Is Murdering Another Human Wrong?

OK before this get derailed too much let's get back on topic:

OP's argument is:

"If unborn baby has human DNA it is a human being".

Correct?

Am I the only one seeing where this is logically wrong? Human DNA is not the same as human being.

Human DNA and human cells are concepts which are clearly defined. "Human being" is something which is more nebulous, especially during the early stages of life.

There is not yet any absolute definition of what constitutes a human being, and if someone has such a definition he can't post it in here.


For the record I'm OK with abortion in some cases, especially if it puts the life of the mother in danger, or if it can prevent the baby useless suffering (malformed children or even undesired children), as long as it is done early enough.

You're missing the point. You are still alive if you lose a few cells containg the genetic blueprint of yourself.

You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

originally posted by: gggilll
OK before this get derailed too much let's get back on topic:

OP's argument is:

"If unborn baby has human DNA it is a human being".

Correct?

Am I the only one seeing where this is logically wrong? Human DNA is not the same as human being.

Human DNA and human cells are concepts which are clearly defined. "Human being" is something which is more nebulous, especially during the early stages of life.

There is not yet any absolute definition of what constitutes a human being, and if someone has such a definition he can't post it in here.


For the record I'm OK with abortion in some cases, especially if it puts the life of the mother in danger, or if it can prevent the baby useless suffering (malformed children or even undesired children), as long as it is done early enough.

I believe his argument is that at conception it's a living organism. All living organisms can be identified by their DNA to determine what they are. Checking the DNA yields the result "human".

Killing DNA is not murder. Abortion is not killing DNA, it is ending the life of an actual living organism.

I fully support the right of a mother to end a pregnancy that jeopardizes her life. Much like I support any person to end the life any human being that is killing them.

originally posted by: JackReyes
You're missing the point. You are still alive if you lose a few cells containg the genetic blueprint of yourself.

You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no lomger exists.

And you are missing my point: all cells are alive and they aren't the same as human beings. Being "alive" and being "a human" are different things.

If aborting a fetus which is still a bunch of undifferentiated cells is murder, then so is removing my appendix.

the really tricky question is "When" do the bunch of cells start becoming a human, and neither you or I can precisely answer it.

originally posted by: JackReyes
You're missing the point. You are still alive if you lose a few cells containg the genetic blueprint of yourself.

You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no lomger exists.

There we go, thanks for setting this up with ease. Your argument's foundation is that one must be alive, of unique DNA, to be recognized as an individual.

Define alive. Protest all you want, sperm is still a living organism. Ergo, alive. As are trees, grass, sea cucumbers, bacteria, etc. Are you suggesting there are tiers of "alive", and they're of a lesser tier? Because now you're delving in to self-awareness -- what constitutes a sentient creature --and it's gonna get murky for you real quick.

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You're missing the point. You are still alive if you lose a few cells containg the genetic blueprint of yourself.

You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no lomger exists.

And you are missing my point: all cells are alive and they aren't the same as human beings. Being "alive" and being "a human" are different things.

If aborting a fetus which is still a bunch of undifferentiated cells is murder, then so is removing my appendix.

the really tricky question is "When" do the bunch of cells start becoming a human, and neither you or I can precisely answer it.

I argue the question is when does it become a living organism. If it's not a human, what species is that organism?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

further proving my point that my DNA and my "being" are two different things.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The human is alive. Every cell from conception contains who the human is. Desteoy them all and the human ceases to exsist.

The only time destroying one cell would destroy the unique human is at conception itself.

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: JackReyes
You're missing the point. You are still alive if you lose a few cells containg the genetic blueprint of yourself.

You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no lomger exists.

There we go, thanks for setting this up with ease. Your argument's foundation is that one must be alive, of unique DNA, to be recognized as an individual.

Define alive. Protest all you want, sperm is still a living organism. Ergo, alive. As are trees, grass, sea cucumbers, bacteria, etc. Are you suggesting there are tiers of "alive", and they're of a lesser tier? Because now you're delving in to self-awareness -- what constitutes a sentient creature --and it's gonna get murky for you real quick.

Yep, we kill sperm all the time. It's not human. I don't need to show sentience, only that an organism is living, and that it is human.

If you think the unborn baby is not human, give me it's species.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

further proving my point that my DNA and my "being" are two different things.

Yes, his argument is flawed, but his premise is not. The unborn child is a unique being. It is also human. Killing it IS ending a human life.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I argue the question is when does it become a living organism. If it's not a human, what species is that organism?

The white cells in my blood are living organisms with my human DNA.

What species is that organism?

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The unborn child is a unique being.

I haven't seen anyone explaining WHEN a child starts becoming a being and is no longer a bunch of undifferentiated cells.

When someone can, I think it would become much easier to determine what is murder and what isn't.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I argue the question is when does it become a living organism. If it's not a human, what species is that organism?

The white cells in my blood are living organisms with my human DNA.

What species is that organism?

No, you are a multicellular organism. Killing a white blood cell does not kill the organism. I am not making the argument of killing any human DNA is wrong, the organism is what matters.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: JackReyes
You die if you are murdered. And your genetic self no longer exists.

Actually you could technically be cloned.

Proving a bit more that there is no such thing as a "genetic self".

Much like a twin is not "you" the clone is not either as they do not have your memories.

And that shows you are not a limited edition blueprint, but rather a work-in-progress sum of your life experiences (regarding memories)

Yes, which started at the moment of conception. Killing me then would be killing the person I am now. It's ending a human life.

His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human. He took the DNA angle too far. His premise is still spot on.

I'd love to know where these insta-human memory banks are located in these very limited number of early cells.

originally posted by: gggilll

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
The unborn child is a unique being.

I haven't seen anyone explaining WHEN a child starts becoming a being and is no longer a bunch of undifferentiated cells.

When someone can, I think it would become much easier to determine what is murder and what isn't.

As a matter of scientific fact at the moment of conception. That's not in dispute. You are confusing that with when they label the human organism "human". It's an arbitrary label with no scientific basis done solely for the purpose to muddy the waters and allow the killing of unique human organisms.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
His DNA argument is only useful for proving the living organism is human.

It's not. A white cell has human DNA, is living, is an organism, and yet isn't a human.

The important thing to understand is that human are cellular colonies. They become something more than the sum of cells when a critical mass is reached.

Tricky question is, what is that critical mass...