DNA tests to study mummy fetuses in King Tut tomb

[Hatuey]

DNA tests to study mummy fetuses in King Tut tomb - Yahoo! News

The two tiny female fetuses, between five to seven months in gestational age, were found in King Tut's tomb in Luxor when it was dissevered in 1922.

DNA samples from the fetuses "will be compared to each other, along with those of the mummy of King Tutankhamun," the head of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, said in a statement.

The testing is part of a wider program to check the DNA of hundreds of mummies to determine their identities and family relations. Hawass said the program could help determine Tutankhamun's family lineage, which has long been a source of mystery among Egyptologists.

I'm not sure what this means but I'd like to hear the input of pro-lifers on this.

 

[Tashah]

I'm not sure what this means but I'd like to hear the input of pro-lifers on this.

Presumably, those two mummified fetuses are the daughters of King Tutankhamun and Queen Ankhesenamun. X-rays indicated that both fetuses displayed cogenital spinal deformation. By all evidence, the King and Queen remained childless.

 

[shuamort]

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Why? Just why?

 

[Felicity]

Why are you interested in pro-life's position? Is it because the ancient (and pagan) Egyptians understood that human life began before birth? DUH! --Too bad so many enlightened modern minds can't see the obvious.

 

[Zyphlin]

Someone call Brenden Frasier incase the DNA is used to animate the Mummies.

Unless the Mummies attack the creators of the Mummy 3. Then we can cheer for them.

 

[DarkWizard12]

*Darkwizard12 rolls eyes*

Fetuses's DNA? never heard of it, it is the "possible mother's" DNA.

 

[talloulou]

*Darkwizard12 rolls eyes*

Fetuses's DNA? never heard of it, it is the "possible mother's" DNA.

Are you retarded?

 

[talloulou]

or joking?

 

[Hatuey]

Why are you interested in pro-life's position? Is it because the ancient (and pagan) Egyptians understood that human life began before birth?

Or it could be that the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations didn't really value physical life or follow the idea regarding 'innocent life'. Maybe they didn't really place value on physical life at all(this becomes more and more obvious by how easy pharaohs were deposed, Tut being the most obvious). I have read some books about the notion of 'innocent life' being a relatively new one. About 200 or so years old. If you look at history you'll notice literally millions of events where children, women, pregnant women, old people, et etc were all slaughtered without a care in the world by Christians, Muslims, Hindus Turks, etc etc. You name them, they've slaughtered innocent people. This has led me to believe that while some cultures have regarded 'life' itself as sacred the modern day concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' by Fundi Christians is a new invention.

 

[1069]

I have read some books about the notion of 'innocent life' being a relatively new one. About 200 or so years old. If you look at history you'll notice literally millions of events where children, women, pregnant women, old people, et etc were all slaughtered without a care in the world by Christians, Muslims, Hindus Turks, etc etc. You name them, they've slaughtered innocent people.
This has led me to believe that while some cultures have regarded 'life' itself as sacred the modern day concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' by Fundi Christians is a new invention.

At best, I suspect they valued "tribe" as sacred, as many still do to this day.
I've never really heard of any war where children weren't slaughtered, women raped, the elderly tortured.
Presumably it's fine as long as the victims speak a different language than you, or have a different color eyes, or call God by a different name.

 

[DarkWizard12]

or joking?

perfectly joking. I know, I'm not good at it.

 

[talloulou]

perfectly joking. I know, I'm not good at it.

nah, I'm just extra lame today. Once I looked at who the poster was I figured you must've been joking.

 

[Felicity]

Or it could be that the Egyptians and other ancient civilizations didn't really value physical life or follow the idea regarding 'innocent life'.

They obviously valued SOMETHING about the bodies or they wouldn't have bothered with mummification.

Maybe they didn't really place value on physical life at all(this becomes more and more obvious by how easy pharaohs were deposed, Tut being the most obvious).

The body was very important because it was where the soul dwelled--and apparently the fetuses were considered to have a soul.

