.
While all your cells may not be identical, they are part of your person. And if one wants to excise any of them with impunity, my arguments wouldn't reject it.
Gene expression is interesting, but I fail to see how it's relevant to this discussion.Then once again, what would be a more practical standard in determining personhood?
No, it's AXIOMATIC.Human Development beginning at fertilization is tautological.
We don't know how "rare" it is, because we don't test for it.
Although it does seem to contradict your DNA = person AXIOM.
I'll accept your preferred definitions and or common dictionary references.
If the food that I eat is converted into fuel for a mass of cells in my body, then those cells are part of my person
Every necessary event that led to the moment of your birth is integral to your existence.
But that's exactly the point.Seem is not an argument; and it doesn't contradict my argument at all. If we were to entertain that personhood is commensurate with DNA similarity, they are still apart of one's person. If one cell has a dispute with another, then let them take it to court or preferably hire a private mediator.
I'll accept your preferred definitions and or common dictionary references.I'm asking you for your definitions because I'd rather not presume that you're conflating commesurate with determine, especially when your argument operates on "tiered" rights standard.
