Baby killers cause Komen to cave

[PostmodernProphet]

What happens in a case where a human being has two sets of DNA? Are there two human beings living in one body?

I would say that would be an extremely rare situation and would warrant an extremely rare nomenclature.....

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're being completely illogical. I'll try to explain it one more time.

Two samples are taken to a lab for DNA tests. One sample is taken from the liver of a living, breathing human being and the other sample is taken from a liver of a cadaver that was removed shortly after death. Both tests show they're human material. Neither DNA test will determine whether the sample came from a living person or one who recently passed away which means DNA can not prove what is a human being as obviously the cadaver was not carrying on the processes of life. DNA determines human material only. Not whether something is a human being as, obviously, a liver is not a human being.

It most certainly CAN tell you which of the two it came from moron. Why do you keep using organ cells as your examples? You are taking a PART of the human being and trying to equate it to the whole. A fertilized human egg cell has the COMPLETE mapping for a unique individual HUMAN life. It's DNA proves that. PERIOD.

Genetically speaking. And my coffee table is an oak tree, genetically speaking. And when I sit on my back deck will I be sitting in a cedar tree or "on" a cedar tree?

No, genetically speaking your coffee table is OAK. DEAD OAK. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in the whole ALIVE vs. DEAD differentiation. Just as you have a great deal of difficulty in differentiating between a FERTILIZED egg cell and an unfertilized egg cell. Or using your analogies... an acorn.

When you order bacon do you ask for two strips of “sus scrofa domesticus”?

Nope... we order bacon. Because that is what we call it.

I know that's what the argument is about; certain people wanting to devalue a woman to the point of being comparable to a group of cells invisible to the naked eye. That's why I wrote it.

No, you don't. If you did, you would stop arguing your moronic position that it isn't a human being and that DNA can't provide evidence that it is a human being. You would instead be arguing whether or not the unborn child should have the same rights or WHEN the basic human rights should be applied. THOSE are valid arguments.

The only one trying to devalue life... is YOU.

As for rights being subjective surely all the discussion regarding gay marriage has enlightened you to the fact discrimination is not usually acceptable and if/when it comes to the point where a group of cells is considered a human being any law suggesting a woman has more of a right to life than another human being is going to be tossed in the garbage. Besides its obvious vileness, legally sanctioning one human being more valuable than another, one human being a little less human, (sounds like a familiar road) what damage to a woman could possibly justify the taking of another human being's life?

The above IS the argument. No one life should have more or less value than another. Hence the argument that it should only be allowable when the mother's life is in danger. But you would prefer to continue to discriminate against the unborn child because in your mind it is 'less than human'... very similar to the blacks are 3/5 human type of nonsense we saw in our country's past. Or that we see today with the refusal to deny gay couples to marry. YOU are supporting the same type of bigoted views as those who wish to deny gay rights. Because to you... if you dehumanize the unborn child in your mind... it 'justifies' you treating the child as a second class citizen, whose life can be discarded at whim.

Now, there are people who talk about self-defence, that should an unborn mass of cells be considered a human being a woman will always have the right to abort if her life is in jeopardy. The State also has a right to protect the mass of cells classified as a human being. If a woman has the right to take the life of an innocent human being to save her own life do you recall the burning building example I have previously mentioned?

Here's a refresher. Let's say a woman and her 10 year old son are standing on a balcony of a burning building waiting for the fire department. The building is old and the balcony is starting to come away from the wall due to the vibrations caused as the interior of the building collapses as it burns. The woman knows (for argument, let’s say she’s a structural engineer) that the balcony can not hold both her and her son. Does she have the right to push her son off the balcony to certain death in order to save her own life?

No. She does not. She does have the right to jump/climb or try to escape while leaving her son behind to fend for himself. Most of us would not approve of a parent doing so, but the choice of who to save is still hers.

If no, what is the difference between killing her son at 10 weeks of gestational age vs at 10 years of age, assuming a 10 week old fetus is a human being?

she is not killing the child, if she is about to die, then BOTH are dead if she does nothing. she is choosing to save her life and let the child survive if possible. Obviously technology today isn't good enough to give the child a chance. But the other option is that BOTH die. For the child cannot possibly be saved in that situation if the mothers life is in danger and the only way to save the mother is to remove the child and let it die.

Let’s say a woman’s doctor tells her she has uncontrolled diabetes aggravated by the pregnancy and she could lose partial eye sight or, if severe enough, could result in the amputation of extremities such as toes, a partial foot, etc. The woman wants an abortion. Does the loss or partial eye sight or a few toes justify killing an innocent human being?

No. Her life must be in danger. Otherwise you are saying HER life is more valuable than the life of another human being.

While these situations may be rare they will arise and my reason for asking is I’m trying to determine the value you place on human life.

Doctors, like all professionals, hold differing opinions. Will the Ex-boyfriend be allowed to compel the woman to be examined by another doctor? Does the Ex-boyfriend have a case saying he objects to the murder of his son based on the possibility his Ex may have to wear glasses if she continues the pregnancy?

Will there be national standards or, say, a woman in Mississippi will be compelled to bear a child regardless of the consequences whereas a woman in Tennessee will have options? If she travels to Tennessee for an abortion will the FBI get involved due to a possible interstate crime?

These and many other questions have to be addressed before anyone considers bestowing the designation of human being on anything. The reason is once questions are raised we quickly see the absurdity of it all. Classifying something as a human being and then twisting and contorting laws in order to adjust to reality, including what amounts to preventive murder, devalues every other human being.

The above is quite absurd. Do YOU even know what your argument is above? you just rambled on and on about nothing. There are no questions. No ambiguity. If the mothers life is in danger, she has the right to protect her life. If her life is not in danger, then she does not have the right to take an innocent life.

 

[apple0154]

However, science does tell us it is alive, and DNA tells us that living creature is a separate human life from the mother. Whether it is a "being" is a matter of philosophy, not of science. The idea that at any moment it suddenly becomes a "being" is only answered by opinion.

Just as science can tell us whether or not the oak table is still living.

This argument is one of the weakest in your repertoire on this particular subject. That the organism is living and growing tells us it is alive, the DNA tells us it is human.

Let's say some weirdo comes in and cuts off your arm. Nobody would confuse it with a human life. First the arm is no longer living and growing, second it isn't an organism, only a limb, all these things can be found by testing. Cancer is somewhat like that, a limb, however it is very different as the DNA shows it is something other than "a" human. While it is living, it is not "human" as the DNA no longer indicates the correct number of genes, etc. Tests can tell is that it firstly isn't a separate life and then secondly the DNA of a cancer cell is mutated so much so it shows it to no longer be human. While it may be "living" it certainly isn't a separate life, nor is it human. The DNA can tell us with testing, that the cancer originated with a human cell, but is now a cancerous cell and no longer human. Cancer replicates differently than normal cells, it is what defines it.

Take the typical apple tree. The tree is not an apple. The tree has buds or apple blossoms. A blossom is not an apple. While the DNA from the tree and the blossom and the apple may be the same they are not the same thing. A tree may or may not produce blossoms and the blossoms may or may not become apples. We hope they do but not every one does.

As for "opinion" when something becomes a "being" it's no different than when we say something is an apple. "Apple" usually refers to something that is round and solid and does not have a trunk and petals. When we talk about human beings most people are referring to something that has been born. If someone selling apples offered a bushel of blossoms or apple tree wood and then started to go on about how the DNA was the same he'd be taken away by the guys with the white coats and nets.

This is the problem with abortion conversations. Anti-abortionists skip right out of reality and make comparisons which, in any other situation, would be discounted out of hand as being absurd.

 

[apple0154]

This is such an extremely RARE thing, that scientists are generally skeptical over the validity. I think the only reported case was in India, and the technological handling of the DNA was dubious, so it becomes one of those 'urban legend' kind of things. Typically, people have one DNA code each, it's impossible to have more.... and we can also tell the organism created at conception is a unique organism because they have different DNA.

I would say that would be an extremely rare situation and would warrant an extremely rare nomenclature.....

(Excerpt) As the organism develops, it 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.

The existence of chimerism is problematic for DNA testing, a fact with implications for family and criminal law. The Lydia Fairchild case, for example, was brought to court after DNA testing apparently showed that her children could not be hers. Fraud charges were filed against her and her custody of her children was challenged. The charge against her was dismissed when it became clear that Lydia was a chimera, with the matching DNA being found in her cervical tissue. Another case was that of Karen Keegan, who was also in danger of losing her children, after a DNA test for a kidney transplant seemed to show she wasn't the mother of her children.

In 1953 a human chimera was reported in the British Medical Journal. A woman was found to have blood containing two different blood types. Apparently this resulted from cells from her twin brother living in her body. More recently, a study found that such blood group chimerism is not rare. Another report of a human chimera was published in 1998, where a male human had some partially-developed female organs due to chimerism. He was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. In 2006 a woman was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. After hearing of a human chimera in New England, it was eventually found that she too was a chimera and thus had two sets of DNA. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Just six years ago the so-called "validity" of DNA denied a woman assistance to feed her children. Pretty disgusting, isn't it? Now, six short years later, folks want to use DNA to interfere in the most private aspects of a woman's life. Furthermore, some folks even want to use DNA to the degree a woman's life may very well hang in the balance by refusing her the right to abortion. Let's hope science doesn't come up with some other "idea" that the anti-abortionists will use a threat to women.

On that note it's siesta time. Back in a while.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

 

[PostmodernProphet]

(Excerpt) As the organism develops, it 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.

The existence of chimerism is problematic for DNA testing, a fact with implications for family and criminal law. The Lydia Fairchild case, for example, was brought to court after DNA testing apparently showed that her children could not be hers. Fraud charges were filed against her and her custody of her children was challenged. The charge against her was dismissed when it became clear that Lydia was a chimera, with the matching DNA being found in her cervical tissue. Another case was that of Karen Keegan, who was also in danger of losing her children, after a DNA test for a kidney transplant seemed to show she wasn't the mother of her children.

In 1953 a human chimera was reported in the British Medical Journal. A woman was found to have blood containing two different blood types. Apparently this resulted from cells from her twin brother living in her body. More recently, a study found that such blood group chimerism is not rare. Another report of a human chimera was published in 1998, where a male human had some partially-developed female organs due to chimerism. He was conceived by in-vitro fertilization. In 2006 a woman was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. After hearing of a human chimera in New England, it was eventually found that she too was a chimera and thus had two sets of DNA. (End)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Just six years ago the so-called "validity" of DNA denied a woman assistance to feed her children. Pretty disgusting, isn't it? Now, six short years later, folks want to use DNA to interfere in the most private aspects of a woman's life. Furthermore, some folks even want to use DNA to the degree a woman's life may very well hang in the balance by refusing her the right to abortion. Let's hope science doesn't come up with some other "idea" that the anti-abortionists will use a threat to women.

On that note it's siesta time. Back in a while.

how do you know they were really her children....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Take the typical apple tree. The tree is not an apple. The tree has buds or apple blossoms. A blossom is not an apple. While the DNA from the tree and the blossom and the apple may be the same they are not the same thing. A tree may or may not produce blossoms and the blossoms may or may not become apples. We hope they do but not every one does.

As for "opinion" when something becomes a "being" it's no different than when we say something is an apple. "Apple" usually refers to something that is round and solid and does not have a trunk and petals. When we talk about human beings most people are referring to something that has been born. If someone selling apples offered a bushel of blossoms or apple tree wood and then started to go on about how the DNA was the same he'd be taken away by the guys with the white coats and nets.

This is the problem with abortion conversations. Anti-abortionists skip right out of reality and make comparisons which, in any other situation, would be discounted out of hand as being absurd.

The fact that it divided cells means it wasn't inorganic. Really simple.

If the fertilization results in production of just one cell, it is reproduction, and thus becomes an "organism" by definition. It has carried on the process of life. Nothing else is required, no continuation of the process is needed, if a cell is produced, the criteria has been met, whether the cell produced is defective or not, because inorganic material can't produce cells.

