🕯️ Traditions Why I Am Anti Abortion

[elevate03]

By that standard, human rights only become valid once a country’s GDP hits a certain level?

Interesting. So apparently morality now depends on your passport and your economy.

Thanks for the deep intellectual contribution. Truly groundbreaking stuff.

you are saying na economy lang ang dahilan na bakit tinawag na 3rd world ang isang bansa? with your thinking now i know bakit ka tutol sa abortion lels

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

you are saying na economy lang ang dahilan na bakit tinawag na 3rd world ang isang bansa? with your thinking now i know bakit ka tutol sa abortion lels

Actually mas matibay na punto na ang abortion ay nkakatulong magpataas ng GDP. It invalidates the misled claim na "better GDP ang may karapatan magpa-abort", and clarifies abortion contributes to better GDP. In other words, it highlights that PH still has markings of a 3rd world country because of the lack of abortion rights.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

you are saying na economy lang ang dahilan na bakit tinawag na 3rd world ang isang bansa? with your thinking now i know bakit ka tutol sa abortion lels

My point was simply this: calling someone’s position “third world mindset” does not address the argument itself. It just dismisses it by associating it with a country’s economic status.

Human rights and moral questions should not depend on whether a country is rich or poor. A moral argument should stand or fall based on its reasoning, not on the GDP of the place where the person lives.

So the real discussion should still go back to the actual issue: whether ending the life of an unborn human being is morally justified or not. That is the argument being raised, not the economic status of a country.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ang tao is meron siya human brain and heartbeat, and meron siya awareness or consciousness na hindi pa nako-coma. Na coma lang siya and so, natural, andoon pa rin ang hope na magiging awake siya after ng coma. Kung kaya, andoon ang perceived na as a human value.

Yung inborn na sinasabi na child, kaya ko itinatanong kung anong klaseng inborn child if meron na ba siya conscious mind like human brain or wala. Doon kasi naka-depende ang definition na sinasabi na gagawin 'end of human life' , kaya ko siya itinatanong.

Tanong mo sa akin kung morally eend ang human life, depende kasi kung ano definition ng 'life' na sinasabi. If ang in inborn is hindi pa developed ang brain, hindi pa developed ang heart, meaning wala siyang consciousness or awareness, natural, for me, material lang siya at hindi ang sinasabi ng iba na 'inborn child' kuno. Ang akin is 'inborn material' lang siya and so, ang akin, pwede siya eabort pero kung developed na ang brain at developed na po ang heart, disagree na ako na eabort dahil meron na siya buhay.

Meron kasi iyang weeks and I think 5 weeks, developed ang brain and heart mismo ng inborn pero kung less than, pwede siya ecancel. Depende.



Ang gusto ko lang intindiin is ang DNA na sinasabi mo ay developing human life from DNA pero wala pa siyang life or ang sinasabi mo na developing human life pero ang DNA kasi ay meron na siyang life, kung kaya, it is not good na eend ang human life?

Or ang sinasabi mo is living human organism ang DNA kasi kahit wala siyang life na considered development stage kasi siya, so considered pinatay ang dating dahil ang DNA process para makabuo ng life ay nagstop?

You know, consider killing siya from their views dahil hindi lang kasi nabuo ang process na pagbuo ng buhay.​

I think the reasoning there still has a problem.

First, human life is not defined by current abilities like consciousness, awareness, or brain development. Those are stages of development, not the start of human existence. If value depended on those abilities, then newborn babies would also be in trouble because their awareness and cognition are still very limited.

Second, the unborn is not just “material.” From fertilization there already exists a distinct living human organism with its own DNA directing its growth and development. It is not just tissue like skin or hair. It is an organism that, if not interrupted, naturally continues developing through stages: embryo, fetus, infant, child, and ãdül†.

Third, brain and heart development do not create life. They are milestones in a life that already exists and is developing. Development does not suddenly turn non life into a human being. It is the same organism growing through different stages.

So the key point is this: the question is not whether the human is fully developed yet. None of us were at one point. The question is whether it is already a human life in its earliest stage of development.

If it is, then stopping that life intentionally is exactly why many people consider abortion a moral issue.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

If there was a way to accurately forecast ang magiging buhay bata at magiging contribution nya sa humanity, and we based the decision to terminate them or not on that, does it change anything with your stance?