I have read some books about the notion of 'innocent life' being a relatively new one. About 200 or so years old. If you look at history you'll notice literally millions of events where children, women, pregnant women, old people, et etc were all slaughtered without a care in the world by Christians, Muslims, Hindus Turks, etc etc. You name them, they've slaughtered innocent people. This has led me to believe that while some cultures have regarded 'life' itself as sacred the modern day concept of the 'sanctity of marriage' by Fundi Christians is a new invention.

:shock: WOW--you are all over the place and totally off the topic of your OP.

 

[Hatuey]

They obviously valued SOMETHING about the bodies or they wouldn't have bothered with mummification.

The physical body? Yes. But only because it was a vessel into the next world.

The body was very important because it was where the soul dwelled--and apparently the fetuses were considered to have a soul.

Pishposh.

Egyptian soul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ib (heart), Sheut (shadow), Ren (name), Ba (individual personality), Ka(life force)

The last one is particularly interesting :

The Ka (k3) was the Egyptian concept of life force, that which distinguishes the difference between a living and a dead person, with death occurring when the ka left the body. The Egyptians believed that Khnum created the bodies of children on a potter's wheel and inserted them into women's bodies. Depending on the region, Egyptians believed that Heket or Meskhenet was the creator of each person's Ka, breathing it into them at the instant of their birth as the part of their soul that made them be alive. This resembles the concept of spirit in other religions.

This basically means a person wasn't alive until the moment came out of the womb.

:shock: WOW--you are all over the place and totally off the topic of your OP.

How?

 

[Felicity]

This basically means a person wasn't alive until the moment came out of the womb.

So, why do you suppose they mummified them, Hatuey? Your 1st sentence should give you a clue... What's going into the next world?--it is the "Ba"--the soul...the "individual" as you put it.

How?

Really? You go from "life" questions, to the concept of "innocence" to the "sanctity of marriage" to Fundi Christians... You sound like a person experiencing a manic period demonstrating flight of ideas.:doh

 

[Felicity]

BTW...It's pish tosh. Lots of people say pish posh, but that's not the correct colloquialism.

 

[1069]

BTW...It's pish tosh. Lots of people say pish posh, but that's not the correct colloquialism.

I think "correct colloquialism" may be a contradiction in terms.
Colloquialisms in general lend themselves to extemporization, which is why they're such fun. Just ask Monk-Eye.


edit: is "extemporization" the word I'm looking for? It doesn't feel quite right.
You know what I'm saying. What's the word I need?

 

[Felicity]

I think "correct colloquialism" may be a contradiction in terms.
Colloquialisms in general lend themselves to extemporization, which is why they're such fun. Just ask Monk-Eye.

I'll give ya that one. But I'm not ready to let go of "tosh" for lame-o "posh."

(translation: yea, yea, whatever, **** you.:2razz

 

[DarkWizard12]

I'll give ya that one. But I'm not ready to let go of "tosh" for lame-o "posh."

(translation: yea, yea, whatever, **** you.:2razz

I find that balderdash and pish.

 

[Felicity]

I find that balderdash and pish.

What I'm saying, or Hatuey's slaughter of the language?

 

[Felicity]

I think "correct colloquialism" may be a contradiction in terms.
Colloquialisms in general lend themselves to extemporization, which is why they're such fun. Just ask Monk-Eye.


edit: is "extemporization" the word I'm looking for? It doesn't feel quite right.
You know what I'm saying. What's the word I need?

extemporizing...from extemporaneous. It's just an awkward use. You could have said "lend themselves to extemporaneous ingenuity."

 

[DarkWizard12]

What I'm saying, or Hatuey's slaughter of the language?

YOur balderdash and pish, Hatuey is posh.

I'm trying to make a joke in a different vernacular....

 

[DarkWizard12]

We should all just speak flowerdy-like like it was in the 1700's.

 

[Felicity]

YOur balderdash and pish, Hatuey is posh.

I'm trying to make a joke in a different vernacular....

Well...as you said above... not so good...:2razz: