Texas bans abortion.

[acbytesla]

I am not what is so wishy washy about using the word "might", in a situation where I am not 100% certain.

You're not certain? Give me a break. Every single post you have made is anti-choice. I'm also against chocolate I say while I sit here eating a Cadbury.

Thank you for politely answering my question. As for whether I am against IUD's, I need to think about it.

And it continues.

 

[Warbler]

You're not certain? Give me a break. Every single post you have made is anti-choice. I'm also against chocolate I say while I sit here eating a Cadbury.



And it continues.

Sorry that I can't give answers with certainty with an issue as complicated and replete with grey area as abortion.

 

[Paul2]

I am not sure what difference is make whether the word "different" or "unique" is used there. The point is still the same: the DNA is not the same as the mother's.



true, we don't say twins are same person. But, we tested two DNA samples and found that they didn't match each other, we could and would conclude that the two DNA samples did not come from the same person.

Accepting your point provisionally, consider the following:

Under your system, we say both
1. different DNA = different person (without granting - yet - that a fetus has full personhood)
2. exactly the same DNA = different person

So under your system it doesn't matter whether DNA is the same or different, you're going to get different people regardless. That makes DNA as the criterion odd.

The only other way I see is to say that physical separateness is what makes two entities different people, but then you have to contend with how we consider conjoined twins to be separate people.

 

[Warbler]

Accepting your point provisionally, consider the following:

Under your system, we say both
1. different DNA = different person (without granting - yet - that a fetus has full personhood)
2. exactly the same DNA = different person
.

Since we know the mother and fetus are not each other's twin, the whole "twins have the same DNA" does not make sense.

But even so, yes, same DNA does not mean same person, but different DNA absolutely means different people. If investigators take a DNA sample from a crime scene and compare it to DNA a suspect, and the DNA different, do they not conclude that the sample from the crime scene came from a different person?

 

[acbytesla]

Sorry that I can't give answers with certainty with an issue as complicated and replete with grey area as abortion.

And yet every post is anti-choice.

 

[Aridas]

I don't understand how it is a not starter? If you argue a zygote is part of the mother, like her arms or legs, the fact the Zygote has different DNA from the mother invalids the argument.

No, it doesn't. The zygote is entirely and completely dependent on and connected to the mother body and also causes physiological changes in the mother. It becomes a part of her in pretty much every meaningful sense of the word. As far as separation goes, the argument that they're functionally of little to no difference from a parasite is actually a much better attempt to point out a way to distinguish, given that parasites can also end up similarly a part of the host. There's a parasite that pretty much eats and takes over the function of a fish's tongue, for example. It becomes a part of the host. You're trying to rely on a much simpler DNA observation 1) without acknowledging or addressing what the argument you're trying to counter was actually talking about and 2) without acknowledging how messy biology actually is (even just within humans).

I'm confused, that is "the simple truth of the matter"?

Yes. The larger topic is one filled with complexity, but even complex things can be reduced to simple truths, though those simple truths tend to be much less reliable when it comes to how well they reflect the larger complexity.

 

[Paul2]

Since we know the mother and fetus are each other's twin, the whole "twins have the same DNA" does not make sense.

I'm unclear what "the whole 'twins have the same DNA'" means. Twins actually do have the same DNA, right?

But even so, yes, same DNA does not mean same person, but different DNA absolutely means different people. If investigators take a DNA sample from a crime scene and compare it to DNA a suspect, and the DNA different, do they not conclude that the sample from the crime scene came from a different person?

Ah, OK, so sometimes similar DNA means different people (twins) or the same person (crime investigation with ID confirmed). But different DNA always means different people.

I agree, with the proviso that the fetus is not necessarily granted personhood because of its DNA is different from the mother. That's the next argument, perhaps.

 

[Stacyhs]

The argument started in here because someone tried to argue that the embryo/zygote was a part of the mother, like her arms or legs. Unique DNA means that it is not part of the mother.

Can you please quote whoever said "like her arms or her legs" or near that? What I said was that a fertilized egg is literally PART of its mother as it has part (abt. 50%) of her DNA.

No, unique DNA does not mean that it is not part of the mother. No one that I saw is saying anything like a fetus literally has its mother's arm or leg. That is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be said.

Amazingly, cells can cross the placenta and become part of another DNA 'unique' person. Y chromosomes have been found in women's brains that are believed to have migrated there from a male fetus.

Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains

The physical connection between mother and fetus is provided by the placenta, an organ, built of cells from both the mother and fetus, which serves as a conduit for the exchange of nutrients, gasses, and wastes. Cells may migrate through the placenta between the mother and the fetus, taking up residence in many organs of the body including the lung, thyroid, muscle, liver, heart, kidney and skin. These may have a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to sparking immune disorders.

Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains
Credit: iStock / Анастасия Попова
The link between a mother and child is profound, and new research suggests a physical connection even deeper than anyone thought. The profound psychological and physical bonds shared by the mother and her child begin during gestation when the mother is everything for the developing fetus, supplying warmth and sustenance, while her heartbeat provides a soothing constant rhythm.

The physical connection between mother and fetus is provided by the placenta, an organ, built of cells from both the mother and fetus, which serves as a conduit for the exchange of nutrients, gasses, and wastes. Cells may migrate through the placenta between the mother and the fetus, taking up residence in many organs of the body including the lung, thyroid, muscle, liver, heart, kidney and skin. These may have a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to sparking immune disorders.

It is remarkable that it is so common for cells from one individual to integrate into the tissues of another distinct person. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as singular autonomous individuals, and these foreign cells seem to belie that notion, and suggest that most people carry remnants of other individuals. As remarkable as this may be, stunning results from a new study show that cells from other individuals are also found in the brain. In this study, male cells were found in the brains of women and had been living there, in some cases, for several decades. What impact they may have had is now only a guess, but this study revealed that these cells were less common in the brains of women who had Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting they may be related to the health of the brain.

We all consider our bodies to be our own unique being, so the notion that we may harbor cells from other people in our bodies seems strange. Even stranger is the thought that, although we certainly consider our actions and decisions as originating in the activity of our own individual brains, cells from other individuals are living and functioning in that complex structure. However, the mixing of cells from genetically distinct individuals is not at all uncommon.

This was first noticed in humans many years ago when cells containing the male “Y” chromosome were found circulating in the blood of women after pregnancy. Since these cells are genetically male, they could not have been the women’s own, but most likely came from their babies during gestation. In this new study, scientists observed that microchimeric cells are not only found circulating in the blood, they are also embedded in the brain.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

sperm alone has the same DNA as the father.

No it doesn't. It has a unique subset.

ego alone has the same DNA as the mother.

Nope same thing, it has a unique subset.

fetus/zygote/embryo has unique DNA from that of the mother and father.

And the uniqueness was determined partially at conception, partially a few hours/day before in the genesis of the sperm, and partially a couple decades before in the genesis of the ovum.

 

[Warbler]

I'm unclear what "the whole 'twins have the same DNA'" means. Twins actually do have the same DNA, right?

1. I meant to say "Since we know the mother and fetus are not each other's twin, the whole "twins have the same DNA" does not make sense. " I have fixed my post.

2. Yes twins have the same DNA, at least some twins.

Ah, OK, so sometimes similar DNA means different people (twins) or the same person (crime investigation with ID confirmed). But different DNA always means different people.

yes.

I agree, with the proviso that the fetus is not necessarily granted personhood because of its DNA is different from the mother. That's the next argument, perhaps.

fair enough.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Warbler
But even so, yes, same DNA does not mean same person, but different DNA absolutely means different people. If investigators take a DNA sample from a crime scene and compare it to DNA a suspect, and the DNA different, do they not conclude that the sample from the crime scene came from a different person?

False. As has already been presented, chimeras are people with two sets of DNA.

One way that chimeras can happen naturally in humans is that a fetus can absorb its twin. This can occur with fraternal twins, if one embryo dies very early in pregnancy, and some of its cells are "absorbed" by the other twin. The remaining fetus will have two sets of cells, its own original set, plus the one from its twin.

These individuals often don't know they are a chimera. For example, in 2002, news outlets reported the story of a woman named Karen Keegan, who needed a kidney transplant and underwent genetic testing along with her family, to see if a family member could donate one to her. But the tests suggested that genetically, Keegan could not be the mother of her sons. The mystery was solved when doctors discovered that Keegan was a chimera—she had a different set of DNA in her blood cells compared to the other tissues in her body.
A person can also be a chimera if they undergo a bone marrow transplant. During such transplants, which can be used for example to treat leukemia, a person will have their own bone marrow destroyed and replaced with bone marrow from another person. Bone marrow contains stem cells that develop into red blood cells. This means that a person with a bone marrow transplant will have blood cells, for the rest of their life, that are genetically identical to those of the donor, and are not genetically the same as the other cells in their own body.

More commonly, people may exhibit so-called microchimerism—when a small fraction of their cells are from someone else. This can happen when a woman becomes pregnant, and a small number of cells from the fetus migrate into her blood and travel to different organs.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/

 

[Warbler]

No, it doesn't. The zygote is entirely and completely dependent on and connected to the mother body and also causes physiological changes in the mother. It becomes a part of her in pretty much every meaningful sense of the word. As far as separation goes, the argument that they're functionally of little to no difference from a parasite is actually a much better attempt to point out a way to distinguish, given that parasites can also end up similarly a part of the host. There's a parasite that pretty much eats and takes over the function of a fish's tongue, for example. It becomes a part of the host. You're trying to rely on a much simpler DNA observation 1) without acknowledging or addressing what the argument you're trying to counter was actually talking about and 2) without acknowledging how messy biology actually is (even just within humans).

someone said the embryo was a part of the mother, different DNA means different person. NO, it doesn't address the bigger picture, that wasn't the point.

 

[Warbler]

And yet every post is anti-choice.

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

 

[Warbler]

No it doesn't. It has a unique subset.

Nope same thing, it has a unique subset.

really? I though sperm alone would match the father and egg alone would match the mother. Maybe I am wrong.

 

[Aridas]

Can you please quote whoever said "like her arms or her legs" or near that? What I said was that a fertilized egg is literally PART of its mother as it has part (abt. 50%) of her DNA.

Personally, I'd distinguish a bit more clearly there. A fertilized ovum is part of the mother in pretty much every way with something additional that gets added later during fertilization. Its behavior changes at that point and, if it manages to attach itself later, becomes a much more... I'll be nice and call it "organ-like" part of the woman until such time as it's developed enough to detach and live separately (or die, as in a miscarriage).

Amazingly, cells can cross the placenta and become part of another DNA 'unique' person. Y chromosomes have been found in women's brains that are believed to have migrated there from a male fetus.

That's an interesting bit that just adds to the messiness of human biology... though it doesn't seem too fundamentally different from, for example, organ transplants to me. A kidney that gets transplanted onto a person doesn't have the same DNA as the host, yet we would normally consider it to be ridiculous to try to call it a separate person from the host after transplant.

 

[Warbler]

Can you please quote whoever said "like her arms or her legs" or near that? What I said was that a fertilized egg is literally PART of its mother

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.

as it has part (abt. 50%) of her DNA.

50% is not the same as 100%

No, unique DNA does not mean that it is not part of the mother.

pretty sure it means they are two separate lifeforms.

No one that I saw is saying anything like a fetus literally has its mother's arm or leg. That is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be said.

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.

Amazingly, cells can cross the placenta and become part of another DNA 'unique' person. Y chromosomes have been found in women's brains that are believed to have migrated there from a male fetus.

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

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

really? I though sperm alone would match the father and egg alone would match the mother. Maybe I am wrong.

They can't have the same, they are haploid.

 

[Warbler]

False. As has already been presented, chimeras are people with two sets of DNA.

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?

 

[Stacyhs]

someone said the embryo was a part of the mother, different DNA means different person. NO, it doesn't address the bigger picture, that wasn't the point.

Repeating your claim over and over again without providing any supporting evidence is not going to make it true. You have also been shown to be 100% wrong in your claim that different DNA necessarily means a different person. See my posts from Scientific American. And no one said that "the embryo was a part of the mother" like "an arm or leg". You also ignore the fact that a zyogote on to full baby is PART of its mother because it has half her DNA. You keep falling back on ignoring what PART OF means.

 

[Aridas]

someone said the embryo was a part of the mother, different DNA means different person. NO, it doesn't address the bigger picture, that wasn't the point.

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.