From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: DNA inhibition (was: Re: Stranded on an Island)
Organization: DIS organized.  By design.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 21:02:54 GMT

In article <13042.2a6c46a6@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu> farrell@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes:
>In message-ID: <1992Jul16.214957.1957@advtech.uswest.com>, stevens@eatdust 
>(John Stevens) writes:
>References: <1992Jul9.173802.9553@nas.nasa.gov> <1992Jul9.222741.3853@advtech.uswest.com> <1992Jul13.164700.20205@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil>
>
>>In article <1992Jul13.164700.20205@nocusuhs.nnmc.navy.mil> 
>>perez@mgr.uucp (Charles Perez) writes:
>JS>The difference is (to simplify it to absurdity) that in a fertilized
>JS>egg, the DNA is not inhibited in the same way as any other cell.
>
>True; it is inhibited in a DIFFERENT way from cells in the adult body.

And this makes all the difference.

>In the early stages of an animal embryo,  tissue can be moved from
>one part to another, but it eventually develops into the correct organ.
>At later stages, this ability is lost and misplaced body parts are the 
>result.  ( I hope I am correctly remembering the biology I learned)

I am afraid I cannot see what the above, has to do with the following
part.

>However as is often the case by pro-lifers, you speak as if the 
>zygote was able to develop for nine months and form into a human
>baby ALL BY ITSELF without any need for all the support systems of the
>woman's body.

No, of course it needs the woman's body to develop.  It also needs her
to eat right, avoid poisions, etc.

>>In other words, all of the information is in both cells, but only a
>>sub-set of the information contained in the DNA is allowed to express
>>itself.  Different cells have their DNA inhibited in different ways,
>>which is how you get different types of cells from the same DNA.
>
>So what is so sacrosanct about the particular manner in which inhibitory
>molecules are bonded to the zygote DNA?

What is sacrosanct about any arrangement of DNA?  Nothing, if you consider
health, sanity and life itself to be nothing.  One particular inhibitory
pattern allows for growth, another causes deformity and death, yet another
produces a cell that acts as part of an organ.

Different chemical arrangements aren't a throwaway, they are MASSIVELY
important differences.  If I were being extreme, I'd say that DNA
is EVERYTHING to the organism.

>According to your logic,
>I could walk up to you and surgically remove one of you kidneys.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your logic, I just don't see the
relationship to my logic, and your conclusion.

>It
>would be legal (even though I am imposing a health risk on your body 
>that you do not want),  because those kidney cells have some of their 
>DNA inhibited and so when they divide can never produce a non-kidney
>variety of cell.

I'm guessing here, that you mean the kidney can be removed WITH MY
PERMISSION.  If that is what you meant, then yes, I agree.  Removing
a kidney is not murder, because of the inhibitions of the DNA in
the kidney cells.

If cloning a human being from any single cell from a human ever becomes
technically feasible, I can easily see this criterion as being a valid
yardstick for measuring the difference between 'tissue' and a human
being.

>If you are saying that there are no genes inhibited whatsoever in a
>newly fertilized egg, please give a reference.

Please reread what I said.  I DID say that I was simplifying my
explaination, almost to the point of being ridiculous.  I do NOT
claim that none of the genes are inhibited in the fertilized egg.

>And how long does that condition last?

Over the course of gestation, cells specialize.  They do this by
inhibiting some genes, and activating others.  The pattern that is
coded into the DNA that allows a single cell to change from
egg to a differentiated, multi-celluar being is inhibited when the
cells specialize.

>So then why wouldn't it be not-murder to abort at
>say for example, three months after conception (according to your logic?)

???  I miss the connection.  At three months, you have a different set
of inhibitions in every group of cells in the body.

>And please explain why you think the exact amount of DNA inhibition
>is the best criterion for deciding when human life begins.

Not amount.  Type.

>Most pro-lifers have a different definition. They just say it begins at 
>conception; details of DNA regulation never come into the picture.

As I have said before to others, I am not pro-life as you mean the
term.  I am pro-fairness, pro-justice.  The inequity in abortion
rights strikes me as being anti-both.

John
stevens@uswest.com
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity