• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is it?

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I really am trying to understand the other side...

There have been many that compare the aborted materials to toenails and such...I really don't understand the similarity.

When a toenail is cut from a body, one can test the DNA and locate the individual human being that was the originating source for that DNA. When the products of conceptions after fertilization are aborted and the DNA is tested it can be determined to be of the human species. However--there is no originating source for the particular DNA of a zygote/embryo/fetus such as there is for the toenail...the “source" is “it”self...

My question is: what is “it” (the source of the DNA in the material from an abortion) that can be identified as belonging to the human species but is something that the pro-choice side seems to be insisting is not “a” individual human being...what is “it” then?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
I really am trying to understand the other side...

There have been many that compare the aborted materials to toenails and such...I really don't understand the similarity.
Tissue of human origin, non-sensate, non-sentient. The comparison is valid.
When a toenail is cut from a body, one can test the DNA and locate the individual human being that was the originating source for that DNA. When the products of conceptions after fertilization are aborted and the DNA is tested it can be determined to be of the human species. However--there is no originating source for the particular DNA of a zygote/embryo/fetus such as there is for the toenail...the “source" is “it”self...
Irrelevant.
My question is: what is “it” (the source of the DNA in the material from an abortion) that can be identified as belonging to the human species but is something that the pro-choice side seems to be insisting is not “a” individual human being...what is “it” then?
DNA doesn't show individuality.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Tissue of human origin, non-sensate, non-sentient..
My question is what human originated it?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
My question is what human originated it?
And that remains irrelevant. But if you want the DNA details, that originated from the live sperm nd the live ovum that came from live persons, who came from life sperm and ovum who came from....

What relevance does this stuff about DNA have?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
What relevance does this stuff about DNA have?
It's relevant to these guys... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401643.html

DNA identified them as NOT the source and set them free.

Others get their lives deprived of them based on DNA evidence in capital murder cases...I think it's relevant to them that they are identified as the "source." So the "source" of the DNA material is a very relevant question despite your assertion otherwise.


BTW--you know the sperm and ovum that joined in fertilization would be identified as "related" DNA--but not THE source of the DNA.
 
Last edited:

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So...steen recognizes "it" is of human origin, but claims that there is no "source" to which the DNA itself can be traced except the sources that produced the sperm and egg that joined to make the new unique DNA. If there is no "source" for the new unique DNA, I guess I don't get where "it" came from, then steen....it's not the same DNA as the egg--it's not the same DNA as the sperm--you can't join those two things again and get the exact same DNA each time you do it..."it" exists seperate from any othe DNA...and yet you still claim it is not "individual" in that you can't point to "a" individual source that is "a" human being. (it's a "being"--it's "human"--thus "human being")

I still don't understand the transitional point where it is of "human" origin based on its DNA--but it has no source. Would anyone else like to try and explain what "it" is?
 
Last edited:

OdgenTugbyGlub

Active member
Joined
Sep 29, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
"it" exists seperate from any othe DNA...and yet you still claim it is not "individual" in that you can't point to "a" individual source that is "a" human being. (it's a "being"--it's "human"--thus "human being")
But is is a human individual? Does it think? Does it have sensory capabilities and does it recognized any sensory input? It is a human beggining not a human individual. DNA is merely a blueprint for the building, not the edifice itself.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
It's relevant to these guys... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401643.html

DNA identified them as NOT the source and set them free.
Which doesn't prove anything about developmental stages or individuality, so that is utterly and completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Others get their lives deprived of them based on DNA evidence in capital murder cases...I think it's relevant to them that they are identified as the "source." So the "source" of the DNA material is a very relevant question despite your assertion otherwise.
ONLY as contrasting to other DNA carriers. It is only relevant to decisions as to whether PERSON A or PERSON B was present. So this is just plain silly.
BTW--you know the sperm and ovum that joined in fertilization would be identified as "related" DNA--but not THE source of the DNA.
Don't you know that the source of the DNA that is in every one of your cells is the DNA from a sperm and ovum?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OdgenTugbyGlub said:
But is is a human individual?
it is unique and distinct and seperate from other DNA--thus "individual".


Does it think? Does it have sensory capabilities and does it recognized any sensory input?
These are a functions thst occur at different stages of development. There are many examples of biological functions that do not occur until a specific stage of development--remember puberty?

