Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'dna'.
Charlie Kirk thinks he has a logical case against abortion. I'll call it the DNA argument: "it's not your DNA, it's not your choice." He didn't go into much detail, but I suppose the basic idea is that a woman needs a man to fertilize her egg with his sperm, and because this produces an embryo with DNA from both the egg and the sperm, the man has a claim to 50% of the fetus. The problem with this argument is that without a contractual agreement such as a marriage, the sperm is merely a gift, and the man has no claim on it after giving it away voluntarily. Also, even if the man owns 50% of the fetus, how is this an argument against abortion? Both parties could agree to abort. In my opinion, the most effective argument against abortion is still "life begins at conception," because it challenges "life begins at birth" while sidelining the question of when rights begin. But I'm not interested in rehashing that old debate again. Mostly I'm curious what others think of this DNA argument.