(February 4, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 9:34 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: (emphasis is mine)
But, this was not your original claim...
(emphasis is mine)
This is the claim I was responding to
By the claim you originally made, yes your arm would be a human being. Unless, you're shifting the goal posts?

If an arm, or a tumor, or the hair we unceremoniously leave on the salon floor aren't examples of human beings, then why is a fetus, a clone or an identical twin any different?

---

You also never answered (or I missed it) my question about forcing people to have other people hooked up to them as a form of dialysis. Since the right to life trumps all other rights...

If I missed it, please do point it out.

Well that is what I meant. I thought it was implied.

So, which identical twin is human and which isn't? Only one gets "its own set of human DNA" and the other only gets a copy. If a human is ever cloned, will that clone be a human?
If not, why not?

(February 4, 2016 at 10:46 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 10:34 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Well that is what I meant. I thought it was implied.

So, which identical twin is human and which isn't? Only one gets "its own set of human DNA" and the other only gets a copy. If a human is ever cloned, will that clone be a human?
If not, why not?

Twins still have DNA that is separate from their mothers'. The argument that a fetus is basically a tumor or a cyst or that it is a body part of a woman are incorrect because if it were those things, it would have the woman's DNA. But they don't, they have their own, separate set of DNA, meaning they are not body parts of their mother, but rather, separate entities.

Identical twins have the same DNA as each other because they are identical twins. But they are not a tumor or a body part of the mom.

(February 4, 2016 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 10:46 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: So, which identical twin is human and which isn't? Only one gets "its own set of human DNA" and the other only gets a copy. If a human is ever cloned, will that clone be a human?
If not, why not?

Twins still have DNA that is separate from their mothers'. The argument that a fetus is basically a tumor or a cyst or that it is a body part of a woman are incorrect because if it were those things, it would have the woman's DNA. But they don't, they have their own, separate set of DNA, meaning they are not body parts of their mother, but rather, separate entities.

Identical twins have the same DNA as each other because they are identical twins. But they are not a tumor or a body part of the mom.

But only one gets it's own. The other still gets a copy.

And clones? There is a very high probability that human cloning will happen in our lifetimes.

(February 4, 2016 at 11:10 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 10:53 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Twins still have DNA that is separate from their mothers'. The argument that a fetus is basically a tumor or a cyst or that it is a body part of a woman are incorrect because if it were those things, it would have the woman's DNA. But they don't, they have their own, separate set of DNA, meaning they are not body parts of their mother, but rather, separate entities.

Identical twins have the same DNA as each other because they are identical twins. But they are not a tumor or a body part of the mom.

But only one gets it's own. The other still gets a copy.

And clones? There is a very high probability that human cloning will happen in our lifetimes.

Sooo, what exactly are you trying to say? That identical twins are one person? I don't see how this fits into our discussion about fetuses having a seperate set of DNA from their mothers, therefore not being a body part or tumor of their mother.

(February 5, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 4, 2016 at 11:10 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: But only one gets it's own. The other still gets a copy.

And clones? There is a very high probability that human cloning will happen in our lifetimes.

Sooo, what exactly are you trying to say? That identical twins are one person? I don't see how this fits into our discussion about fetuses having a seperate set of DNA from their mothers, therefore not being a body part or tumor of their mother.

No. I'm trying to understand your thinking on this subject. First, you argue that being made of human DNA makes you human. Then you argue that it has to be unique DNA. I'm confused about your view on this.

And, you still haven't answered my other question about being forced to become someone's dialysis...

(February 5, 2016 at 10:41 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sooo, what exactly are you trying to say? That identical twins are one person? I don't see how this fits into our discussion about fetuses having a seperate set of DNA from their mothers, therefore not being a body part or tumor of their mother.

No. I'm trying to understand your thinking on this subject. First, you argue that being made of human DNA makes you human. Then you argue that it has to be unique DNA. I'm confused about your view on this.

And, you still haven't answered my other question about being force to become someone's dialysis...

My argument is very simple: 

A human fetus is a human being because she/he is an entity with human DNA. A human fetus is also not a tumor/cyst/body part of the mother because it has a separate set of DNA from that of the mother. That's just simple, basic biology. 

Now, what is your question again?

(February 5, 2016 at 10:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 10:41 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: No. I'm trying to understand your thinking on this subject. First, you argue that being made of human DNA makes you human. Then you argue that it has to be unique DNA. I'm confused about your view on this.