Honestly, that approach would create a very dangerous standard.

A person’s right to live should not depend on their predicted usefulness to society. History shows what happens when societies start deciding who is “valuable enough” to live. The disabled, the poor, the unwanted, or those predicted to have difficult lives would always be the first ones eliminated.

Human value should not be based on future success, intelligence, wealth, or contribution. A child who might grow up poor, ordinary, or struggling still has the same human worth as someone who might become a scientist or a leader.

So even if we could predict someone’s future, it would not change my position. Human rights should be based on being human, not on how useful someone might become.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

Honestly, that approach would create a very dangerous standard.

A person’s right to live should not depend on their predicted usefulness to society. History shows what happens when societies start deciding who is “valuable enough” to live. The disabled, the poor, the unwanted, or those predicted to have difficult lives would always be the first ones eliminated.

Human value should not be based on future success, intelligence, wealth, or contribution. A child who might grow up poor, ordinary, or struggling still has the same human worth as someone who might become a scientist or a leader.

So even if we could predict someone’s future, it would not change my position. Human rights should be based on being human, not on how useful someone might become.

Well dangerous talga kung economics lang ang basis ng "contribution to society" ng isang tao. Pero kung ititimbang din natin ang moral and humanitarian contribution nila ibang usapan naman yun.

If we know they will grow to be a killer, at hinayaan lng natin sila, edi parang binalewala mo din ang human value ng mga victim nya.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I think the reasoning there still has a problem.​

Ganerin? Lumalabas na my views pagdating sa human life has a problem huh?​

First, human life is not defined by current abilities like consciousness, awareness, or brain development. Those are stages of development, not the start of human existence. If value depended on those abilities, then newborn babies would also be in trouble because their awareness and cognition are still very limited.

Second, the unborn is not just “material.” From fertilization there already exists a distinct living human organism with its own DNA directing its growth and development. It is not just tissue like skin or hair. It is an organism that, if not interrupted, naturally continues developing through stages: embryo, fetus, infant, child, and ãdül†.

Third, brain and heart development do not create life. They are milestones in a life that already exists and is developing. Development does not suddenly turn non life into a human being. It is the same organism growing through different stages.

So the key point is this: the question is not whether the human is fully developed yet. None of us were at one point. The question is whether it is already a human life in its earliest stage of development.

If it is, then stopping that life intentionally is exactly why many people consider abortion a moral issue.​

Kaya nga. Ang sabi ko una na depende kung ano ang definition ng 'life' po eh. So ang conclusion lang diyan is ang iyo ay "human life" sayo either buhay or walang buhay as long as in the process siya like DNA para makabuo ng life. Kapag eend ang process sa pagcreate ng buhay, equivalent nun is pinatay.

Ang akin is ang "human life" po is kapag alive po siya na meron beating of a heart at meron brain po at the same time, humihinga po siya. Ang DNA kasi for me is not alive po siya. Builder lang siya or in the process para lang makabuo ng human form pero no life pa siya. Ma coconsider ko lang na human life form kapag alive na po siya.

Yung conscience natin or 'moral' of what is right and wrong, depende na po sa kunsensya natin.
​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Well dangerous talga kung economics lang ang basis ng "contribution to society" ng isang tao. Pero kung ititimbang din natin ang moral and humanitarian contribution nila ibang usapan naman yun.

If we know they will grow to be a killer, at hinayaan lng natin sila, edi parang binalewala mo din ang human value ng mga victim nya.

That still assumes we can justify ending a life based on what someone might do in the future.

But our justice system does not work that way. We do not punish people for crimes they have not committed yet. We hold them accountable after actions, not before existence.

If we start eliminating people because they might become harmful, that standard would not stop with “future killers.” It could easily extend to anyone predicted to be problematic, poor, mentally ill, or socially burdensome. That quickly turns into deciding who deserves to exist and who does not.

Also, many people who had difficult beginnings or were predicted to fail ended up contributing positively to society. Human lives cannot be reduced to forecasts.

So the principle remains the same. A person’s right to live should not depend on predicted outcomes, whether economic, moral, or humanitarian. Human rights are meant to apply before performance, not after prediction.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Kaya nga. Ang sabi ko una na depende kung ano ang definition ng 'life' po eh. So ang conclusion lang diyan is ang iyo ay "human life" sayo either buhay or walang buhay as long as in the process siya like DNA para makabuo ng life. Kapag eend ang process sa pagcreate ng buhay, equivalent nun is pinatay.

