the truth about abortion

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge
The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

Still looking for a source? You can just say so, you don't have to keep stalling with these piddly little BS posts. You just defined death in two different ways and tried to combine the two to define life. However, this is pretty obviously yet another failure in logic. Just get back to me when you have an actual source, mkay?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
and where are your sources to back yours?

Mine are based solely on logic. As such, they require no source, as they stand on their own merit.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

Still looking for a source? You can just say so, you don't have to keep stalling with these piddly little BS posts. You just defined death in two different ways and tried to combine the two to define life. However, this is pretty obviously yet another failure in logic. Just get back to me when you have an actual source, mkay?

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm

I am no longer interested in wasting time arguing with you. I have much more important things to do. Enjoy living in your ignorance and have a nice day.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

Still looking for a source? You can just say so, you don't have to keep stalling with these piddly little BS posts. You just defined death in two different ways and tried to combine the two to define life. However, this is pretty obviously yet another failure in logic. Just get back to me when you have an actual source, mkay?

UNIFORM DETERMINATION OF DEATH ACT
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1980s/udda80.htm

I am no longer interested in wasting time arguing with you. I have much more important things to do. Enjoy living in your ignorance and have a nice day.

I got you in the corner, but you wouldn't give up. I got you down on the ground, but you kept fighting. I was kicking you while you were down, but you kept struggling. You just couldn't give up. You tried to pull a gun and run out the door with this last post, but I can't help but turn the gun on you.

From your link:

Part (1) codifies the existing common law basis for determining death - total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Part (2) extends the common law to include the new procedures for determination of death based upon irreversible loss of all brain functions. The overwhelming majority of cases will continue to be determined according to part (1). When artificial means of support preclude a determination under part (1), the Act recognizes that death can be determined by the alternative procedures.

So no, death is not defined as cessation of cortical function. It is the total failure of the cardiorespiratory system. Moreover,

Under part (2), the entire brain must cease to function, irreversibly. The "entire brain" includes the brain stem, as well as the neocortex. The concept of "entire brain" distinguishes determination of death under this Act from "neocortical death" or "persistent vegetative state." These are not deemed valid medical or legal bases for determining death.

So, your own link specifically states that your definition is not deemed valid medical or legal basis for determining death.

§ 1. [Determination of Death]. An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

§ 2. [Uniformity of Construction and Application]. This Act shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this Act among states enacting it.

Now I see why you cut and run: you simply can't admit that you're wrong, because then you might have to rethink your position, though I'm not sure you really thought about it in the first place.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

No, this is also patently false. Human life undoubtedly begins at conception, as I already stated in this very thread. If a zygote is not human and alive, it would never become human nor would it become alive. Can you show me any source backing your claim?

Ok lets see how your argument, "stands on its own merit"

The above bolded claim is what we call a Circular Justification Fallacy. Basically you cannot argue that if A is true then B therefore it must be A because of B. You are working off the false premise that a zygote is human. You cannot prove that. Science cannot prove that. Your definition of "human" is being stretched here to fit your claims.

You also commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (faulty causal presumption fallacy) but I don't need to go any further with your "argument."

my point is, science cannot be used to fit your agenda. Science is not going to help anyones agenda in this issue.

Filter science out of the issue, then filter morality. Once you do that you are left with human rights. Run the issue through your human rights issue. Then you will see where the real debate should begin.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
Ok lets see how your argument, "stands on its own merit"

The above bolded claim is what we call a Circular Justification Fallacy. Basically you cannot argue that if A is true then B therefore it must be A because of B. You are working off the false premise that a zygote is human. You cannot prove that. Science cannot prove that. Your definition of "human" is being stretched here to fit your claims.

You also commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (faulty causal presumption fallacy) but I don't need to go any further with your "argument."

No, that bolded portion is based on biological fact. 'Human' is a taxonomic term and defines a species. Clearly, the zygote has human DNA. Thus, it belongs to the human species. The question is whether it is alive.

my point is, science cannot be used to fit your agenda. Science is not going to help anyones agenda in this issue.

Filter science out of the issue, then filter morality. Once you do that you are left with human rights. Run the issue through your human rights issue. Then you will see where the real debate should begin.

As yet, I simply can't see a logical point after conception prior to which human and person are not identically equal. Science may yet shed light on this issue, or it may not. I'm speaking solely in terms of ethics here, not morality. None of my arguments has had any personal or religious basis. My human rights filter tells me that every person has the same right to life, the right that must supersede all other rights. Therefore, we arrive back at the original question: at what point does a human become a person?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Why aren't the drivers for B culpable? They knew that their behavior was inappropriate, since the company drilled it into them for years before they ever got behind the wheel. They were fully aware of safety measures that were available. However, they still CHOSE to behave in a way contrary to the company's policy and refused to take steps to protect themselves. Pizza delivery companies do not supply their employees with safe cars for this very reason: ultimately, the driver is responsible. If he chooses to act recklessly, then he better protect himself or be prepared to accept the consequences of his actions. It's his choice, and the responsibility for his actions rests on his shoulders.

The drivers of course are culpable. From what I said, "some of those accidents will be their own fault". How do you read what I post, and then make statements like you do? This is a trend I see in you. I post that the sky is blue, and you say "But wait! the sky is blue! How can Dullard say the sky isn't blue!". Strawman arguments don't ever work.

Company B is indirectly and partly responsible for not giving enough equipment and supervision. If company A has a 1% accident rate and company B has a 10% accident rate over time, then there is something fundamentally different. Something fundamentally should be changed. It isn't all worker responsibility. Companies have responsibilities to protect their (sometimes moronic) employees. It is the company's responsibility to have measures in place to minimize the harm from all reasonable and forseeable accidents.

Same goes for churches. They should realize that members will have sins. The church should help minimize the sin when it can. Stop this "abstinence only" education. Instead teach abstinence, but when you are married, here is how to prevent problems. The education will pass on to those who aren't married too.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
Ok lets see how your argument, "stands on its own merit"

The above bolded claim is what we call a Circular Justification Fallacy. Basically you cannot argue that if A is true then B therefore it must be A because of B. You are working off the false premise that a zygote is human. You cannot prove that. Science cannot prove that. Your definition of "human" is being stretched here to fit your claims.

You also commit a cum hoc ergo propter hoc (faulty causal presumption fallacy) but I don't need to go any further with your "argument."

No, that bolded portion is based on biological fact. 'Human' is a taxonomic term and defines a species. Clearly, the zygote has human DNA. Thus, it belongs to the human species. The question is whether it is alive.

HAHAHA you just did the same thing!! you cannot argue that because it is human it is human!! think about it. Your definition of human is being stretched to fit your claims.

OF course it is alive. What argument says it isn't? it is alive because it is a growing lump of cells. And it doesnt stop growing.

think about it. Use dictionary.com and look up human. That is the definition the rest of the world operates with. While you are at it look up zygote. Then you will start to see how you are stretching your definitions.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: zendari
What is the magic quota number of support? Far more than 51% of Americans oppose abortion in all situations except rape, incest, and birth defects.

proof of this? links? I say links, because I am sure some of the 'christian' links you'd provide would also recommend that gays be burned at the stake.

Text

Only ~25% of people support this abortion on demand concept.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
The drivers of course are culpable. From what I said, "some of those accidents will be their own fault". How do you read what I post, and then make statements like you do? This is a trend I see in you. I post that the sky is blue, and you say "But wait! the sky is blue! How can Dullard say the sky isn't blue!". Strawman arguments don't ever work.

OK, I'll rephrase. Why are the drivers not solely culpable? They knowingly violated company policy - how can you hold the company responsible? If they want to play outside the lines, then they're releasing the company from liability. It's not the job of the company to say 'don't speed', then hand them a radar jamming device. The job of the company is to say 'don't speed, period.' If they speed, then they're on their own, as they've already dismissed the company's policy. Do you question that handing them a radar jammer will indeed encourage speeding? If I knew that I could go by 99 cops out of 100 without getting a ticket, don't you think I would speed constantly? This is the analogy I was looking for.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte
HAHAHA you just did the same thing!! you cannot argue that because it is human it is human!! think about it. Your definition of human is being stretched to fit your claims.

OF course it is alive. What argument says it isn't? it is alive because it is a growing lump of cells. And it doesnt stop growing.

think about it. Use dictionary.com and look up human. That is the definition the rest of the world operates with. While you are at it look up zygote. Then you will start to see how you are stretching your definitions.

Maybe you should have performed that search yourself before you decided to call me out:

human:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Source

So, from your own reference, we have that a zygote is not only human, but a person. Brilliant!

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Meuge
Well, I misspoke. The definition is actually more concrete that that. High cortical function defines HUMAN LIFE.

No, this is also patently false. Human life undoubtedly begins at conception, as I already stated in this very thread. If a zygote is not human and alive, it would never become human nor would it become alive. Can you show me any source backing your claim?

The AMA definition of death is the cessation of life. Death is defined as sponteneous cessation or absence of cortical activity (brain death).

If death is the cessation of life, and death is the cessation of cortical activity, then life = cortical activity. What is it that you don't understand here?

