Abortion

apple0154 said:
See, this is the error you continually make. A person can have a liver that has a unique genetic code. They are referred to as a chimera and that's been my point all along. A unique genetic code does not unquestionably denote a unique human being. I have posted examples of ONE human being possessing TWO genetic codes. There are only two possible explanations/conclusions one can draw. Either the person is really two people, which is absurd, or a unique genetic code does not necessarily denote a unique human being. Where is the difficulty understanding something so basic?

As for the ability to survive not being a prerequisite for a human being we are talking about one human being supposedly absorbing another one. Absorbing. This is invasion of the body snatchers material.
Click to expand...

As I've repeatedly stated, the genetic code simply comes from two unique individuals. In none of your examples does an individual produce two sets of DNA on their own. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because someone who had a lung transplant has two sets of genetic code in their body, that means DNA can't identify a unique individual and thus an unborn isn't necessarily a human being.
 
WoLong said:
As I've repeatedly stated, the genetic code simply comes from two unique individuals.
Click to expand...

That is an assumption. No one knows if the genetic material, the differing DNA, had the ability to become an individual which, obviously, it didn't in cases of absorption.

In none of your examples does an individual produce two sets of DNA on their own. Your argument is the equivalent of saying that because someone who had a lung transplant has two sets of genetic code in their body, that means DNA can't identify a unique individual and thus an unborn isn't necessarily a human being.
Click to expand...

If you want to use that analogy my argument shows the person with the transplanted lung is not two people. There never were two people in one body and that's the point. Two unique sets of DNA does not prove the existence of two unique human beings. It follows one unique set of DNA does not undeniably prove the existence of one human being.

If an individual is born with a liver that has differing DNA that does not mean the liver belonged to another human being. It means some genetic material produced a liver. Again, it should be obvious that if the genetic material had the ability to become a human being it would have become a human being and not just a liver.

One may ask is it possible for unique DNA to become just a liver and not have the ability to become a human being and evidence certainly points in that direction as we occasionally see (infrequently, thank goodness) births where part of the brain is missing. Genetic defects result in all kinds of missing, deformed and incomplete parts. It's reasonable to conclude there are instances where unique DNA is simply human material in the sense it does not have the ability to become a human being. When we add the knowledge 50% of fertilized cells spontaneously abort the logical conclusion is many clumps of unique DNA are nothing more than clumps of human material either missing necessary ingredients or having faulty programming.
 
apple0154 said:
That is an assumption. No one knows if the genetic material, the differing DNA, had the ability to become an individual which, obviously, it didn't in cases of absorption.



If you want to use that analogy my argument shows the person with the transplanted lung is not two people. There never were two people in one body and that's the point. Two unique sets of DNA does not prove the existence of two unique human beings. It follows one unique set of DNA does not undeniably prove the existence of one human being.

If an individual is born with a liver that has differing DNA that does not mean the liver belonged to another human being. It means some genetic material produced a liver. Again, it should be obvious that if the genetic material had the ability to become a human being it would have become a human being and not just a liver.
Click to expand...

Your chimera example is based on the assumption that an unborn is not a human being. The two fusing twins are both unique individual human beings. Each person can produce only one genetic code, and your own example is proof that an unborn is a human being.

Ultimately your argument comes down to 'an unborn is not a human being because it is not a human being because it is not a human being.' You assume that the unborn is just 'genetic material', and thus a chimera is just a mix of two genetic materials, and so an unborn is just genetic material. But without any evidence to back up the assumption that an unborn is not a human being, you are just arguing on faith alone.

Also, whether the unborn develops normally is not relevant. Resembling a human we're normally in interaction with is not a prerequisite to being a human being.
 
WoLong said:
Your chimera example is based on the assumption that an unborn is not a human being. The two fusing twins are both unique individual human beings. Each person can produce only one genetic code, and your own example is proof that an unborn is a human being.
Click to expand...

Again, no one knows if the absorbed DNA had the necessary ingredients to become a human being. No one knows if the produced DNA was complete. While science does occasionally rely on assumptions in order to have a base from which to proceed I can't think of any scientific "truths" that rely on such flimsy evidence as when it comes to genetic material being a human being. We don't even know what is required (the number of genes, what they are supposed to do, etc) for something to be classified as a human being. How can anyone possibly say for certain a cell or clump of cells are a human being?

We know nature makes mistakes. It could be anything from part of an arm missing to part of the brain. Such evidence shows us there is/was a problem with the genetic material. Considering such evidence it is reasonable to conclude there are cases where there is sufficient material missing to the point there is no human being. That is the logical conclusion.

Ultimately your argument comes down to 'an unborn is not a human being because it is not a human being because it is not a human being.' You assume that the unborn is just 'genetic material', and thus a chimera is just a mix of two genetic materials, and so an unborn is just genetic material. But without any evidence to back up the assumption that an unborn is not a human being, you are just arguing on faith alone.
Click to expand...