Before it implants it has phyiscal biological functioning and sustains itself within its environment. And then--it seeks its own nutrients by the function of the process of implantation and development of the placenta.


It is a human beggining not a human individual. DNA is merely a blueprint for the building, not the edifice itself.
You are correct about DNA being the blueprint--but I am talking about the "source" of the DNA and asking what THAT is. Newly pregnant women do not have free-floating DNA traveling down their fallopian tubes and implanting in their uterus--they have a "body" formed from the union of sperm and egg in there--It is wholly complete in and of itself and is alive--if that is not "a" human--what is it?
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Which doesn't prove anything about developmental stages or individuality,
It proves they were not the "individuals" who committed the crime. And when they find the match to the DNA they will find the "individual" who did do the crime--he will be the source. So again, I ask, who is the source of the unique DNA in the materials of abortion?


ONLY as contrasting to other DNA carriers. It is only relevant to decisions as to whether PERSON A or PERSON B was present.
Steen...exactly...the materials from an abortion carry DNA that does not belong to the mother. Who is the "person" to whom that unique DNA belongs? Mom (PERSON A) wasn't there...Dad (PERSON B) wasn't there...Who is this person "C" that was there in the womb??? Heck--I'm not even asking you to call it a person--just a human individual.

Don't you know that the source of the DNA that is in every one of your cells is the DNA from a sperm and ovum?
Really? You can test my mother and find an identical match? Or my dad? You know that is not so, steen...tsk...tsk.... I have a unique combination of those chromosomes given me by means of my parents' haploid cells that combined at my conception. You can't change the meaning of "source" in this discussion--I'm the one asking the question and "source" in my question is the originating point of the unique combination of DNA materials. What is that? You've already said "it" basically doesn't exist--you called it "tissue of human origin" but refuse to acnowledge there is a "human originator" of that tissue. Do you think it's "nothing" until it can feel and/or think?
 

Technocratic_Utilitarian

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
670
Reaction score
0
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Felicity said:
I really am trying to understand the other side...

There have been many that compare the aborted materials to toenails and such...I really don't understand the similarity.

When a toenail is cut from a body, one can test the DNA and locate the individual human being that was the originating source for that DNA. When the products of conceptions after fertilization are aborted and the DNA is tested it can be determined to be of the human species. However--there is no originating source for the particular DNA of a zygote/embryo/fetus such as there is for the toenail...the “source" is “it”self...

My question is: what is “it” (the source of the DNA in the material from an abortion) that can be identified as belonging to the human species but is something that the pro-choice side seems to be insisting is not “a” individual human being...what is “it” then?


It is an inert clump of cells. A fetus, in the early stages, is merely undifferentiated clumps of nonsentient life. It's no different from scratching your ass and killing skin cells.

It's entirely irrelevant whether or not the DNA is unique or that it is an individual entity. So is a carcase..
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Technocratic_Utilitarian said:
It is an inert clump of cells. A fetus, in the early stages, is merely undifferentiated clumps of nonsentient life. It's no different from scratching your ass and killing skin cells.

It's entirely irrelevant whether or not the DNA is unique or that it is an individual entity. So is a carcase..
That is not the question I'm asking--TU.

And a "carcass" is dead--the thing in the womb is alive until it is aborted. Also--we treat dead people better than the thing in the womb--it's illegal to desecrate a corpse.

But anyway...I'll ask you a different question...Why is it irrelevant?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
So...steen recognizes "it" is of human origin, but claims that there is no "source" to which the DNA itself can be traced except the sources that produced the sperm and egg that joined to make the new unique DNA.
That IS where it came from.
If there is no "source" for the new unique DNA,
but there is. It came from the sources that mixed and resulted in the current DNA, which is a mixture of previous DNA.
I guess I don't get where "it" came from, then steen....
Obviously.
it's not the same DNA as the egg--
About 50% it is.
it's not the same DNA as the sperm--
About 50% it is.
you can't join those two things again and get the exact same DNA each time you do it...
Nobody claimed that it would. That doesn't mean that there isn't a source for that DNA. Your arguments are contracting a sophistic character to them again.
"it" exists seperate from any othe DNA...and yet you still claim it is not "individual"
Not true. I never denied that it was individual or even unique (except perhaps in identical multiples). But individual DNA doesn't make "AN" individual.
in that you can't point to "a" individual source that is "a" human being.
Irrelevant sophistry.
(it's a "being"--it's "human"--thus "human being")
Your subjective, unsubstantiated claim of the embryo or fetus as a "being" does not make it so. You are endlessly postulating this without the evidence of individual biological function.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
it is unique and distinct and seperate from other DNA--thus "individual".
The DNA is, the organism is not
Before it implants it has phyiscal biological functioning and sustains itself within its environment.
No it doesn't. The ONLY way it can sustain itself from its surroundings are through implantation.
And then--it seeks its own nutrients by the function of the process of implantation and development of the placenta.
It doesn't "seek" anything. Your anthropomorphic linguistics distorts the reality of its inert cell functions.
You are correct about DNA being the blueprint--but I am talking about the "source" of the DNA and asking what THAT is. Newly pregnant women do not have free-floating DNA traveling down their fallopian tubes and implanting in their uterus--they have a "body" formed from the union of sperm and egg in there--It is wholly complete in and of itself and is alive--if that is not "a" human--what is it?
[/quote]It is a human zygote, morula, blastocyst and eventually a human embryo and a human fetus.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
Really? You can test my mother and find an identical match? Or my dad? You know that is not so, steen...tsk...tsk....
And so on and so on in your new "idea" of sohistic irrelevance. The man and woman both contribute the DNA that gets remixed into what eventually shows up in the zygote.
I have a unique combination of those chromosomes given me by means of my parents' haploid cells that combined at my conception. You can't change the meaning of "source" in this discussion--
Correct. The source is your parents. that si where you got your unique DNA from.
I'm the one asking the question and "source" in my question is the originating point of the unique combination of DNA materials. What is that?
Your question doesn't make sense.
You've already said "it" basically doesn't exist--
Please stop lying about what I have said and not said. Your dishonesty disgusts me.
you called it "tissue of human origin" but refuse to acnowledge there is a "human originator" of that tissue.
What stupid nonsense is this about what I refuse? If you can't ask the question in a meaningful way, then you don't get the answer that you want, which obviosuly is some form of sophistic crap. I have not refused the speciation of the DNA, so you are again spewing your incessant lies about my statements, as you usually do.
Do you think it's "nothing" until it can feel and/or think?
I have never even indicated this, I have never said that there was "nothing," so please stop lying about me.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
That is not the question I'm asking--TU.
Then ask the question in a meaningful way instead of some weird sophistic fashion to obviously seek some unique political answer that fits your agenda but has nothing to do with reality. Give us a relevant question that makes sense, why don't you?
And a "carcass" is dead--the thing in the womb is alive until it is aborted.
yet, the DNA is the same kind of stuff. You can't tell the difference in any meaningful fashion. DNA doesn't tell you developmental stages, so drop the silly sophistry that you seem to want to show just that.
Also--we treat dead people better than the thing in the womb--it's illegal to desecrate a corpse.
We stick dead people in an oven and burn them. Yes, that sure is a nice treatment, right? Oh, you are saying that doesn't matter because there is no sensate, sentient life there? Well, that is also true for abortions of the embryos and fetuses.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"Splain this steen...


POST #14
steen said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felicity
it is unique and distinct and seperate from other DNA--thus "individual".
The DNA is, the organism is not
But in POST #2 you said...

DNA doesn't show individuality.
...a bit of a contradiction there.

Post #14 You say the DNA is individual AND you call the thing with the DNA an organism.

What organism is it steen? That has been my question....The DNA says it's of human origin...what sort of organism is it?

or·gan·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôrg-nzm)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; .....
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
No it doesn't. The ONLY way it can sustain itself from its surroundings are through implantation.
.
http://www.bartleby.com/107/11.html
The yolk-sac ....is filled with fluid, the vitelline fluid, which possibly may be utilized for the nourishment of the embryo during the earlier stages of its existence. Blood is conveyed to the wall of the sac by the primitive aortæ, ..... and by means of it nutritive material is absorbed from the yolk-sac and conveyed to the embryo. At the end of the fourth week the yolk-sac presents the appearance of a small pear-shaped vesicle (umbilical vesicle) opening into the digestive tube by a long narrow tube, the vitelline duct.