And, you still haven't answered my other question about being force to become someone's dialysis...

My argument is very simple: 

A human fetus is a human being because she/he is an entity with human DNA. A human fetus is also not a tumor/cyst/body part of the mother because it has a separate set of DNA from that of the mother. That's just simple, basic biology. 

Ok. Spelled out like that it makes sense. Thanks.

(February 5, 2016 at 10:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Now, what is your question again?

Earlier in the thread you made a statement that the right to life trumps all other rights. I offered a "what if" type scenario. How would you feel about that if you were forced to have a toddler in kidney failure attached to you for the purpose of using your kidneys? Or, alternatively, having one of your kidneys or part of your liver removed, by force, to give to someone else.

(February 5, 2016 at 11:25 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 10:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: My argument is very simple: 

A human fetus is a human being because she/he is an entity with human DNA. A human fetus is also not a tumor/cyst/body part of the mother because it has a separate set of DNA from that of the mother. That's just simple, basic biology. 

Ok. Spelled out like that it makes sense. Thanks.

(February 5, 2016 at 10:47 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Now, what is your question again?

Earlier in the thread you made a statement that the right to life trumps all other rights. I offered a "what if" type scenario. How would you feel about that if you were forced to have a toddler in kidney failure attached to you for the purpose of using your kidneys? Or, alternatively, having one of your kidneys or part of your liver removed, by force, to give to someone else.

If the toddler was my child, and he was in that situation because of something I did  (which is the case in all pregnancies except rape), then yes, I would would say that child has the right to "use my kidneys" for a temporary amount of time.   

Regardless though, the fundamental difference between a fetus being inside his mother's womb and two people being hooked up to a machine in a hospital bed, is that a fetus is right where he should be. The second scenario represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the first represents something natural and ordinary. The fetus is exactly where nature intends it to be, and reproductive organs exist specifically for that purpose. Really, that is the only reason we have those parts of our bodies. So yes, all of us had the right to live in our mother's womb for the first 9 months of our existence, for that reason.

(February 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 11:25 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: Ok. Spelled out like that it makes sense. Thanks.

Earlier in the thread you made a statement that the right to life trumps all other rights. I offered a "what if" type scenario. How would you feel about that if you were forced to have a toddler in kidney failure attached to you for the purpose of using your kidneys? Or, alternatively, having one of your kidneys or part of your liver removed, by force, to give to someone else.

If the toddler was my child, and he was in that situation because of something I did  (which is the case in all pregnancies except rape), then yes, I would would say that child has the right to "use my kidneys" for a temporary amount of time.   

Regardless though, the fundamental difference between a fetus being inside his mother's womb and two people being hooked up to a machine in a hospital bed, is that a fetus is right where he should be. The second scenario represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the first represents something natural and ordinary. The fetus is exactly where nature intends it to be, and reproductive organs exist specifically for that purpose. Really, that is the only reason we have those parts of our bodies. So yes, all of us had the right to live in our mother's womb for the first 9 months of our existence, for that reason.  

Fair enough. We'll just have to disagree on that point. I believe in bodily autonomy in general and especially in case of rape and failed contraception. I don't know if the old saying that it takes all kinds is true, but we sure do have all kinds with a ton of differing beliefs, don't we?

P.S. Why can't you be ornry about it so I can cuss at you?!?

(February 5, 2016 at 11:55 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the toddler was my child, and he was in that situation because of something I did  (which is the case in all pregnancies except rape), then yes, I would would say that child has the right to "use my kidneys" for a temporary amount of time.   

Regardless though, the fundamental difference between a fetus being inside his mother's womb and two people being hooked up to a machine in a hospital bed, is that a fetus is right where he should be. The second scenario represents unnatural and extraordinary measures, while the first represents something natural and ordinary. The fetus is exactly where nature intends it to be, and reproductive organs exist specifically for that purpose. Really, that is the only reason we have those parts of our bodies. So yes, all of us had the right to live in our mother's womb for the first 9 months of our existence, for that reason.  

Fair enough. We'll just have to disagree on that point. I believe in bodily autonomy in general and especially in case of rape and failed contraception. I don't know if the old saying that it takes all kinds is true, but we sure do have all kinds with a ton of differing beliefs, don't we?

P.S. Why can't you be ornry about it so I can cuss at you?!?

Thank you for being respectful.   And yes, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. 

P.S. I've disagreed with enough people in my life to know how to handle it without getting ornery. (Most of the time anyway.)