In response to:
Sorry, but women can't have children without men involved, so men deserve just as much say in the issue of abortion. There should be no exception to a ban on abortion because there is no justifying an abortion. There is no crime that, in the course of justice, entitles the victim to injure or harm another innocent person, so abortion in the case of rape is against justice. It goes against the Hippocratic Oath to intentionally end innocent one life, even if it is to save another, so abortion even to protect the life of the mother is against medicine.
The left will always engage in hystrionics to protect the "sacrament" of abortion, something which many women have been brainwashed by into believing to be a "reproductive right".
Recently, Ann Coulter wrote a controversial column suggesting that numerous Republican losses in the 2012 election cycle could be tied to the GOP stance on abortion. After lamenting the problem, she suggested a solution: the GOP should officially abandon its opposition to the so-called rape exception to a ban on abortion.
Ann's position on this matter is wrong for three reasons. First, it is unprincipled. Second, it will not be received with the popular support she envisions. Third, it is not the best political response to the problem. After elaborating on each problem associated with Ann's position, I propose an...
"DNA is not the sole standard used for what makes something human. It's a part of it. But not the ONLY part."
And yet, you refuse to actually say what the other "part" of the standard for identifying what a human is. Once again, what other creature possesses human DNA other than a member of the human species?
"So why would DNA be the only part when as I pointed out with twins that at conception, it isn't distinct to an individual human."
As I have already said, not all the DNA possessed by a set of twins is identical.
"So if life beings at conception and conception only happens once, then why is it logical to accept that two human lives begin under this one standard for life?"
I never made the argument that it wasn't possible for conception to form more than 1 life.
As I have told you, if something is both human and alive, it must be a human being / person. If it is not, then the concept that "all humans are created equal" is false, in which case, slavery is justified due to the implied inequality of man.
When we die, we are no longer considered a living organism, and therefore, a dead human is dissimilar to a fertilized egg at the point of conception because it is a living organism according to the biological definition of life. If an organism possesses both human DNA and the characteristics of life, chances are that organism is a human being with all the rights inherent. No other argument can be made that has any facts to stand on.
Tell me, if our DNA does not make us human (which it absolutely does, as DNA controls the structure, development and function of our cells) then what does?
All bacteria possesses DNA. Even some viruses, which are not classified as "life," possess DNA.
All living humans are persons, or slavery is perfectly justified. At the point of conception, science proves that a new human life, as defined by biology, is created, complete with its own unique DNA.
You also claim that abortion harms another person, but how do you determine that a fetus is a person? This is the position that deserves focus and the rape exception only distracts from it.