It sustains itself for a period of time prior to the development of the placenta.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
"Splain this steen...
Sure. Gladly. Are you then done with your silly attempts at "entrapment" here?
POST #14
Steen said:
felicity said:
it is unique and distinct and seperate from other DNA--thus "individual".
The DNA is, the organism is not
But in POST #2 you said...
DNA doesn't show individuality.
...a bit of a contradiction there.
Not at all. In #2, I point out that DNA doesn't indicate any individuality of existence. In #14, I point out that DNA doesn't show individuality of the cells collected from. Same thing.
Post #14 You say the DNA is individual AND you call the thing with the DNA an organism.
A mistyping. It was supposed to be a cell, not an organism. Sorry about the confusion.
What organism is it steen? That has been my question....The DNA says it's of human origin...what sort of organism is it?
A cell, actually.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
http://www.bartleby.com/107/11.html
The yolk-sac ....is filled with fluid, the vitelline fluid, which possibly may be utilized for the nourishment of the embryo during the earlier stages of its existence. Blood is conveyed to the wall of the sac by the primitive aortæ, ..... and by means of it nutritive material is absorbed from the yolk-sac and conveyed to the embryo. At the end of the fourth week the yolk-sac presents the appearance of a small pear-shaped vesicle (umbilical vesicle) opening into the digestive tube by a long narrow tube, the vitelline duct.

It sustains itself for a period of time prior to the development of the placenta.
And then it dies, never having reached even basic developmental stages and certainly no maturity. It can't sustain itself to meaningful development without implantation and the use of the woman's bodily resources.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Quote:
And then--it seeks its own nutrients by the function of the process of implantation and development of the placenta.
It doesn't "seek" anything. Your anthropomorphic linguistics distorts the reality of its inert cell functions.
I can grant that "seek" may not be an appropriate word here since you don't see the embryo as an individual. However. it functions individually since the placenta is of embryonic origin--NOT maternal--and the blood of the embryo never mixes with the maternal blood. Nutrients and oxygen are obtained via the placenta, but the body of the embryo functions INDEPENDANTLY--INDIVIDUALLY.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
Sure. Gladly. Are you then done with your silly attempts at "entrapment" here?
Not at all. In #2, I point out that DNA doesn't indicate any individuality of existence. In #14, I point out that DNA doesn't show individuality of the cells collected from. Same thing.
A mistyping. It was supposed to be a cell, not an organism. Sorry about the confusion.
A cell, actually.
When does it become an "organism"?

A single cell bacteria is an "organism"--what is the distinction YOU are making here?
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
I can grant that "seek" may not be an appropriate word here since you don't see the embryo as an individual. However. it functions individually since the placenta is of embryonic origin--
It ONLY functions per massive infusions of bodily resources from the woman. It does not function individually until the umbilical cord is clamped/cut.
NOT maternal--and the blood of the embryo never mixes with the maternal blood. Nutrients and oxygen are obtained via the placenta,
From the woman. So is homeostasis, so is waste elimination. Its survival and functionis as dependent on the woman's bodily resources as are her bodily organs which assuredly are NOT individuals.
but the body of the embryo functions INDEPENDANTLY--INDIVIDUALLY.
Nope.
 

steen

Lie Detector
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
4,081
Reaction score
0
Location
Upper Midwest
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Felicity said:
When does it become an "organism"?
When it has an individual, sustained function.
A single cell bacteria is an "organism"--what is the distinction YOU are making here?
That in a bacteria, the single cell IS the organism, that IS the mature, sustained individual.
 

Felicity

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
11,946
Reaction score
1,717
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
steen said:
It ONLY functions per massive infusions of bodily resources from the woman. It does not function individually until the umbilical cord is clamped/cut.
From the woman. So is homeostasis, so is waste elimination. Its survival and functionis as dependent on the woman's bodily resources as are her bodily organs which assuredly are NOT individuals.
Nope.
It's all a function of the embryo and the placenta. The mother does not "do" anything to aid the embryo in developing the placenta or processing the nutrients it obtains via the placenta. The body of the embryo functions for itself via its own developing systems.
 
Top Bottom