If you perform the surgery correctly, you can almost completely remove the upper cortex, leaving the midbrain and medulla intact. The human in question might actually have a heartbeat, will breathe, and will actually swallow... but it's no longer alive. According to you, it should be voting.

wrong. for an organism to be defined as living, it must have done (or have the capability/means necessary to do) at some point all vital characteristics (movement, reproduction, sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration, and growth). since a zygote doesn't have most or all of these characteristics, it is not living. it may at one point BECOME living.

a fetus is not considered alive (by the definition of what it means to be alive, biologically) until the 2nd trimester.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: eits
wrong. for an organism to be defined as living, it must have done (or have the capability/means necessary to do) at some point all vital characteristics (movement, reproduction, sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration, and growth). since a zygote doesn't have most or all of these characteristics, it is not living. it may at one point BECOME living.

a fetus is not considered alive (by the definition of what it means to be alive, biologically) until the 2nd trimester.

I haven't reproduced. Does that mean I'm not alive?

 

[Harvey]

can you honestly look at this and defend abortion?

As the brother of four very bright, very over-achieving sisters and several equally talented adult neices, you bet I can.

Nobody said it was pretty, but unless you have alternative solutions for every possible case, unfortunately, sometimes, it's necessary.

Do you think hernia surgery or an apendectomy looks any better in real time? :shocked:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
HAHAHA you just did the same thing!! you cannot argue that because it is human it is human!! think about it. Your definition of human is being stretched to fit your claims.

OF course it is alive. What argument says it isn't? it is alive because it is a growing lump of cells. And it doesnt stop growing.

think about it. Use dictionary.com and look up human. That is the definition the rest of the world operates with. While you are at it look up zygote. Then you will start to see how you are stretching your definitions.

Maybe you should have performed that search yourself before you decided to call me out:

human:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Source

So, from your own reference, we have that a zygote is not only human, but a person. Brilliant!

precisely smart guy. And now that you failed to properly define human (by omitting the last half of the definition let me first correct this mistake:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human. [/b]
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

Now that we understand what a complete definition of human is lets go over to what a zygote is defined as.

zy·gote
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.

And now lets introduce your fallacious argument that since a zygote is made of human DNA then it is human. No that is not the case a zygote is simply defined as above. Yet you want to stretch the definition of human to fit your definition of zygote. A zygote is not human, it is a zygote. It COULD be a human zygote, which would be defined loosely as The cell formed by the union of two h.sapien gametes, but you cannot stretch the definition of human to define a human zygote. Zygotes are not humanity. you cannot put human characteristics on zygotes.

its fallacious, it is wrong. But somehow I am losing faith that you are going to be able to see that.

"Brilliant!"

edit: I was trying not to give you the rope to hang yourself, but you have failed basic logic and reasoning. So enjoy your swing.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: eits
wrong. for an organism to be defined as living, it must have done (or have the capability/means necessary to do) at some point all vital characteristics (movement, reproduction, sensitivity, nutrition, excretion, respiration, and growth). since a zygote doesn't have most or all of these characteristics, it is not living. it may at one point BECOME living.

a fetus is not considered alive (by the definition of what it means to be alive, biologically) until the 2nd trimester.

I haven't reproduced. Does that mean I'm not alive?

you have the means by which to reproduce.... you've got gametes.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
HAHAHA you just did the same thing!! you cannot argue that because it is human it is human!! think about it. Your definition of human is being stretched to fit your claims.

OF course it is alive. What argument says it isn't? it is alive because it is a growing lump of cells. And it doesnt stop growing.

think about it. Use dictionary.com and look up human. That is the definition the rest of the world operates with. While you are at it look up zygote. Then you will start to see how you are stretching your definitions.

Maybe you should have performed that search yourself before you decided to call me out:

human:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Source

So, from your own reference, we have that a zygote is not only human, but a person. Brilliant!

precisely smart guy. And now that you failed to properly define human (by omitting the last half of the definition let me first correct this mistake:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human. [/b]
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

Now that we understand what a complete definition of human is lets go over to what a zygote is defined as.

zy·gote
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.

And now lets introduce your fallacious argument that since a zygote is made of human DNA then it is human. No that is not the case a zygote is simply defined as above. Yet you want to stretch the definition of human to fit your definition of zygote. A zygote is not human, it is a zygote. It COULD be a human zygote, which would be defined loosely as The cell formed by the union of two h.sapien gametes, but you cannot stretch the definition of human to define a human zygote. Zygotes are not humanity. you cannot put human characteristics on zygotes.

its fallacious, it is wrong. But somehow I am losing faith that you are going to be able to see that.

