Ask a Bible college Student

[Catholic_Lady]

Fun fact, HeLa cells are an immortal laboratory cell line taken from Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer tumor in 1951, used in laboratory testing for all sorts of situations since then.  (I like to nerd out on this stuff, part of my thesis was on it.)

Yeah I was just reading about that on wiki lol.

[Catholic_Lady]

Genetic structure is the only thing that makes sense for us to declare the species of an entity. Being in a comma doesn't make someone unhuman. Needing some sort of life line to survive doesn't make someone unhuman. And there are plenty of people who don't have a fully functioning brain and some babies are born with no brain at all. They survive for a few minutes and then die. It's not like they were not human lol. 

As far as I am aware, a hela cell is a person's cancer cell. It's a different cell type, and it has the DNA makeup of the person it came from. Not its own unique set of human DNA.

So it's okay to kill identical twins because their DNA isn't unique? Or one of them, at least?

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.

[Mister Agenda]

So it's okay to kill identical twins because their DNA isn't unique? Or one of them, at least?

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.

[pocaracas]

So, by that logic, when my wife and I donated the leftover embryos for research after we went through IVF, we were handing over human beings to be experimented on and discarded.  Do we deserve to go to jail for that?

...And that is why I am ethically opposed to IVF. Because that's a human life. Whether or not you go to jail depends on the law. It's legal, so no. I doubt you would have done that if it was an illegal thing to do.

CL, you sound just like my wife...
Never kill a cell or a few cells that could possibly become a human person. No buts. No exceptions.

Personally, I see no ethical problem with an IVF before the nervous system is formed... ~12weeks.
Once suffering can be considered, then it gets murky.

It's not like an IVF is performed against the will of the mother... at least in civilized countries.

[Mister Agenda]

Since we're on the topic, what about clones? If we clone a human being, wtf difference does their lack of genetic uniqueness make to their humanity?

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

[Mister Agenda]

Then you're not talking about genetic uniqueness at all, you're referring to the potential to develop into a human being. You should go with that, you'll be on much firmer footing and it serves your purpose just as well. That still leaves the clone issue open though, since a shed human cell CAN develop into a human being, with some help.

[Mister Agenda]

By the by, human chimeras can have cells with different DNA that are definitely part of their body. Just sayin'.

[vorlon13]

Since we're on the topic, what about clones? If we clone a human being, wtf difference does their lack of genetic uniqueness make to their humanity?

Easy enough question for the religious folks to answer:

each clone will be imbued with a different immortal soul


And that makes them eligible, regardless of their pedigree, to be a son of Adam, share in original sin, and to be offered Salvation and eternal life via belief in Jesus Christ.

[vorlon13]

And that applies to human chimeras too. Regardless of the multi-DNA, there would be a single, unique immortal soul occupying the body.