Ang akin is ang "human life" po is kapag alive po siya na meron beating of a heart at meron brain po at the same time, humihinga po siya. Ang DNA kasi for me is not alive po siya. Builder lang siya or in the process para lang makabuo ng human form pero no life pa siya. Ma coconsider ko lang na human life form kapag alive na po siya.

Yung conscience natin or 'moral' of what is right and wrong, depende na po sa kunsensya natin.

I think there is still a misunderstanding about what “life” means biologically.

DNA itself is not the argument. The point is that from fertilization there already exists a living human organism that uses that DNA to grow and develop. It is not just a “builder” or raw material. It is already an organism carrying out the process of life.

Also, breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity are signs of development, not the start of life. A human does not suddenly become alive when the heart starts beating or when the lungs begin working. For example, babies do not breathe until birth, but no one says they were not alive seconds before that.

What we are really talking about is stages of the same life. The same organism goes from embryo to fetus to newborn to ãdül†. Development does not create a new human being each time a new function appears.

 

[Kaplok Kaplok]

That still assumes we can justify ending a life based on what someone might do in the future.

But our justice system does not work that way. We do not punish people for crimes they have not committed yet. We hold them accountable after actions, not before existence.

If we start eliminating people because they might become harmful, that standard would not stop with “future killers.” It could easily extend to anyone predicted to be problematic, poor, mentally ill, or socially burdensome. That quickly turns into deciding who deserves to exist and who does not.

Also, many people who had difficult beginnings or were predicted to fail ended up contributing positively to society. Human lives cannot be reduced to forecasts.

So the principle remains the same. A person’s right to live should not depend on predicted outcomes, whether economic, moral, or humanitarian. Human rights are meant to apply before performance, not after prediction.

I did say if there was hypothetically a way to accurately what they would do the future. Anyway, ang punto ko lang naman is wala naman inherent na value ang tao if it was not for their potential. We just do not have a way to predict it, that is why we, instead, assign a value for every human being as if everyone has value.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

I think there is still a misunderstanding about what “life” means biologically.​

Misunderstanding? Wala naman misunderstanding dahil sabi ko nga, depende sa tao kung ano ang definition ng "life". Rephrase ko na depende sa isang tao kung ano ang pagkakaintindi nito kung ano ang "life" ~ parang inulit ko lang eh noh? And so walang lalabas na misunderstanding po unless meron ka gusto iinsist.​

​

DNA itself is not the argument. The point is that from fertilization there already exists a living human organism that uses that DNA to grow and develop. It is not just a “builder” or raw material. It is already an organism carrying out the process of life.​

...and so, ano ang gusto mo e-argue? Gusto mo e-argue ang inborn child na meron buhay or wala? Or gusto mo e-argue na meron "living human organism" na ginagamit para ma grow and develop?

Sakaling naniniwala ka about panimula ng buhay ay galing DNA, eh bakit gusto mo ng arguement patungkol diyan? Eh kung naniniwala ka na ang DNA na ke alive pa iyan or hindi ay living human organism para panimula ng tao?​

Also, breathing, heartbeat, and brain activity are signs of development, not the start of life. A human does not suddenly become alive when the heart starts beating or when the lungs begin working. For example, babies do not breathe until birth, but no one says they were not alive seconds before that.​

Ang akin, as long as meron heartbeat na developed, meron brain na developed sa loob ng womb, sa kunsensiya ko is buhay ang tao po. Complete human life form na po kasi siya. Regardless sa sinasabi mo na keyso alive o hindi.

Ang DNA for me kasi is living human organism pero hindi siya alive. Non-living organic molecule ang DNA lang po. Wala siya buhay pero living human organism in a sense but blueprint lang kasi siya para gumawa ng human life form po.

For me ha? Ewan ko lang ang iyo. Iyo na if ang DNA for you is mahalaga kasi nga living human organism po siya either alive nga o hindi, disagree ka sa abort sapagkat panimula nga ng human life form.​

What we are really talking about is stages of the same life. The same organism goes from embryo to fetus to newborn to ãdül†. Development does not create a new human being each time a new function appears.​

...kaya sa end process ng discussion, magkaiba po tayo ng definition ng "life" na sinasabi po. Yung iyo, feeling guilt dahil kapag inend ang process na pagcreate ng human life form, consider nga po na pinatay regardless po na alive or hindi alive ang living human organism which is DNA. Ang logic kasi is gusto bumuo ng "buhay" sabay ekacancel po siya na consider pinatay.

