Texas bans abortion.

[Warbler]

As I separately mentioned after that - it's normally considered ridiculous to talk about a transplanted kidney as if it were a different person, even though the DNA is different.

Again, biology is messy.

a transplanted kidney certainly came from a different person.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know how you can say it is "literally PART of its mother" so matter of factly when the DNA shows that not to be true. It sure sounded like you were saying the fertilized egg is part of her like her arms and legs.


50% is not the same as 100%



pretty sure it means they are two separate lifeforms.



Again it sounded to me like you were saying the fetus is a part of the mother, like the mother's arms and legs are part of her.


interesting. I did not know any of that. hmm. fascinating.

Highlighted parts: You have got to be kidding me. You actually thought I was saying that...especially since I later said that it's because the fetus has 50% of her DNA?

"50% is not the same as 100%"

In more breaking news: the sun is hot.

I think I've made it clear enough that PART OF does not mean "the same as in 100%" several times. If you're not understanding that, I really don't know how else to put it.

 

[Aridas]

a transplanted kidney certainly came from a different person.

Do you really, really want to try that route of argument to counter the point? I'd advise taking a couple steps back and actually look at the larger picture. I'll give you a simple hint, though - that trivial truth is actually part of why it causes the "different DNA = different person" argument to fall apart.

 

[Warbler]

Repeating your claim over and over again without providing any supporting evidence is not going to make it true.

I have to prove that different DNA means a different person? Go ask any scientist and/or crime scene investigator.

I realize there maybe the rare cases where a person has two more sets and the rare cases were cells transfer from mother to child and vice versa, but for most part, different DNA means different person.

How many times has a conviction been reversed because years later crime scene DNA was tested and shown not to be a match to the person convicted of the crime?

 

[Warbler]

Highlighted parts: You have got to be kidding me. You actually thought I was saying that...especially since I later said that it's because the fetus has 50% of her DNA?

"50% is not the same as 100%"

In more breaking news: the sun is hot.

I think I've made it clear enough that PART OF does not mean "the same as in 100%" several times. If you're not understanding that, I really don't know how else to put it.

sorry, but you did say "fertilized egg is literally PART of its mother"

 

[acbytesla]

because I lean in that direction, but I am not 100% certain.

You lean so far that way, you are pretty much indistinguishable from those who are anti-choice. .


FYI: 100% certainty is a mirage. And in your case a dodge.

I am not 100% certain about anything including my existence or yours.

I may vehemently disagree with your position, but my respect for you would increase 100 fold if you ended your milquetoast responses.

 

[Stacyhs]

1. Okay, assuming we are not dealing a chimera, different DNA means different people.

2. If the mother is a chimera, will the DNA of the fertilized embryo match any of the sets of DNA found in the mother?

Yes, but different organs/blood can have different DNA in a chimera so it depends on which they test. You might find this story interesting about a mother who almost lost her children:

https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693

 

[Warbler]

Do you really, really want to try that route of argument to counter the point? I'd advise taking a couple steps back and actually look at the larger picture. I'll give you a simple hint, though - that trivial truth is actually part of why it causes the "different DNA = different person" argument to fall apart.

I don't see how it causes the argument to fall apart.

 

[Stacyhs]

sorry, but you did say "fertilized egg is literally PART of its mother"

And then I went on to explain that it is PART of its mother because it has 50% of her DNA multiple times. But you keep ignoring that as if I never said it and repeated the "arm and leg" nonsense. It's ridiculous to even think I was saying that. How on earth could a fetus LITERALLY HAVE ITS MOTHER'S ARM OR LEG?

 

[Warbler]

Yes, but different organs/blood can have different DNA in a chimera so it depends on which they test. You might find this story interesting about a mother who almost lost her children:

https://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/shes-twin/story?id=2315693

wow, what a story. sounds like those that test DNA need to be more aware of the possibility that a person could a a chimera.

 

[Warbler]

And then I went on to explain that it is PART of its mother because it has 50% of her DNA multiple times. But you keep ignoring that as if I never said it and repeated the "arm and leg" nonsense. It's ridiculous to even think I was saying that. How on earth could a fetus LITERALLY HAVE ITS MOTHER'S ARM OR LEG?

sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Warbler]

You lean so far that way, you are pretty much indistinguishable from those who are anti-choice. .

except someone whom was really anti-choice wouldn't use words like "maybe" or "I need to think about that". Also such a person would make no exception for rape/incest/health of the mother.

And in your case a dodge.

It is not a dodge. When I say I am not sure, it is because I am not sure.

I am not 100% certain about anything including my existence or yours.

Not sure how we could have this conversation if one or both of us didn't exist.

I may vehemently disagree with your position, but my respect for you would increase 100 fold if you ended your milquetoast responses.

my respect for you would increase if stopped accusing me dodging or being milquetoase, without having any evidence to back up your accusation.

 

[Stacyhs]

Women are not (pardon the pun) taking this lying down.

WASHINGTON/AUSTIN, Texas, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Women marched by the thousands on Saturday on the Supreme Court, the Texas Capitol and cities across the United States to protest increasing state restrictions on abortion and advocate for maintaining a constitutional right to the procedure.

The 660 demonstrations around the United States were largely sparked by a Texas law that bans abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. The measure, which went into effect last month, is the most restrictive in the country.

In the Texas capital of Austin, hundreds gathered in sweltering heat to denounce the so-called "heartbeat" law signed by Governor Greg Abbott. It bans abortion after cardiac activity is detected in the embryo, usually around six weeks. That is before most women know they are pregnant and earlier than 85% to 90% of all abortions are carried out, experts say.

Rachel O'Leary Carmona, executive director of Women's March, said the number of marches would be second only to the group's first protest, which mobilized millions of people around the world to rally against former President Donald Trump the day after his inauguration in 2017.

A rally and march in New York drew thousands of protesters, including actresses Amy Schumer and Jennifer Lawrence.

Abortion rights advocates and the U.S. Justice Department have challenged the Texas law in state and federal courts, arguing that it violates Roe v. Wade.

A federal judge in Austin on Friday heard the Justice Department's request to block the law temporarily while its constitutionality is challenged.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ab...cross-us-protest-restrictive-laws-2021-10-02/

 

[acbytesla]

except someone whom was really anti-choice wouldn't use words like "maybe" or "I need to think about that". Also such a person would make no exception for rape/incest/health of the mother.

NONSENSE. This forum has a long history of pretenders. The number of times I have seen this practice is far too numerous to count. "I don't support Trump" except in every post they defend his actions. Climate change may be real but every post they attack everyone who says it is a problem. This behavior is not new.

Not sure how we could have this conversation if one or both of us didn't exist.

Reasonable answer....see solipsism

my respect for you would increase if stopped accusing me dodging or being milquetoase, without having any evidence to back up your accusation.

So I guess we're even. I don't like that this is almost certainly a game and you don't like that I'm pointing that out.

 

[Aridas]

I don't see how it causes the argument to fall apart.

Apparently so. Alright, then. Is a transplanted kidney then part of its new host? Yes, by pretty much every measure and effectively no one sane would consider it to be a separate person itself. Is the DNA the same as the host? Mostly, even if it's from a completely unrelated person, but not entirely. This alone is plenty to demonstrate that "person" is a distinctly different concept from DNA. That alone picks at a very serious flaw in how you're trying to equate person and DNA.

You just raised crime scene DNA testing. That's plenty useful for what it does, but it's also quite irrelevant for the concept that you're trying to defend. If the DNA from that transplanted kidney ends up being tested, does that somehow change anything about which person did what? No, of course not, even though the DNA is not the same as the person's original DNA. At best, it might confuse the issue a little and potentially lead to false conclusions - which is little more than what you're working to do here. For the DNA purposes here, a zygote works in a way that's little different than a transplanted kidney (though it's rather likely to have DNA more similar than the kidney to the host, even if that not necessarily the case - a transplanted identical twin kidney is still a kidney from another person, even if it has effectively the same DNA), albeit not really beneficial to the host, unlike a successfully transplanted kidney. The main difference there is in its potential future development, rather than its then current state.

There are deeper questions here, though, such as what qualifies something to actually be a person, much less a living person? DNA is useful for distinguishing purposes when there's already a number of other important premises met that qualify those involved as persons, but is not sufficient in and of itself to determine personhood. Frankly, it probably also wouldn't be wrong here to take things back to the fundamentals of biology and what a human being actually is in the end, but again, that's so much more messy than we tend to like to think.

 

[Warbler]

NONSENSE. This forum has a long history of pretenders. The number of times I have seen this practice is far too numerous to count. "I don't support Trump" except in every post they defend his actions. Climate change may be real but every post they attack everyone who says it is a problem. This behavior is not new.

Reasonable answer....see solipsism



So I guess we're even. I don't like that this is almost certainly a game and you don't like that I'm pointing that out.

All I can say is that I am not a pretender and I am not playing a game. If you don't want to believe that, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Warbler]

Apparently so. Alright, then. Is a transplanted kidney then part of its new host? Yes, by pretty much every measure and effectively no one sane would consider it to be a separate person itself. Is the DNA the same as the host? Mostly, even if it's from a completely unrelated person, but not entirely. This alone is plenty to demonstrate that "person" is a distinctly different concept from DNA. That alone picks at a very serious flaw in how you're trying to equate person and DNA.