And your argument comes down to any and all differing genetic material is a human being when no one knows. The evidence against such an argument is 50% of unique genetic material (fertilized eggs) spontaneous abort while other unique genetic material becomes nothing more than an organ. While, in some cases, the remaining unique genetic material does progress into a human being it is obvious your argument rests solely on faith as it is devoid of logic.

whether the unborn develops normally is not relevant. Resembling a human we're normally in interaction with is not a prerequisite to being a human being.
Click to expand...

Of course it is, otherwise, why have any definition at all? Also, whether an unborn develps normally is relevant as far as understanding there must be some demarcation. What genes and programming is necessary for a clump of cells, a sample of DNA, to be classified as a human being? Just because it is human material does not mean it is a human being.

It's like the fertilized chicken egg. It has the same DNA as a chicken but it' s not a chicken. People do not have scrambled chickens for breakfast. It's like the grocer advertizing tomatoes at 25 cents a dozen and offering customers a dozen tomate seeds.

This is the main problem when discussing abortion. Not only is the scientific definition seldom used in every day discussions, unless two scientists are chatting, but the information science has regarding the make-up of fertilized cells is sorely lacking. Simply stated they do not know if a fertilized cell has the necessary ingredients to produce a human being and the witnessing of certain births shows us there are occasions where components and or programming was missing. It's only logical to conclude there must be a point where enough components/programming is missing to say, "This is not a human being."

So, how and when do we know? The line has to drawn somewhere and it's currently drawn at birth or viability. Personally, I have no problem with either if it means the fetus can be removed from the woman. Until/unless we can say with complete certainty the clump of cells is a human being the idea a woman should be on par with said clump is about as dehumanizing as it gets. And that doesn't touch on the ethics of forcing a woman to supply the necessary lodging and nutrition for said clump. While we may demand financial support for a child whose parent wishes to abandon it we don't force one to feed and house the child.
 
in summary, everyone except Apple is aware that DNA proves the existence of a unique human being......now, where do we go from here......
 
How can anyone possibly say for certain a cell or clump of cells are a human being?
Click to expand...

Because when the 'clump of cells' reproduce something, they can only be classified as a living organism. This is because of physics, and the laws of the universe, matter doesn't create matter. Whenever something reproduces, it is said to be "living" or "alive," and it can't be not alive or living, if that is the case. So here we have basic logic and physics to discredit what you are saying, but you simply refuse to acknowledge logic and physics. You continue to idiotically contradict yourself by admitting something was alive and living and then it died, therefore (according to you), it was never living. You want to use terminology like 'clump of cells' because you think it renders the life meaningless to do so, but how did the 'clump' get to be a 'clump?' Did laws of the universe suddenly change and allow matter to create matter? Were the 'clump' of cells produced by the host organism, like a tumor or cyst? If it's not either of these things, the 'clump' has to be a living organism of some kind, and being it's human DNA, we can be positive it is human life.

Now, my question for evince and other "my own body" advocates... What IF the fetus is female? Aren't you supposed to be opposed to things being inserted into your bodies? Well, when a female fetus is aborted in a partial-birth procedure, a shunt is forced into the back of the skull, into the brain of the fetus, rendering it dead. Seems like your opposition to things being inserted into your body would apply here, but no?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
in summary, everyone except Apple is aware that DNA proves the existence of a unique human being......now, where do we go from here......
Click to expand...

I suggest you do a little further research before making assumptions from ignorance.

(Excerpt) Lydia Fairchild and her children are the subjects of a British documentary called The Twin Inside Me (also known as "I Am My Own Twin").

Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When Fairchild applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was certainly the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother.

This resulted in Fairchild's being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.

A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution found an article in the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar case involving a woman called Karen Keegan that had happened in Boston. He realised that Fairchild's case might also be caused by chimerism. Fairchild's prosecutors suggested this possibility to her lawyers, who arranged further testing. As in Keegan's case, DNA samples were taken from members of the extended family. The DNA of Fairchild's children matched that of Fairchild's mother to the extent expected of a grandmother. They also found that, although the DNA in Fairchild's skin and hair did not match her children's, the DNA from a cervical smear test did match. Fairchild was carrying two different sets of DNA, the defining characteristic of a chimera. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild

So, Lydia had her own cervix but her hair belonged to another human being?

And the sky on your planet is what color?
 
there's no need to go further.....I don't think anyone is paying attention to your pitiful attempt at argument.....you lost this debate ten pages ago....science could tell her children were different from her......science knew her children were unique human beings......
 
Dixie said:
Because when the 'clump of cells' reproduce something, they can only be classified as a living organism. This is because of physics, and the laws of the universe, matter doesn't create matter. Whenever something reproduces, it is said to be "living" or "alive," and it can't be not alive or living, if that is the case. So here we have basic logic and physics to discredit what you are saying, but you simply refuse to acknowledge logic and physics. You continue to idiotically contradict yourself by admitting something was alive and living and then it died, therefore (according to you), it was never living. You want to use terminology like 'clump of cells' because you think it renders the life meaningless to do so, but how did the 'clump' get to be a 'clump?' Did laws of the universe suddenly change and allow matter to create matter? Were the 'clump' of cells produced by the host organism, like a tumor or cyst? If it's not either of these things, the 'clump' has to be a living organism of some kind, and being it's human DNA, we can be positive it is human life.

