Offended?

It is not a hot topic in the news right now, but it has been in my heart and on my mind. Please understand early that what I write may be offensive to some. I regret that stating such openly will offend – especially by some who continually opt for diversity, yet do not wish to hear what I have to say. Nor do they wish to know many others share this view.

I want to consider DNA. It is different in every individual that has walked upon the face of this earth. Nothing lives without it. People have died because of it. A recent DNA study of a hair from a death-sentence case indicates that the hair did not come from the man executed for the crime. DNA results can help clear or convict people of crime because no two people carry the same DNA.

Recent studies have shown that monozygotic twins have differences in copy number variations. According to Science Daily in 2008, these variations occur when a set of coding letters in a twin’s DNA are missing or when extra copies are produced. Thus, “identical” twins sometimes aren’t. One may develop a disease such as Parkinson’s, the other, not.

Human beings receive one chromosome from each parent. Both a father and mother are required, whether it be through natural or artificial insemination. Cloning appears to preclude that statement, but the cloned cell did require two donations of DNA.

Even the cloning of animals such as Dolly, the first sheep cloned, requires an unfertilized egg from a donor, removal of the nucleus and insertion of the nucleus of a cell containing DNA from a male and a female. Cloning of a human through such a process has thus far failed.

The combination of human DNA cannot change into a frog or dog. It cannot be born a cat or rat. Instead of becoming a fish or fowl, it will remain human through all the progressive stages from conception to birth. It is human DNA from conception.

So we are left with a scientific fact that, to date, all humans walking upon this earth have half their DNA from a mother, half from a father. It’s part of what makes us human. People have battled for decades in favor of human rights. Within my lifetime there have been marches and protests, speeches and writings, all supporting human rights. There are international non-governmental human rights organizations, from Amnesty International to Womankind Worldwide and hundreds in between, worldwide.

Why, then, simply because this human is carried within the female body, are the cares of the father ignored? Why is it a woman’s right to choose an abortion when that same woman chose to offer her body to a man? Please do not digress at this point to rape or incest. Those situations are different and are not part of this discussion. Stick to the stated consensual situation that covers the majority of American abortions.

Do human rights begin solely at a live birth? If that is so, why do mothers grieve at the loss of an unborn child? If that is not so, why is abortion allowed as birth control?

After all that, simply because I believe this verse, my views and my questions are considered closed-mindedly right-wing conservative:

I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. (Psalms 139:14 KJV)

I despise being labeled.

(PS: I've tried a new linking for Wikimedia Commons -- please leave a comment if it does not load correctly, or too slowly, for you. Thanks!)