misterman
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 12,913
- Reaction score
- 2,096
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It's so absurd I would feel silly explaining it.
Why is it absurd? How is it something more than that?
Sure, at one level. It sharing nutritional, endocrine and nervous systems with the mother makes a stronger case.
it's so absurd i would feel silly explaining it.
Back to conjoined twins sharing organs - is one twin merely part of the other?
epic fail!
What are you talking about?
I will if you want though.
It's genetically distinct. It contains DNA that was introduced into the mother from an outside source. It's destined to become a fully independent human. Its simply attached to her.
Is it a part of the mother again when it breastfeeds? During a direct blood transfusion?
Go back to the conjoined twins - is one just part of the other?
Conjoined twins is a mixed case. What does that have to do with the twins being a part of the mothers tissue when in the womb?misterman said:Two twins, conjoined, sharing organs and systems, but with separate brains and nervous systems. Are they two people? Or is one merely part of the other?
Having different DNA in no way means the tissue isn't the mothers.
No, the baby is external and not attached to the tissue of the mother when breastfeeding or getting a transfusion.
Conjoined twins is a mixed case. What does that have to do with the twins being a part of the mothers tissue when in the womb?
1: My premise is not wrongSetting aside the wrong premise you built that position on, how is that mistaken position relevant to the immediate discussion?
We're trying to define what being a human means. If you don't think it is based on DNA then how do you define it? And does your definition count conjoined twins as one person or two?
If you refer to a 'seed' as the fertilized offpring of one/two plants, then it IS a plant in its initial stage of development, and is therefore akin to an embryo.In biological terms, it is.
It is tissue of the mother and not yet independently viable, so it is not a human being until born. No legal argument there.
Having different DNA in no way means the tissue isn't the mothers.
By virtue that you claimed the indicator of being a non-seperate life-form and a "parasite" is that they share the same organs. One an rely on the others' body to live.Conjoined twins is a mixed case. What does that have to do with the twins being a part of the mothers tissue when in the womb?
We're trying to define what being a human means. If you don't think it is based on DNA then how do you define it? And does your definition count conjoined twins as one person or two?
It does not matter how you define it. That is only towards the ACCURACY and CORRECTNESS of the definition.
The definitions font make the facts, it works the other way around.
A human-being (whether a child-in-utero or not) has all the same properties, and aspects, regardless of your hoky definitions. It is these FACTS, not your definitions, that make it human. It is on a biological and physical level, not just a level of language and discussion.
Hair and fingernails are both made from proteins, not cells, and do not have DNA.I understand that a hair has human DNA. But what you dont understand is that a hair is not biologically a human being. A fetus/zygote IS. It is PART of the DNA biological tests. Here is how :
Your fingernail only has the active DNA of fingernail functions, thats why it does not become a nose. Only the hole human organism has all the parts of its DNA active over the whole body.
This depends on the gestational age of the fetus.Just as I look at you and see arms, hair, nails are PARTS of a whole, biologically, we can directly determine the difference between a body-part and the whole. Guess what? The fetus has all the complete body-parts, on a genetic, biological, level. It therefore cannot be a body part.
Actually it's fairly common. Up to 8% of fraternal twins have some blood or bone marrow from their twin, complete with different DNA or even blood types. But you're right in that it doesn't happen spontaneously that we know of.Genetic chimerism is not possible, due to the random nature of chimerism. It cannot be concentrated into one area of the body, and to suggest pregnancy and magically localised chimerism are a massive co-incidence is ridiculous. That is rules out.
2. Why does the DNA sample taken from the fetus (that does not match the mother) match the child after it is born? A chimerism does not match OTHER PEOPLES dna (that being the born child). Explain that.
Identical twins have identical DNA. The fraternal chimeras in the previous example share DNA as well. So obviously DNA alone cannot be the criteria for what constitutes a human being. Unless you would consider twins and clones not to be human?What biologically makes it a seperate living organism is that following:
1. DNA ID test between the mother and fetus.
2. DNA species test.
3. DNA organism test.
4. DNA cell interaction test
5. DNA ID test between the fetus and THE BORN HUMAN BEING MATCHING.
So in short, when a child is not desired, loved and respected before it was born, chances are it will never be after it's born, and a child who is not wanted, loved and respected by his parents to begin with, will not grow up to be a well-balanced person in the society of TODAY. So some say, spare that child the agony and get rid of it before its even born.
Hair and fingernails are both made from proteins, not cells, and do not have DNA.
Correct. Every cell has the full DNA sequence. I already knew that. But DNA cells also have nuclets, and chromosomes that control the use and expression of the genes. These control WHICH PART of the SEQ is switched on in each body part. Else your finger would sport a nose.But anyways your point is not exactly correct. Scientists can take any cell with DNA and create stem cells, which can then become any other type of cell. (If they can't do it now, they will do it soon.) The full DNA code for a human being is in all of them.
They have the information, NOT THE MEANS.A "whole human organism" is made of trillions of cells, each with the same DNA but a different purpose. None of them are a "whole human" by themselves, but they all have enough information to make one.
To look at it, yes.This depends on the gestational age of the fetus.
What is? I meant that chimerism is not a possible explanation of the fat, not that it does not exist.Actually it's fairly common.
They do NOT have 100%, do they? No. That rules that out.Up to 8% of fraternal twins have some blood or bone marrow from their twin, complete with different DNA or even blood types. But you're right in that it doesn't happen spontaneously that we know of.
Another way people can live with someone else's DNA is after an organ transplant. If you take out a man's liver and put it into a woman, she will have his DNA in only that part of her. So it's not surprising that a similar situation happens if he puts his sperm cells inside her. That is, of course, a huge leap that I'm not sure I can defend, but it would seem to support reefedjib's point.
1. Twins cannot be mother and son. Or chimera.Identical twins have identical DNA.
DNA can be the sole thing alone. AS long as we dont limit it to DNA ID test for criminals.The fraternal chimeras in the previous example share DNA as well. So obviously DNA alone cannot be the criteria for what constitutes a human being. Unless you would consider twins and clones not to be human?
Thank you. I still cannot figure out why a fingernail has DNA, but evidently it does. I was right about the hair though. :mrgreen:
I started to object to this, but I really can't. I still deny that it is a person or a human (noun), at least early in development. But it is a life, and of human (adj.) origin. So in the future if you refer to it as "killing" or "taking a human life" rather than "murder" I can agree with that.We have TWO human lives here.
Previous Seer TT : "Genetic chimerism is not possible, due to the random nature of chimerism. It cannot be concentrated into one area of the body,
As the organism develops, the resulting chimera can come to possess organs that have different sets of chromosomes. For example, the chimera may have a liver composed of cells with one set of chromosomes and have a kidney composed of cells with a second set of chromosomes. This has occurred in humans, and at one time was thought to be extremely rare, though more recent evidence suggests that it is not as rare as previously believed. Most will go through life without realizing they are chimeras. The difference in phenotypes may be subtle (e.g., having a hitchhiker's thumb and a straight thumb, eyes of slightly different colors, differential hair growth on opposite sides of the body, etc) or completely undetectable. Another telltale of a person being a chimera is visible Blaschko's lines.
Hello Travis,We have TWO human lives here.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?