(November 4, 2016 at 10:31 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:Catholic_Lady Wrote:You already know the answer to that is no. The reason their DNA is identical is because they are identical twins. But their DNA, as identical twins, exists no where else in the world. They were never "part of" their mom's body. They are their own separate entity from her, but have the same DNA as each other bc they are identical twins.
I know what makes identical twins identical, that's why I brought it up. I just wanted to see how quickly you'd abandon your 'unique DNA' requirement and how you'd try to wiggle out of admitting you're not being consistent in using it.
I haven't abandoned it at all. My "unique dna" point applies to the argument ppl make when they compare an unborn baby to cells that shed off our bodies. Or in your case, to a person's cancer cells. It's the same argument as saying a fetus is part of the mom's body. But it's not, because it is not HER dna. That's what separates it as a different entity from her.
Having identical DNA as your identical twin still stands because that is still their own new set of DNA and not cells that shed off a person's body. And that's my whole point when I talk about "unique" or "separate" set of DNA.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