"Brilliant!"

edit: I was trying not to give you the rope to hang yourself, but you have failed basic logic and reasoning. So enjoy your swing.

wow cyclo, that was a real rookie mistake dude.

the first thing that needs to be realized as that 'human' and 'human being' are two different things. my skin cells are 'human' but not 'human beings'. a zygote is definitely 'human', but it's unclear that it's a 'human being'.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: OrByte
HAHAHA you just did the same thing!! you cannot argue that because it is human it is human!! think about it. Your definition of human is being stretched to fit your claims.

OF course it is alive. What argument says it isn't? it is alive because it is a growing lump of cells. And it doesnt stop growing.

think about it. Use dictionary.com and look up human. That is the definition the rest of the world operates with. While you are at it look up zygote. Then you will start to see how you are stretching your definitions.

Maybe you should have performed that search yourself before you decided to call me out:

human:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

Source

So, from your own reference, we have that a zygote is not only human, but a person. Brilliant!

precisely smart guy. And now that you failed to properly define human (by omitting the last half of the definition let me first correct this mistake:

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person: the extraordinary humans who explored Antarctica.

adj.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans: the course of human events; the human race.
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals: an act of human kindness.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility associated with humans: a mistake that shows he's only human; human frailty.
Having the form of a human. [/b]
Made up of humans: formed a human bridge across the ice.

Now that we understand what a complete definition of human is lets go over to what a zygote is defined as.

zy·gote
The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
The organism that develops from a zygote.

And now lets introduce your fallacious argument that since a zygote is made of human DNA then it is human. No that is not the case a zygote is simply defined as above. Yet you want to stretch the definition of human to fit your definition of zygote. A zygote is not human, it is a zygote. It COULD be a human zygote, which would be defined loosely as The cell formed by the union of two h.sapien gametes, but you cannot stretch the definition of human to define a human zygote. Zygotes are not humanity. you cannot put human characteristics on zygotes.

its fallacious, it is wrong. But somehow I am losing faith that you are going to be able to see that.

"Brilliant!"

edit: I was trying not to give you the rope to hang yourself, but you have failed basic logic and reasoning. So enjoy your swing.

So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
wow cyclo, that was a real rookie mistake dude.

the first thing that needs to be realized as that 'human' and 'human being' are two different things. my skin cells are 'human' but not 'human beings'. a zygote is definitely 'human', but it's unclear that it's a 'human being'.

I don't even know what OrByte was trying to get at. If he was trying to say anything related to 'human being', he failed to do so.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
So are you saying that a human zygote does not have human DNA? Is a human zygote 'not characteristic of humans'? Do you even know what you just said? Let's start over.

1. Human is a term indicating a member of a species. Let's define species.

Biology.
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See table at taxonomy.
An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

2. A zygote is an organism having human DNA (though maybe you were arguing this above... not so sure).
3. A zygote is part of the human species, per the definition of species and the fact that it has human DNA.

I'm not sure where I'm dropping the ball. Feel free to point it out.

The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

you know what you are exactly right I am making the erroneous jump from human to human being.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

Maybe you can show me where he said anything remotely to that effect. I'm not sure how this would even be an issue, as it's pretty clear that the zygote is a separate organism simply from its distinct genetics. This makes it pretty apparent that it's not the same situation as your skin cells.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
wow cyclo, that was a real rookie mistake dude.

the first thing that needs to be realized as that 'human' and 'human being' are two different things. my skin cells are 'human' but not 'human beings'. a zygote is definitely 'human', but it's unclear that it's a 'human being'.

I don't even know what OrByte was trying to get at. If he was trying to say anything related to 'human being', he failed to do so.

whoops, i gave him too much credit. i went back and looked now. at least he's corrected now.

anyway, resume the brawl. i may join in later.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
whoops, i gave him too much credit. i went back and looked now. at least he's corrected now.

anyway, resume the brawl. i may join in later.

I was scratching my head pretty hard on that one.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: totalcommand
The ball is being dropped on the 'being' part of 'human being'. See above. The point that a zygote is 'human' is already assumed, and there is no need to argue over it. The argument is over 'human being'

Maybe you can show me where he said anything remotely to that effect. I'm not sure how this would even be an issue, as it's pretty clear that the zygote is a separate organism simply from its distinct genetics. This makes it pretty apparent that it's not the same situation as your skin cells.

or maybe i'll get involved now :evil: at least one post.

distinct genetics do not define a human being. (we could implant a foreign cell with different dna into a woman's uterus and that wouldn't make it life. similarly, we could take haploid chromosomal DNA from the mother and father, inject it into an enucleated skin cell, and implant it in the mother, and it still wouldn't make life.)

there is much more to human-ness than just DNA, unique DNA, or even 50/50 mother father DNA.

i'll post why i don't believe the zygote is a human being a bit later, and surprisingly I will argue it from the fact that a benevolent God exists. I know, the anticipation is killing you.