You are the one attempting to argue that moral respect for a being should be circumscribed by whether it has human DNA.
Nope. The core of my position is the fundamental moral problem associated with this kind of abortion culture, and is grounded in ethical, social, cultural, and ultimately, metaphysical concerns. I approached the DNA aspect because that's where you have staked your claim.
The problem is there is no essential boundary between human and non-human DNA. Perhaps
not - over millions of years, but the present boundaries between all
forms of DNA and others (those that define presently existing Phyla, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species boundaries) is absolute and unbridgeable. Humans are
humans and only
humans, not dogs, cats, marsupials, or reptiles.
This led you to calling me a Nazi.
Nazis supported classifying certain groups of humans as non-humans and non-persons based upon ideological vision and political expediency. You and the rest of the secular humanist movement are doing nothing different, save applying a different gloss to the philosophical contortions necessary to get you where you desire to be.
I haven't argued my views on personhood in this thread at all, so it's hard to see how I'm grounding my entire argument in biology when I haven't made an argument.
Yes, I've been asking you for quite a while for a clear and detailed definition of "personhood," which you seem dedicated to avoiding, thus far.
My views on personhood are based in my metaethical views, as it happens.
My interaction with you in this thread is limited to your flipping out on me for using the term personhood and clarifying your assertions.
I've never "flipped out" (funny how leftists tend to see righteous indignation at their own creepy moral coldness as a sign of being unhinged).
You, on the other hand, have limited your argument to biology.
Only because that's were you funneled your own defense in the beginning.
You seem to take your criteria for personhood for granted, as you assert it as though it were self-evident.
And what is that criteria?
You haven't made any effort in the voluminous posts you've written to justify this viewpoint nor have you indicated you even know how you would go about justifying it. You bleat and insult, but you haven't even begun explain why anyone should agree with you.
You obviously didn't read the John Hawk research I pointed to. Not only because you wrote a long post before you would have time to read it, but because the type of genetic changes that have been happening in human populations are in domains that could lead to a speciation event.
Pure, pure, pure hypothetical conjecture. Again, empirical science meets vast theoretical conjecture and is presented as a real possibility with an air of certainty (and a similar air of certainty and expertise in another contentious area claimed to rest on "the science" makes me pause as to your credibility within your own discipline so long as you are defending a personal ideological vision associated with it). I understand the basics of evolution, and I'm not saying I disagree with all of it as to its fundamental mechanics.
Nothing Hawk spoke about there rises above the level of trivial microevolutionary phenomena, and in any case, the time frame for such a speciation event (if such is even plausible in the human case at this juncture) is utterly vast.
The genetic distance between us and early homo sapiens already is such that it wouldn't be surprising if their were ethological barriers to reproduction if the populations existed side by side. The point of it is that human populations are not in evolutionary stasis.
More logical gaming. Its like a mantra. I keep posting long, detailed, and clear elucidations of my position, and you keep repeating the same monologue. I'm not arguing that evolution has totally ceased among humans. I'm arguing that, as to present and any foreseeable cultural/social future, evolution has no moral or ethical relation to the abortion question as it does not impinge on the time and cultural horizons of any foreseeable human type that may ever have to deal with it.
The broader philosophical and metaphysical objections to unrestricted abortion on demand are beyond the scope of biological science and anything it can bring to that table, and you have been reticent about going into those areas up to this point.