Ang akin is ayos lang na ecancel as long as hindi pa nabubuo ang heartbeat at ang brain po dahil consider human form na sa akin. Complete process na po kasi siya for me at saka, importante lang naman nabuo ang puso kung saan tumitibok-tibok ito at meron nabuo ang brain, andoon ang kunsensiya ko na hindi maganda eend ang human sa loob. Alive siya for me kasi eh.​

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Sa huli, kung nakatutok lang is puros babae, well, e-death penalty or ikulong na lang ang lalake na iniiwan ang babae na b[un]tisan or in the family na married couple, ikulong ang husband na hindi makapagprovide na etutustos sa babae kapag nab[un]tis po. Tipo ang "abort" is kung kagaano kabigat sa kunsensiya ng tao dahil "buhay" ang nakasalalay equivalent nun is punishment sa lalake na nang-iiwan at hindi makaprovide which is equal lang siya sa kung kagaano kabigat naman ang "suffering" ng babae sa pagbub[un]tis so instead, kinokontrol ang katawan ng babae, better kontrolin ang lalake para fair.

Puros babae ang nakikita ko na often restricted when it comes to gender pero lalake ang always meron laya. Yun ang reason why nasabi ko na "patriarchal" po siya pagdating sa abortion pero of course, ang mga tao ay ayaw nila ng ganun scenario. I think mas na ooffend sila sa ganun scenario na kontrolin ang lalake kung papaano magbehave sa babae lalo na kapag nab[un]tis kaysa sa babae na better controlin ang katawan pagdating sa pagb[ub]untis.

Patriarchy nga. Ang point ko is kaysa kontrolin ang babae dahil nabub[un]tis siya, lalake ang kontrolin, kaya lang, sa mga tao ay ayaw ng ganun. Unfair treatment para sa kanila kaya ang pinupunterya ay babae na kung ano o hindi dapat pagdating sa sarili katawan.

Yung mga tao na meron view na babae ang kinakailangan kontrolin ang katawan dahil iyon ang dapat, eh, yun na yun, sabi ko nga, kapag patriarchal mentality, wala na tayo hope makipag argue sa mga ganyan dahil iba ang views nila sa ganyan.

Default na siya.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

I did say if there was hypothetically a way to accurately what they would do the future. Anyway, ang punto ko lang naman is wala naman inherent na value ang tao if it was not for their potential. We just do not have a way to predict it, that is why we, instead, assign a value for every human being as if everyone has value.

Again. That’s not how I see human life, and honestly I don’t think that’s how most people see it either. Saying a person only has value because of their potential is a very dangerous way to frame human worth.

Because once value depends on potential, someone has to decide whose potential counts and whose doesn’t. Who decides that? Intelligence, productivity, social impact, usefulness? That kind of thinking has historically led to very dark places.

In the ancient world, many societies already treated people that way. Slaves, the disabled, unwanted infants, or certain ethnic groups were seen as having less value. Even in more modern times, ideologies that focused purely on collective utility often started ranking which lives were more “valuable” to society.

That’s why the idea of inherent human dignity became so important. It means a person’s worth does not come from their achievements, intelligence, or predicted future. It comes simply from being human. That principle is what protects everyone equally.

No individual or system should have the authority to decide that one human life is worth more than another based on personal judgment. Once we start doing that, it becomes very easy to justify excluding or eliminating people we think are less valuable.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Misunderstanding? Wala naman misunderstanding dahil sabi ko nga, depende sa tao kung ano ang definition ng "life". Rephrase ko na depende sa isang tao kung ano ang pagkakaintindi nito kung ano ang "life" ~ parang inulit ko lang eh noh? And so walang lalabas na misunderstanding po unless meron ka gusto iinsist.




...and so, ano ang gusto mo e-argue? Gusto mo e-argue ang inborn child na meron buhay or wala? Or gusto mo e-argue na meron "living human organism" na ginagamit para ma grow and develop?



