OdgenTugbyGlub
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2005
- Messages
- 292
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Going waaaaaay back...
As I said before, DNA tests can be used to determine A) if the organic material is human in origin and B) if the material of human origin matches that of any other sample material, which we can use to prove that both materials are of the same origin, in the WTC case the same person. However, as I said before (and I think Tecoyah agreed, though I'm not positive) when we start to talk about if that material comes from a human individual we get into metaphysics; what it is to be. Just as you say we subjectivly assume zygotes/embryos are not individuals, we can say that you, just as subjectivly, lable them as individuals. The point is zygotes/embryos, while having the potential to become children, are not recognizably children. Since they cannot communicate, and for the first half of the gestation period or so have no real cognitive function (i.e. concious thoughts), the zygote/embryo/fetus might as well be an animal. Your arguement is based on an emotional reaction, and when you get down to it so is ours. You see a child in the embryo/zygote/fetus, and we see something alien. Which is right? Who knows, but I like to think science is on my side, and that makes me feel a little more sure of myself.
PS: As per the fetus DNA from the WTC, because we can't determine with certainty whether the material was from a child, adult or unborn we would have to assume that it was an adult for lack of data. Without another sample to compare it too we would have no way of knowing who that DNA sample belonged too.
ANDFelicity said:What about the remains of "people" at the World Trade Center Towers collapse...I keep aking this to those who object because no one has yet answered it (or even commented)...Those victims of 9/11 are being identified as individuals based solely on DNA--how is that different from identifying the human that was sucked from the womb in an abortion as an individual based on DNA? The only difference I can see is a subjective difference of the person making the definition placing value on ....I'm not sure what...
So is it safe to say that although there is scientific evidence of distinct human individuality that can be ascertained by DNA evidence in some cases, your position is such that it is acceptable to use this measure for people you subjectively assume are human persons (such as WTC victims)--and not acceptable for those you subjectively assume are not human persons (such as zygotes/embryos)?
Just a thought....what if they found DNA of a distinct individual at the WTC site that turned out to be an embryo that had been within one of the victims? What would they do with that?
As I said before, DNA tests can be used to determine A) if the organic material is human in origin and B) if the material of human origin matches that of any other sample material, which we can use to prove that both materials are of the same origin, in the WTC case the same person. However, as I said before (and I think Tecoyah agreed, though I'm not positive) when we start to talk about if that material comes from a human individual we get into metaphysics; what it is to be. Just as you say we subjectivly assume zygotes/embryos are not individuals, we can say that you, just as subjectivly, lable them as individuals. The point is zygotes/embryos, while having the potential to become children, are not recognizably children. Since they cannot communicate, and for the first half of the gestation period or so have no real cognitive function (i.e. concious thoughts), the zygote/embryo/fetus might as well be an animal. Your arguement is based on an emotional reaction, and when you get down to it so is ours. You see a child in the embryo/zygote/fetus, and we see something alien. Which is right? Who knows, but I like to think science is on my side, and that makes me feel a little more sure of myself.
PS: As per the fetus DNA from the WTC, because we can't determine with certainty whether the material was from a child, adult or unborn we would have to assume that it was an adult for lack of data. Without another sample to compare it too we would have no way of knowing who that DNA sample belonged too.