I would have thought the DNA from the Kidney would match the person the Kidney came from and not the person the Kidney was transplanted into.

I agree a Kidney is not a person. I did not mean to say that different DNA means the embryo is a person, merely a separate lifeform from that of the mother. But okay, I suppose you can say in a way the embryo is a part of the the mother. But I still would say it is also a separate lifeform, it is not the same a being one of the mother's kidneys or lungs or arms or legs or heart.

You just raised crime scene DNA testing. That's plenty useful for what it does, but it's also quite irrelevant for the concept that you're trying to defend.

I don't see how.

If the DNA from that transplanted kidney ends up being tested, does that somehow change anything about which person did what? No, of course not, even though the DNA is not the same as the person's original DNA.

I am not sure what your point here. Odds are that DNA from the Kidney would not be left at the crime scene(Unless the press got cut open in the right area of his body).

If the DNA from the crime scene didn't match DNA from the transplanted Kidney or his own DNA (or DNAs if he is chimera), it didn't come from him.

At best, it might confuse the issue a little and potentially lead to false conclusions - which is little more than what you're working to do here.

I am not working to lead to false conclusions.

For the DNA purposes here, a zygote works in a way that's little different than a transplanted kidney (though it's rather likely to have DNA more similar than the kidney to the host, even if that not necessarily the case - a transplanted identical twin kidney is still a kidney from another person, even if it has effectively the same DNA), albeit not really beneficial to the host, unlike a successfully transplanted kidney. The main difference there is in its potential future development, rather than its then current state.

Still not seeing your point here.

There are deeper questions here, though, such as what qualifies something to actually be a person, much less a living person? DNA is useful for distinguishing purposes when there's already a number of other important premises met that qualify those involved as persons, but is not sufficient in and of itself to determine personhood. Frankly, it probably also wouldn't be wrong here to take things back to the fundamentals of biology and what a human being actually is in the end, but again, that's so much more messy than we tend to like to think.

Like I said previous, I didn't meant that different DNA means different person, just different and separate lifeform.

Finally, a Kidney isn't slowly developing into a baby.

 

[Stacyhs]

Finally, a Kidney isn't slowly developing into a baby.

So you agree that something is not a 'baby' until it develops into one. So...at what point does that happen?

 

[catsmate]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not going to do that here.

Of course not. That would require effort on your part to support your claims.

or maybe you could have answered my question instead of being rude and snarky?

Why not, for a change, actually do some work for yourself?

 

[Aridas]

I would have thought the DNA from the Kidney would match the person the Kidney came from and not the person the Kidney was transplanted into.

Which is what I had said, actually. The mostly was more acknowledging that humans in general share more than 99% of our DNA and for a transplant to be successful, it's probably going to be distinctly more than baseline sharing.

I agree a Kidney is not a person. I did not mean to say that different DNA means the embryo is a person, merely a separate lifeform from that of the mother. But okay, I suppose you can say in a way the embryo is a part of the the mother. But I still would say it is also a separate lifeform, it is not the same a being one of the mother's kidneys or lungs or arms or legs or heart.

We can agree with all of this except for the separate lifeform part. It's not meaningfully a separate lifeform in that condition. An embryo may have the potential to become a separate lifeform, but that potential has not been realized at that point.

I am not sure what your point here. Odds are that DNA from the Kidney would not be left at the crime scene(Unless the press got cut open in the right area of his body).

If the DNA from the crime scene didn't match DNA from the transplanted Kidney or his own DNA (or DNAs if he is chimera), it didn't come from him.

The reason for it ending up tested is entirely irrelevant to the example. What matters is that DNA from the transplanted part is what ends up being tested, rather than the original DNA of the host.

I am not working to lead to false conclusions.

I'm not assuming that you are intentionally doing so, at least. No more than I assume that investigators who received a DNA result that indicated the kidney donor rather than the transplanted kidney's new host would be intentionally making mistakes on what's going on.

Still not seeing your point here.

*sigh*

Like I said previous, I didn't meant that different DNA means different person, just different and separate lifeform.

First, when you directly and repeatedly say person in your responses to me/what I respond to and try to defend your position with arguments that would require that we assume that it's a separate individual person from the start, am I supposed to magically reinterpret that person to mean something different?

Second, alright, let's just a deal with that alternate version of what you said. That can only really stand in a way that doesn't actually conflict with the statement that a zygote is part of the mother, which would render that debate pretty well moot. Fine by me, if so.

Finally, a Kidney isn't slowly developing into a baby.

Really? I'm like, so shocked. I couldn't possibly have just said anything at all like...

The main difference there is in its potential future development, rather than its then current state.

...Right?