Now, my question for evince and other "my own body" advocates... What IF the fetus is female? Aren't you supposed to be opposed to things being inserted into your bodies? Well, when a female fetus is aborted in a partial-birth procedure, a shunt is forced into the back of the skull, into the brain of the fetus, rendering it dead. Seems like your opposition to things being inserted into your body would apply here, but no?
Click to expand...

And who defines terms like "tumor" or "cyst"? Or human being?

I never said the clump of cells were not living or alive. The point is no one knows if the living/alive cells have the necessary componets to become a human being. Just like the case I mentioned in msg. #271, as recent as 11 years ago, where people were jumping all over DNA when they didn't have any idea what they were talking about.

Does the body produce fertilized cells that don't have the necessary components to become a human being? Logic and common sense dictate that's most probably the case considering 50% of them spontaneously about and some that do progress to birth show massive deficiences such as lacking a major part of the brain. Now, that may not be important to the typical anti-abortionist but most people consider a brain a necessary component of human beings.

Possessing a liver having a differing DNA from the skin. Two distinct blood types. These do not mean there are two human beings. They do not have two birth certificates or two driver's licences or two SS numbers. Upon death, only one person is registered. Have you ever read a tombstone with something like, "Here lies Jane and another undisclosed individual"?

Your silliness knows no bounds.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
there's no need to go further.....I don't think anyone is paying attention to your pitiful attempt at argument.....you lost this debate ten pages ago....science could tell her children were different from her......science knew her children were unique human beings......
Click to expand...

Oh, yes. Science knew so much that the govrnment demanded a person be in the birthing room to witness exactly where the baby came from. And, no, a stork did not bring it.
 
apple0154 said:
Oh, yes. Science knew so much that the govrnment demanded a person be in the birthing room to witness exactly where the baby came from.
Click to expand...

I believe you may have confused "science" and "government"......classic liberal mistake.......meanwhile, dumbfuck, science knew the kids weren't the mom......therefore, stupidity loses argument again..........
 
WoLong said:
People do not own their own bodies, and do not have a 'right to control what happens inside it.' Regardless, the right to life trumps every other right.
Click to expand...

Who owns your body, the government? How did government acquire ownership of your body? Was your body turned over to the government by some kinda vote from the majority mob of your fellow citizens?
 
apple0154 said:
And who defines terms like "tumor" or "cyst"? Or human being?

I never said the clump of cells were not living or alive. The point is no one knows if the living/alive cells have the necessary componets to become a human being.
Click to expand...

Yes, they do know the necessary components are there, or it wouldn't be alive. If the process of life is happening, some form of life has to exist, it has to be something living. It's not possible for it to be anything other than human life. Since it's physically in the state of being, it is said to be a "human being." Now, we can argue whether it is viable or sentient, and we can speculate over the ethics of when it's appropriate to terminate human life, but we can't ignore biological facts. Only uneducated idiots and morons can do that.

Does the body produce fertilized cells that don't have the necessary components to become a human being?
Click to expand...

The body doesn't produce fertilized cells. The female body produces an egg cell, the male body produces a sperm cell. Through sexual intercourse, the male sperm is introduced into the female body, where it finds the egg and sometimes, fertilization happens. Successful fertilization results in the reproduction of cells, and a living organism comes into existence at that point.

Logic and common sense dictate that's most probably the case considering 50% of them spontaneously about and some that do progress to birth show massive deficiences such as lacking a major part of the brain. Now, that may not be important to the typical anti-abortionist but most people consider a brain a necessary component of human beings.
Click to expand...

If 50% spontaneously abort, they had to be carrying on some process to abort from. This is where you contradict yourself, and apparently lack the intelligence to understand how you've contradicted yourself. I've seen you repeat this line at least a dozen times here, and you just never seem to comprehend you've not made a point, you have refuted your own point. It's sad.

Logic and common sense says, you are here with us, able to log in and pontificate on the Internet, therefore, it must be possible to be a human being without a brain! You are living proof!

Possessing a liver having a differing DNA from the skin. Two distinct blood types. These do not mean there are two human beings. They do not have two birth certificates or two driver's licences or two SS numbers. Upon death, only one person is registered. Have you ever read a tombstone with something like, "Here lies Jane and another undisclosed individual"?

Your silliness knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

You are FAR too retarded to be discussing DNA. You need to stick with remedial science and biology until you can grasp that, before we move on to more complicated subjects.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
in this thread it was Howie, post 45....
Click to expand...

And a very good definition I might add. Howey wrote: "human being. noun. Any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens."

Individual: (Biology) a single organism capable of independent existence.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual?s=t)

Independent. That's the kicker. To assert that some "thing" which not only resides in the body of a human being but is physically connected to that human being and depends wholly upon the organs and
metabolic function of said human being.....if that "thing" is capable of independent existence simply remove it. If it survives, it is and was a human being. If not, it isn't and wasn't. Seems straight forward enough to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top