Although botanical life is completely different from animal life, the definition of "organism" remains the same. In the case of apples, they are never self-replicating organisms, they are produced by the organism which is the tree. If the apple falls off the tree, it dies. The seeds within the apple may lie dormant for years, until a process we call "germination" happens, and the moment those cells begin to grow through the process of germination, a new organism begins. There is no requirement for the organism to grow into a great apple tree and produce apples, the process of life was carried on, regardless of how briefly that may have been, and it defies science to conclude otherwise, because inorganic material can't reproduce.

 

[apple0154]

how do you know they were really her children....

It would appear they found the other set of DNA and did a comparison.

 

[apple0154]

Although botanical life is completely different from animal life, the definition of "organism" remains the same. In the case of apples, they are never self-replicating organisms, they are produced by the organism which is the tree. If the apple falls off the tree, it dies. The seeds within the apple may lie dormant for years, until a process we call "germination" happens, and the moment those cells begin to grow through the process of germination, a new organism begins. There is no requirement for the organism to grow into a great apple tree and produce apples, the process of life was carried on, regardless of how briefly that may have been, and it defies science to conclude otherwise, because inorganic material can't reproduce.

The point is DNA considers them one and the same; the tree, the blossom and the apple. That is one way of classifying them but it doesn't tell us what is, specifically, an apple or a flower or a piece of bark. Similarly, DNA can tell us what's human material but it does not differentiate between an arm, a leg, etc. so for one to say DNA can prove something is a human being is simply not true. It can only prove if something is human material.

 

[apple0154]

(Apple) Let’s say a woman’s doctor tells her she has uncontrolled diabetes aggravated by the pregnancy and she could lose partial eye sight or, if severe enough, could result in the amputation of extremities such as toes, a partial foot, etc. The woman wants an abortion. Does the loss or partial eye sight or a few toes justify killing an innocent human being?

No. Her life must be in danger. Otherwise you are saying HER life is more valuable than the life of another human being.

So, what odds do you place on the justification for abortion? If the woman has a 50/50 chance of dying would that be acceptable odds for an abortion? A 25% chance of dying? Would the odds have to be 75% or above?

What about damage? Let’s say the prospective mother is a pilot. The odds are extremely high she will suffer eye damage which will lead to her inability to continue her career. Single mother. No job. Mortgage on the house. Does society insist she carry on the pregnancy?

Then we have to look at what kind of life the child will have. An unemployed mom who lost her job and home because of the child. She can’t stand the biological father who stops by once a week and she never wanted a child to begin with. Can you feel the love?


/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

It most certainly CAN tell you which of the two it came from moron. Why do you keep using organ cells as your examples? You are taking a PART of the human being and trying to equate it to the whole. A fertilized human egg cell has the COMPLETE mapping for a unique individual HUMAN life. It's DNA proves that. PERIOD.

No, genetically speaking your coffee table is OAK. DEAD OAK. You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in the whole ALIVE vs. DEAD differentiation. Just as you have a great deal of difficulty in differentiating between a FERTILIZED egg cell and an unfertilized egg cell. Or using your analogies... an acorn.

Nope... we order bacon. Because that is what we call it.

No, you don't. If you did, you would stop arguing your moronic position that it isn't a human being and that DNA can't provide evidence that it is a human being. You would instead be arguing whether or not the unborn child should have the same rights or WHEN the basic human rights should be applied. THOSE are valid arguments.

The only one trying to devalue life... is YOU.

The above IS the argument. No one life should have more or less value than another. Hence the argument that it should only be allowable when the mother's life is in danger. But you would prefer to continue to discriminate against the unborn child because in your mind it is 'less than human'... very similar to the blacks are 3/5 human type of nonsense we saw in our country's past. Or that we see today with the refusal to deny gay couples to marry. YOU are supporting the same type of bigoted views as those who wish to deny gay rights. Because to you... if you dehumanize the unborn child in your mind... it 'justifies' you treating the child as a second class citizen, whose life can be discarded at whim.

