Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

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

Substantiate how this relates to constituting personhood.

Every necessary event that led to the moment of your birth is integral to your existence.

I am not disputing this. However, human development isn't concerned with the plethora of choices and experiences that shapes one's existence. It's concerned with the processes that create, change, and end the human body.

But that's exactly the point.

The cancerous tumor has no legal recourse, no voice, no advocate to protect its existence from being extinguished by the tyrannical human it lives inside.

Please explain what you believe are the critical distinctions between the two.

I would say I'm using "determines" as a synonym for "is the sole deciding factor" not "proportional or measurable by a common standard".

(A) (IFF) DNA is the sole deciding factor of human-rights (THEN)...

(B) (IFF) DNA is proportional or measurable by a common standard to human-rights (THEN)...

Pick one, or create your own paraphrase.

You proposed that personhood is determined by unique DNA.

Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N

This DNA standard is impractical.

I am proposing a more practical standard.

Please feel free to modify and or paraphrase and or criticize the logic of this proposal and or propose an entirely new standard of personhood.

But that's exactly the point.

The cancerous tumor has no legal recourse, no voice, no advocate to protect its existence from being extinguished by the tyrannical human it lives inside.

And what argument does this point serve?

You appear to define "human development" as limited to "sperm meets egg" until "lowered into incinerator" and you seem to be disregarding a number of critical prerequisites.

In order to understand "human development" you must account for all of the factors that contribute to human propagation.

(IFF) we adopt a DNA standard of personhood (AND) a cancerous tumor grows by making copies of its own distinct DNA code (THEN) the cancerous tumor must be considered a person.

I don't disagree with you that understanding the factors contributes to the understanding of human development. But we're not discussing the comprehension of human development; we're discussion its inception. And merely selecting an egg and selecting a sperm is not a part of it.

(IFF) we adopt a DNA standard of personhood (AND) a cancerous tumor grows by making copies of its own distinct DNA code (THEN) the cancerous tumor must be considered a person.

And if we do, how would that undermine my argument that its host bears it no obligation?

I'm pretty certain that if you fail to select a viable human egg and a viable human sperm, you will fail to produce a viable blastocyst.

You proposed that personhood is determined by unique DNA.

No, I didn't. I answered affirmatively to this question of yours:

Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N

Your proposal, DNA = personhood = human rights.

(IFF) your cancerous tumor is granted human rights (THEN) it has the right to an attorney.

In the same way, a landlord is not allowed to cut power and water for tenants who fail to pay their rent.

No one disputes this. But it's still not part of the inception of human development. Much like boiling an egg, I need the egg, but selecting the egg doesn't mean that I'm actually boiling it.

(IFF) your cancerous tumor is granted human rights (THEN) it has the right to an attorney.

In the same way, a landlord is not allowed to cut power and water for tenants who fail to pay their rent.

Now the dispute is "what are human rights"?

If the cancer threatens its host, and it does, then the host can defend itself by effectively ending the threat.

I haven't once mentioned unique. I did however mention distinct.

This DNA standard is impractical.

I am proposing a more practical standard.

Please feel free to modify and or paraphrase and or criticize the logic of this proposal and or propose an entirely new standard of personhood.

Your substantiating your biomass standard will suffice.

I'm talking about STEP #1.

What's STEP #1?

STEP #1, select an egg.  STEP #2, select a pan.  STEP #3, select a stove.  STEP #4, fill pan with water...

Excellent point.  So what would you propose if the example was a benign (non-life-threatening) cancerous tumor?

Unique DNA code is functionally identical to Distinct DNA code.

More of your pointless hair-splitting.

Anything living inside my body, and feeding off the nutrients I consume is part of me.

This would include any tumors and or parasites, regardless of how unique (or distinct) their DNA coding is.

Anything living inside my body, and feeding off the nutrients I consume is part of me.

This would include any tumors and or parasites, regardless of how unique (or distinct) their DNA coding is.

Then explain how this rationale creates an obligation to that which is outside your body, not (necessarily) feeding off the nutrients you consume?

When that mass of cells leaves your body and its connection to your consumed nutrients is physically severed, then, at that moment, that, newly independent mass of cells may be granted citizenship (if it meets the necessary prerequisites to qualify for citizenship).

If the former host does not wish to continue feeding the new citizen, then it becomes a ward of the state.

But why is there an obligation to begin with?

Why can't she just leave it there?

And if she has a home-birth, does the infant automatically become a citizen once it leaves her body?

Human instinct.  Some people have it and some don't.  There is no intrinsic or universal "obligation".

Once the umbilical is cut (and or other direct nutrient connection), depending on the law-of-the-land, that mass of cells may qualify for citizenship (and associated rights) of that land.

That question wholly depends on the law-of-the-land.

Once the umbilical is cut (and or other direct nutrient connection), depending on the law-of-the-land, that mass of cells may qualify for citizenship (and associated rights) of that land.

And if it doesn't qualify?

Human instinct.  Some people have it and some don't.  There is no intrinsic or universal "obligation".

Legal obligation?

That question wholly depends on the law-of-the-land.

What ought to be the law of the land?

Then it is at the mercy of its environment.  Just like any other creature.

Law is codified mob-rule.

What ought to be the mode of interaction between individuals?

Since humans are not created equal their will exist various modes of interaction, dependent on the individual and the circumstances they find themselves in.

A human law seeks to equalize any disparity of humans non-equality and in as many sets of circumstances { scenarios } as can be mathematically accounted for with the technology available to them at that time.

Those laws can be a dictator or any set of human created laws.

Is it simply "that's the law" or is there some utility (political/economic) it serves?

I was really asking the question in the context of this subject, but I'll bite: why is equality the end sought by law if as you say, humans are not created equal?

Most humans have parental instincts and since the law is written as a consensus of social norms (mob rule), this is part of the law.

Protecting infants does have some utility, since a society cannot survive without infants, and furthermore, orphans often make good soldiers.