Sakaling naniniwala ka about panimula ng buhay ay galing DNA, eh bakit gusto mo ng arguement patungkol diyan? Eh kung naniniwala ka na ang DNA na ke alive pa iyan or hindi ay living human organism para panimula ng tao?



Ang akin, as long as meron heartbeat na developed, meron brain na developed sa loob ng womb, sa kunsensiya ko is buhay ang tao po. Complete human life form na po kasi siya. Regardless sa sinasabi mo na keyso alive o hindi.

Ang DNA for me kasi is living human organism pero hindi siya alive. Non-living organic molecule ang DNA lang po. Wala siya buhay pero living human organism in a sense but blueprint lang kasi siya para gumawa ng human life form po.

For me ha? Ewan ko lang ang iyo. Iyo na if ang DNA for you is mahalaga kasi nga living human organism po siya either alive nga o hindi, disagree ka sa abort sapagkat panimula nga ng human life form.



...kaya sa end process ng discussion, magkaiba po tayo ng definition ng "life" na sinasabi po. Yung iyo, feeling guilt dahil kapag inend ang process na pagcreate ng human life form, consider nga po na pinatay regardless po na alive or hindi alive ang living human organism which is DNA. Ang logic kasi is gusto bumuo ng "buhay" sabay ekacancel po siya na consider pinatay.

Ang akin is ayos lang na ecancel as long as hindi pa nabubuo ang heartbeat at ang brain po dahil consider human form na sa akin. Complete process na po kasi siya for me at saka, importante lang naman nabuo ang puso kung saan tumitibok-tibok ito at meron nabuo ang brain, andoon ang kunsensiya ko na hindi maganda eend ang human sa loob. Alive siya for me kasi eh.​

My view is not just my personal definition of life. It is based on what basic biology says about when a new human organism begins.

Science does not say life begins when the heart forms or when the brain develops. Those are developmental milestones. According to embryology, a new human organism begins at fertilization when a distinct organism with its own DNA starts a continuous process of development.

So the argument is not that DNA by itself is life. The point is that fertilization creates a new living human organism that uses that DNA to grow and develop through stages embryo, fetus, infant, child, and ãdül†.

Heartbeat and brain development happen later, but they do not create the life. They are part of the life that is already developing.

That is why many people, including scientists, bioethicists, and not only religious people, argue that human life begins at conception.

So my position against abortion is not just based on my own personal definition. It is based on the biological understanding that a new human life begins at fertilization, and that ending that life intentionally raises a serious moral question.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

My view is not just my personal definition of life. It is based on what basic biology says about when a new human organism begins.

Science does not say life begins when the heart forms or when the brain develops. Those are developmental milestones. According to embryology, a new human organism begins at fertilization when a distinct organism with its own DNA starts a continuous process of development.

So the argument is not that DNA by itself is life. The point is that fertilization creates a new living human organism that uses that DNA to grow and develop through stages embryo, fetus, infant, child, and ãdül†.

Heartbeat and brain development happen later, but they do not create the life. They are part of the life that is already developing.

That is why many people, including scientists, bioethicists, and not only religious people, argue that human life begins at conception.

So my position against abortion is not just based on my own personal definition. It is based on the biological understanding that a new human life begins at fertilization, and that ending that life intentionally raises a serious moral question.​

O sige na. Nakita ko na ang view mo na DNA nga ang rason na panimula ng buhay ke may buhay or wala buhay ang DNA. Inulit lang po siya, kung kaya, ayaw mo ng abortion. Yun na yun, creates a new life ke alive ang DNA or wala.

Ang akin as long as wala pang buhay like DNA or something ay ayos lang ecancel sa womb ng babae basta huwag lang na meron developed na brain or tibok ng heart beat. Alive na siya at human form na po siya sa akin.

Wala ng arguement. Wala na kasi maeaargue pa kung iyan ang how you see in the reality about DNA.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

O sige na. Nakita ko na ang view mo na DNA nga ang rason na panimula ng buhay ke may buhay or wala buhay ang DNA. Inulit lang po siya, kung kaya, ayaw mo ng abortion. Yun na yun, creates a new life ke alive ang DNA or wala.

Ang akin as long as wala pang buhay like DNA or something ay ayos lang ecancel sa womb ng babae basta huwag lang na meron developed na brain or tibok ng heart beat. Alive na siya at human form na po siya sa akin.

