01-25-2017, 01:54 PM
(01-25-2017, 12:40 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: The reason this makes the most sense, is because after fertilization has occurred, the Zygote is now genetically unique from its parents.
One of the main arguments against it was the egg can split up to 15 days after fertilization has occurred and create multiple individuals with the same DNA code. However, science has discovered that twins do not have the exact same genetic code. Anyways, that is another possible legal point to start with, 15 days after fertilization when the zygote can no longer multiply.
"A person's is a person no matter how small." Dr. Seuss
Is an unborn human any less of a human?
Every gamete is genetically unique.
Roe vs. Wade didn't rule embryos and fetuses aren't human. It ruled on when the rights of the woman supersedes the rights of the fetus and vice versa.
If you're going to assign rights to a single cell zygote because it is genetically unique then that protection would also extend to the genetically unique single celled gametes.
The proposed argument against this bill based upon twins makes no sense. The reason for legally claiming life begins at fertilization is to assign individual rights to the zygote in an attempt to stop abortions. If we are going to assign individual rights beginning with fertilization, the zygote will have individual rights beginning with fertilization and the twin will also when that happens.