No. She does not. She does have the right to jump/climb or try to escape while leaving her son behind to fend for himself. Most of us would not approve of a parent doing so, but the choice of who to save is still hers.

she is not killing the child, if she is about to die, then BOTH are dead if she does nothing. she is choosing to save her life and let the child survive if possible. Obviously technology today isn't good enough to give the child a chance. But the other option is that BOTH die. For the child cannot possibly be saved in that situation if the mothers life is in danger and the only way to save the mother is to remove the child and let it die.

No. Her life must be in danger. Otherwise you are saying HER life is more valuable than the life of another human being.

The above is quite absurd. Do YOU even know what your argument is above? you just rambled on and on about nothing. There are no questions. No ambiguity. If the mothers life is in danger, she has the right to protect her life. If her life is not in danger, then she does not have the right to take an innocent life.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The point is DNA considers them one and the same; the tree, the blossom and the apple.

bingo.....now if you were only smart enough to understand the implications of that.....it isn't intended to distinguish between my arm and my leg, it's intended to distinguish between my arm and YOUR leg......because we are different human beings.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The odds are extremely high she will suffer eye damage which will lead to her inability to continue her career.

you've repeated that bullshit before.....if that were true, most women would be blind.......

Then we have to look at what kind of life the child will have.

adopted by a family that will love the child, nurture it and raise it to a productive adulthood......wonderful.....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The point is DNA considers them one and the same; the tree, the blossom and the apple. That is one way of classifying them but it doesn't tell us what is, specifically, an apple or a flower or a piece of bark. Similarly, DNA can tell us what's human material but it does not differentiate between an arm, a leg, etc. so for one to say DNA can prove something is a human being is simply not true. It can only prove if something is human material.

Why are you so hung up on DNA? I didn't even mention it! Here is what I said again:

Although botanical life is completely different from animal life, the definition of "organism" remains the same. In the case of apples, they are never self-replicating organisms, they are produced by the organism which is the tree. If the apple falls off the tree, it dies. The seeds within the apple may lie dormant for years, until a process we call "germination" happens, and the moment those cells begin to grow through the process of germination, a new organism begins. There is no requirement for the organism to grow into a great apple tree and produce apples, the process of life was carried on, regardless of how briefly that may have been, and it defies science to conclude otherwise, because inorganic material can't reproduce.

DNA does not define whether something is a living organism, it is merely a blueprint of the organism. I have an analogous story to illustrate how stupid your point is here.... A man has been admitted to the local hospital with all kinds of life-threatening symptoms. The nurse checks on him to find him unconscious and not breathing. She quickly grabs a doctor; "Doc, come quick, I think my patient is dead!" The doctor comes into the room (Dr. Apple) He doesn't examine the patient, he simply looks at the patient's medical chart, and says... "This man is clearly dead!" You see, the doctor ignored biology and science, he didn't bother checking for a pulse or heartbeat, he only looked at the patient's chart, and made his determination based on that alone. Do you see the idiocy here? Because this is what you are saying, it doesn't matter if the criteria is met for an organism, all that matters is the DNA can't show it is alive.

Now, here is what DNA can tell us, since you are so hung up on it. Whenever that successful fertilization happened and the fertilized cell generated another cell, we can examine the specific DNA from that produced cell, and it is different than the DNA from the host. This leaves two possibilities, the woman is a chimera, or a new organism has began. Since we know that chimeras can't produce DNA, they are either born with two sets or not... we can reasonably conclude this new DNA is not the result of the woman being a chimera. The only other possibility is, she is pregnant with another living organism. The reproduction of a cell confirms it is a living organism, DNA confirms it is another human, other than the mother.

An organism has to be able to carry on the process of life. If a cell was reproduced, it did that. There is no time requirement or threshold which has to be maintained, it merely has to reproduce one cell, to be considered a living organism. It may STOP being a living organism at any time, maybe even after it produced just one cell, but that will never change the fact that it met the criteria, and for that moment, was a living organism.

 

[apple0154]

bingo.....now if you were only smart enough to understand the implications of that.....it isn't intended to distinguish between my arm and my leg, it's intended to distinguish between my arm and YOUR leg......because we are different human beings.....

How can you possibly be so dense? There are people who have two sets of DNA. TWO SETS.

Now tell me, are there two different human beings in that body? One person. One heart. And TWO sets of DNA. One person can have a liver where the DNA test shows it is different than the DNA sample taken from their skin. Who owns the liver? Where is that unique human being? How is the person, from whom the skin sample was taken, living when they don't have a liver....well, not a liver that belongs to them according to your convoluted logic?

Honestly, PmP. If I were you I wouldn't go around questioning someone else's intelligence.

 

[apple0154]

you've repeated that bullshit before.....if that were true, most women would be blind....... P

No, they would have an abortion.

adopted by a family that will love the child, nurture it and raise it to a productive adulthood......wonderful.....

Ah, yes. Another fine example of "family values". The kid doesn't need their biological parent. We'll find somewhere to put it.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

How can you possibly be so dense? There are people who have two sets of DNA. TWO SETS.

Now tell me, are there two different human beings in that body? One person. One heart. And TWO sets of DNA. One person can have a liver where the DNA test shows it is different than the DNA sample taken from their skin. Who owns the liver? Where is that unique human being? How is the person, from whom the skin sample was taken, living when they don't have a liver....well, not a liver that belongs to them according to your convoluted logic?

Honestly, PmP. If I were you I wouldn't go around questioning someone else's intelligence.

There is a very RARE and UNUSUAL condition which has been recorded, where a person had two sets of DNA. Scientists are still uncertain as to how and why this happens, it could be the person was supposed to be twins, but something changed that process, they aren't exactly sure. But it is possible for one person to have two different DNAs present in their one body.

It is quite impossible, however, for an inorganic cell to reproduce.

 

[apple0154]

Why are you so hung up on DNA? I didn't even mention it! Here is what I said again:

Although botanical life is completely different from animal life, the definition of "organism" remains the same. In the case of apples, they are never self-replicating organisms, they are produced by the organism which is the tree. If the apple falls off the tree, it dies. The seeds within the apple may lie dormant for years, until a process we call "germination" happens, and the moment those cells begin to grow through the process of germination, a new organism begins. There is no requirement for the organism to grow into a great apple tree and produce apples, the process of life was carried on, regardless of how briefly that may have been, and it defies science to conclude otherwise, because inorganic material can't reproduce.

DNA does not define whether something is a living organism, it is merely a blueprint of the organism. I have an analogous story to illustrate how stupid your point is here.... A man has been admitted to the local hospital with all kinds of life-threatening symptoms. The nurse checks on him to find him unconscious and not breathing. She quickly grabs a doctor; "Doc, come quick, I think my patient is dead!" The doctor comes into the room (Dr. Apple) He doesn't examine the patient, he simply looks at the patient's medical chart, and says... "This man is clearly dead!" You see, the doctor ignored biology and science, he didn't bother checking for a pulse or heartbeat, he only looked at the patient's chart, and made his determination based on that alone. Do you see the idiocy here? Because this is what you are saying, it doesn't matter if the criteria is met for an organism, all that matters is the DNA can't show it is alive.

Now, here is what DNA can tell us, since you are so hung up on it. Whenever that successful fertilization happened and the fertilized cell generated another cell, we can examine the specific DNA from that produced cell, and it is different than the DNA from the host. This leaves two possibilities, the woman is a chimera, or a new organism has began. Since we know that chimeras can't produce DNA, they are either born with two sets or not... we can reasonably conclude this new DNA is not the result of the woman being a chimera. The only other possibility is, she is pregnant with another living organism. The reproduction of a cell confirms it is a living organism, DNA confirms it is another human, other than the mother.

An organism has to be able to carry on the process of life. If a cell was reproduced, it did that. There is no time requirement or threshold which has to be maintained, it merely has to reproduce one cell, to be considered a living organism. It may STOP being a living organism at any time, maybe even after it produced just one cell, but that will never change the fact that it met the criteria, and for that moment, was a living organism.

Do we know if the cell produced contained the necessary ingredients? Was it a cell lacking sufficient DNA to the point where it couldn't be considered a life of any kind?

We don't know. That's a simple fact. We do not know. However, what we do know is 50% of those cells spontaneously abort.

So, one can assume every cell is a human being and one out of two human beings die within hours of coming into existence or one can assume some, if not many, never were human beings and until there's definite proof either way I'm not an advocate of stripping half the population of a most basic right. That's why I'm hung up on DNA.

DNA tells us what is human material. It does not tell us what is a human being and it's that lie which the anti-abortionists use.

 

[apple0154]

There is a very RARE and UNUSUAL condition which has been recorded, where a person had two sets of DNA. Scientists are still uncertain as to how and why this happens, it could be the person was supposed to be twins, but something changed that process, they aren't exactly sure. But it is possible for one person to have two different DNAs present in their one body.

So perhaps it would be wise if anti-abortionists dropped the "DNA can prove" nonsense considering how much we don't know about DNA.

It is quite impossible, however, for an inorganic cell to reproduce.

Organic: noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

2.characteristic of, pertaining to, or derived from living organisms: organic remains found in rocks.

3.of or pertaining to an organ or the organs of an animal, plant, or fungus. (Dic.com)

Organs, plants, fungus. That's a long way from human being.

 

[Airstrip One]

Playing from a position of ignorance, are we?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Do we know if the cell produced contained the necessary ingredients?

If a cell was produced, the criteria for "organism" is met. Inorganic material can't produce necessary or unnecessary ingredients, inorganic material can't reproduce. It simply doesn't matter if we know the cell produced met anything, if a cell was produced, the process of life was carried on, and an organism existed.

Was it a cell lacking sufficient DNA to the point where it couldn't be considered a life of any kind?

You said yourself, DNA doesn't tell us if something is living or dead, and here you seem to want DNA to confirm something is life? I am not sure what to make of this, other than you are a brain-dead moron who doesn't understand the first basic thing about science or biology. If a cell was produced, something had to produce it, right or wrong? If a cell was produced by another cell, it carried on the process of life and became an organism, because non-organisms can't do that.

We don't know.

Yes, we DO know! Beyond any question of doubt, beyond any reason, based on nothing more than basic scientific knowledge and biology. At the moment conception successfully happens, a new organism comes into existence.

That's a simple fact. We do not know. However, what we do know is 50% of those cells spontaneously abort.

The cells can't abort if there is no process occurring. The fact that you admit they stop living and abort the process, is proof they are living organisms. That's a simple fact. It doesn't matter when something stops living, that isn't what defines it as an organism. You are applying a false definition "must be able to carry on the process of life" to a ridiculous extreme which was never intended. To illustrate the stupidity of what you are saying, we could take your same argument, and apply it to any infant not old enough to fend for itself and survive. If it is not able to carry on living, it must not really be a person, huh?

So, one can assume every cell is a human being and one out of two human beings die within hours of coming into existence or one can assume some, if not many, never were human beings and until there's definite proof either way I'm not an advocate of stripping half the population of a most basic right. That's why I'm hung up on DNA.

We don't have to assume anything, we know these things for absolute certain. The female human produces an egg cell... the male human ejaculates into the female during copulation, and his sperm cells make their way to the egg cell. One sperm cell penetrates the egg cell, and the chemical reaction begins, the fused cells (two cells now) will either reproduce another cell, or they will fail. If they fail, no organism is produced and the fused cells decay, incapable of sustaining life on their own. However, if they produce another cell, the fused cells have crossed an important threshold, they have carried on the process of life and the evidence is the production of another cell. It doesn't matter if that cell is not complete, or defective, or whatever... the action of producing another cell is carrying on the process of living, it is an organism, we have defined it as such in biology, and there is no doubt whatsoever.

DNA tells us what is human material. It does not tell us what is a human being and it's that lie which the anti-abortionists use.

DNA tells us it is human, from a human organism. More specifically, it tells us which human organism. In the case of a reproduced cell from a fertilized egg, it tells us the organism is an individual separate from the host organism.... an organism inside an organism.