The Abortionist of Arkansas

[rtwngAvngr]

1. An identical twin does NOT possess a distinct genetic blueprint from his brother (or sister). Does that mean that twins are the same person? Can one twin kill the other, and that's okay?

The point is that they're BOTH distinct individuals from the mother.

 

[Max Power]

The point is that they're BOTH distinct individuals from the mother.

I just don't think it's fair - to twins - to define separate people as those who have distinct DNA.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I just don't think it's fair - to twins - to define separate people as those who have distinct DNA.

Another criterion might be having two separate bodies and the ability to walk in two different directions at once. You wanna talk about conjoined twins? I dare you.

 

[Max Power]

Another criterion might be having two separate bodies and the ability to walk in two different directions at once. You wanna talk about conjoined twins? I dare you.

Umm, no?

I just think it's ridiculous to define people by their DNA, that is all.

 

[no1tovote4]

Umm, no?

I just think it's ridiculous to define people by their DNA, that is all.

I think you must mean personhood, because science defines human by DNA...

 

[Max Power]

I think you must mean personhood, because science defines human by DNA...

How do you mean?

Has "science" ever said something along the lines of "twins are the same person, because they share identical DNA???"

 

[no1tovote4]

How do you mean?

Has "science" ever said something along the lines of "twins are the same person, because they share identical DNA???"

No. Science says that they are human because of their DNA. I said, "I think you must mean personhood, because science defines human by DNA..."

I did not say, "Science defines individuals by their DNA."

However science would define them separate from the mother because of their DNA, they are clearly defined as not being the mother by the fact their DNA is different than hers.

 

[Max Power]

No. Science says that they are human because of their DNA. I said, "I think you must mean personhood, because science defines human by DNA..."

I did not say, "Science defines individuals by their DNA."

Okay, well "personhood" or individual, whatever you want to call it, I'm not referring to the species.

However science would define them separate from the mother because of their DNA, they are clearly defined as not being the mother by the fact their DNA is different than hers.

Is that so?
So, by your logic, if a zygote splits and separates, then the resulting twins would be the same person.
How can that be?

 

[no1tovote4]

Okay, well "personhood" or individual, whatever you want to call it, I'm not referring to the species.


Is that so?
So, by your logic, if a zygote splits and separates, then the resulting twins would be the same person.
How can that be?

They would not, the DNA evidence would not be as conclusive with them. Like a woman carrying her own clone.

Since women carrying their own clones are not possible yet we can determine them to be a separate person from the mother. I did not say it would determine that they were separate from each other, only that they were different than the mother. The fact that they have different DNA from the mother proves that they are not the mother.

If a twin committed a murder, his DNA would not be conclusively proving him to be the murderer, but it would be conclusive that it was one of the twins and not their mother. They are separate people from their mother, this is clear.

 

[no1tovote4]

Shoot, one needs not turn further than their own TVs to see that DNA determines them to not be their mother, even as a fetus. In CSI there was one where the woman who died had carried a fetus, they were intrigued for a bit then realized that the different DNAs showed she was pregnant when killed, not that there were two women....

 

[Max Power]

They would not, the DNA evidence would not be as conclusive with them. Like a woman carrying her own clone.

Since women carrying their own clones are not possible yet we can determine them to be a separate person from the mother.

That's an interesting scenario you propose there. It hasn't happened yet, but certainly if the clone came to term, she would be a unique individual.

Although this is hypothetical, I think this demonstrates that you cannot define a fetus as a separate human being based entirely on DNA.

 

[dilloduck]

That's an interesting scenario you propose there. It hasn't happened yet, but certainly if the clone came to term, she would be a unique individual.

Although this is hypothetical, I think this demonstrates that you cannot define a fetus as a separate human being based entirely on DNA.

Every animal in the world with common sense knows that a fetus is a separate person. We don't need no stinking DNA to know that. How about conjoined twins? Is it OK to kill one?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I just don't think it's fair - to twins - to define separate people as those who have distinct DNA.

DNA can be used to determine individuality by exclusion, not by inclusion. In other words, you can prove differentation of two people by DNA, but if two DNA's match, which does occur, that doesnt mean they are the same persons.

But if you have two distinct DNA's, that is proof positive of two different people.

So the DNA test still stands as proof that at fertilization, you have a completely seperate, individual human being.

 

[no1tovote4]

That's an interesting scenario you propose there. It hasn't happened yet, but certainly if the clone came to term, she would be a unique individual.

Although this is hypothetical, I think this demonstrates that you cannot define a fetus as a separate human being based entirely on DNA.

At this point you can. Until one can carry a clone we can.

That, in the future, some scenario can become true where one can carry a genetic clone does not negate that the fact of separate DNA is a difinitive measure of a separate person and that every child carried at this time has different DNA than the mother. That it isn't the only measure is also clear, but it can be definitively shown through DNA testing at this current time that the fetus is always a separate entity from the person carrying it.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Shoot, one needs not turn further than their own TVs to see that DNA determines them to not be their mother, even as a fetus. In CSI there was one where the woman who died had carried a fetus, they were intrigued for a bit then realized that the different DNAs showed she was pregnant when killed, not that there were two women....

There are also cases of babies/fetuses surviving the mothers death.

Hey, look, theres a car accident. Yea, that guy is dead. Hmmm, but his leg still looks ok, lets take it to the hospital, maybe a person will grow from it.

The abject absurdity of calling the fetus a PART OF THE WOMAN is incredible. It requires so many exceptions to be made to classify it as such. Exceptions, when classifying things are ok, but too many exceptions, and it becomes a distinct classification.

 

[no1tovote4]

There are also cases of babies/fetuses surviving the mothers death.

Hey, look, theres a car accident. Yea, that guy is dead. Hmmm, but his leg still looks ok, lets take it to the hospital, maybe a person will grow from it.

The abject absurdity of calling the fetus a PART OF THE WOMAN is incredible. It requires so many exceptions to be made to classify it as such. Exceptions, when classifying things are ok, but too many exceptions, and it becomes a distinct classification.

Exactly. DNA is an exclusive science that can determine two people with different DNA to be different people and it is very difinitive. In that CSI above I believe that the person was charged with a double murder for ending the life of the fetus as well.

 

[KarlMarx]

1. An identical twin does NOT possess a distinct genetic blueprint from his brother (or sister). Does that mean that twins are the same person? Can one twin kill the other, and that's okay?

2. Before a fetus displays attributes that we consider "personhood," would you consider abortion okay?

#1. No and for obvious reasons. You can't claim that a person is an individual solely on their genetic composition.

#2.No and this just helps prove the absudities you get into when you try to play God. Just who defines personhood?

 

[listopencil]

Do you also applaud Hitler for being so candid about his Jew hatred?

Do you give a hearty round of applause every time a woman dies during chilbirth?

 

[Max Power]

Every animal in the world with common sense knows that a fetus is a separate person. We don't need no stinking DNA to know that. How about conjoined twins? Is it OK to kill one?

ROFL.

Did you come up with that post all by yourself?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=374893&postcount=23

 

[Max Power]

But if you have two distinct DNA's, that is proof positive of two different people.

So the DNA test still stands as proof that at fertilization, you have a completely seperate, individual human being.

So you're saying that a separate, individual, human being is defined by DNA?