 Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector  [color=black]Actually, there is no such thing as "unique" DNA for the vast majority of muti-celled organisms... | As I stated, the idea that as humans we each have a unique genetic code, is well established in both science and law. If it were not, we would not worry about genetic profiles when it comes to legal cases. Again, you try to overwhelm with the minute details of science and ignore the larger philosophical issue at hand. Furthermore, you still cannot ignore the fact that as humans we have 46 chromosomes. A mother has 46, a father has 46, and the unborn fertilized egg has 46. The 46 that the mother has is different than the 46 the embryo has, as well as any other individuals.
If DNA were unique it would not be accepted in the court as having ability of proving innocence or guilt. Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector Ok. But then, why stop there…at the yet to be born (and already born)?
There is substantial evidence to support the hypothesis that unfertilized human eggs can hold just as much potential for viable human life as fertilized eggs do…through induced parthenogenesis. And, there is even more evidence to support the hypothesis that humans can be cloned. Once these techniques progress to the point where we can realize the potential of unfertilized human eggs and the genetic code within undifferentiated cells, and I don’t think we are very far off from doing either, I think both of these precursors of potentially viable human life would have to be legally protected, in order to remain consistent, if a just-fertilized human egg is to be protected based solely on its potential.
(And, similarly, just like with the term “life,” the terms “human” and “human being”-and even the term “person”-are ultimately subjective for the same reason that the term “life” is ultimately subjective.) | Again, unfertilized eggs only contain 23 chromosomes, a human has 46. In cloning, you are not gaining a unique genetic profile. We are arguing now about potential and actual life. Science is very specific in its definitions, the words zygote, embryo and fetus all contain the words life.
I provided an argument that was not based on opinion or belief, but instead the constitution......sort of throws in the dump the constitutionality of choice.
dmk Conservatism, I repeat is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics....But if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles
-Russell Kirk- | 
03-11-2007, 03:39 PM
Linear Mode