Wala ng arguement. Wala na kasi maeaargue pa kung iyan ang how you see in the reality about DNA.​

This is not just my personal opinion. Basic biology and embryology say that a new human organism begins at fertilization. At that moment there is already a distinct organism with its own DNA directing its development.

So the point is not that DNA alone is life. The point is that a living human organism already exists from conception, and that its own unique DNA is there from the very beginning.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

This is not just my personal opinion. Basic biology and embryology say that a new human organism begins at fertilization. At that moment there is already a distinct organism with its own DNA directing its development.

So the point is not that DNA alone is life. The point is that a living human organism already exists from conception, and that its own unique DNA is there from the very beginning.​

Ngek. Wala naman objective reality eh. Lahat ng mga tao is subjective sa kani-kanilang opinion. Hindi mo pwede ebukod ang sarili na ang iyo ay tama dahil keyso ang sources ay true na ipinagkuhanan ay facts.​

​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ngek. Wala naman objective reality eh. Lahat ng mga tao is subjective sa kani-kanilang opinion. Hindi mo pwede ebukod ang sarili na ang iyo ay tama dahil keyso ang sources ay true na ipinagkuhanan ay facts.

​

Biology deals with objective facts about how living organisms function and develop. In embryology, it is a scientific observation that a new human organism begins at fertilization. That is not based on belief or personal feelings. It is based on biological evidence.

People can still disagree on the moral conclusions that follow from that fact. But the biological reality itself does not change depending on someone’s opinion. Whether we believe it or not, the science remains the same.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Biology deals with objective facts about how living organisms function and develop. In embryology, it is a scientific observation that a new human organism begins at fertilization. That is not based on belief or personal feelings. It is based on biological evidence.

People can still disagree on the moral conclusions that follow from that fact. But the biological reality itself does not change depending on someone’s opinion. Whether we believe it or not, the science remains the same.​

Agree ako sayo about scientific observation na sinasabi na DNA is a living human organism. Agree ako. Iyon ang facts galing sa source from science dahil diyan nagsisimula ang bago human organism, mga ganun ba? Pero from science din, it is also an objective fact na ang DNA po ay hindi alive. Nagiging personal beliefs lang po siya kapag ina-align ang moral na galing sa'yo na kesyo 'mali' at kino-consider na siya as tao in the future na in fact, kung literal na DNA, well, DNA siya na according sa science, hindi siya alive at ang DNA, hindi porke't DNA ay kesyo tao na siya or whatever. Meron nga unique DNA sa cancer tumors pero kailangan nila patayin or else, ang pasyente ay mamamatay.

Kinoconsider mo na po kasi na ang DNA ay magiging tao na siya na hindi pa nangyayari so andoon ang moral na jina-justified na keyso huwag patayin, kung kaya, nasabi ko na subjective opinion lang siya.

Sana maintindihan mo po.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Agree ako sayo about scientific observation na sinasabi na DNA is a living human organism. Agree ako. Iyon ang facts galing sa source from science dahil diyan nagsisimula ang bago human organism, mga ganun ba? Pero from science din, it is also an objective fact na ang DNA po ay hindi alive. Nagiging personal beliefs lang po siya kapag ina-align ang moral na galing sa'yo na kesyo 'mali' at kino-consider na siya as tao in the future na in fact, kung literal na DNA, well, DNA siya na according sa science, hindi siya alive at ang DNA, hindi porke't DNA ay kesyo tao na siya or whatever. Meron nga unique DNA sa cancer tumors pero kailangan nila patayin or else, ang pasyente ay mamamatay.

Kinoconsider mo na po kasi na ang DNA ay magiging tao na siya na hindi pa nangyayari so andoon ang moral na jina-justified na keyso huwag patayin, kung kaya, nasabi ko na subjective opinion lang siya.

Sana maintindihan mo po.​

No one is arguing that DNA by itself is alive. Science already agrees DNA is a molecule. The point is that at fertilization a new living human organism forms that contains DNA directing its development. The organism is alive, not the DNA molecule by itself.

That is why the cancer example does not apply. A tumor is abnormal tissue from your own body. An embryo is a distinct developing human organism, not just random cells.

So the argument is not “DNA equals a person.” The argument is that a living human organism begins at fertilization, and that is the biological fact being discussed. The moral debate comes after that, not before.