Since human DNA supposedly confers humanity, does that mean we have duties toward HeLa cells and hydatid moles?

I've just seen an argument on here claiming that DNA implies humanity and therefore that we must treat a foetus as human. Here are two other examples of viable processes with human DNA. (Sorry about the wall of text btw, please be patient with me): 1. A woman called Henrietta Lacks died of cervical... show more I've just seen an argument on here claiming that DNA implies humanity and therefore that we must treat a foetus as human. Here are two other examples of viable processes with human DNA.

(Sorry about the wall of text btw, please be patient with me):

1. A woman called Henrietta Lacks died of cervical cancer in the mid-twentieth century. A sample was taken from her body which was then cultured and the cells have persisted, contaminated other cell lines and are used in medical experiments today. Plenty of her cells still survive. It's feasible that the medical establishment has duties towards her estate regarding profits they have made as a result of patents and other research, but do those researchers have duties towards those cells? They constitute a viable organism which can live outside a living human body.

2. A hydatiform mole, or molar pregnancy, is a tragic circumstance where rather than producing a living baby, a pregnancy becomes cancerous and can invade the mother's body. This tumour does depend on the mother for survival, but so does a foetus. It has human DNA, of course, being the product of a human fertilised ovum If it's DNA which confers humanity, does this not mean that we have a duty to preserve that tumour's life just as it is claimed a foetus should not be aborted? What is the significant difference?

What about an anencephalic foetus?

Does this seem like a valid argument to you?
7 answers 7