Abortion?

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67655 wrote:

Why is it not a good reason, FF? Because it doesn't suit your conclusion?

I just explained why. Because it is not applicable or universal as a rule or a necessity.

Quote:

While some life-forms do not have mother, humans do.

Special pleading fallacy.

Special pleading - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

To suggest that DNA identification is not a good argument is retarded.

As to why a zygote deserves life consideration, no it isn't.

A cell is not a human being, regardless of what DNA it has.

Quote:

So essentially by your definition any organism that doesn't have a mother is nonexistent.

Wrong again. That was not a part of My "definition", as you strangely call it.

Well if something must have DNA separate from it's mother to be a separate entity, than an organism with no mother has no DNA to differ from and thus is not a separate entity.

Quote:

Your logical fallacy manifests itself in all your answers. You are trying to suggest :

If {A} is true (where {A} being that FACT that the mother and her egg/womb-trapped child etc etc etc have clearly different DNA).
THEN
{B}, which is your suggestions and not a part of {A}, must be false.

No i'm suggesting that having DNA different from the mother doesn't necessarily mean it's a separate entity, or even that being a separate entity makes it worthy of consideration of life.

Quote:

So you are trying to argue that if something is true, then opposite to it must be false (Or vice versa).

The opposite of true cannot also be true. This is not a fallacy it's just basic logic.

I believe what you are referring to is DENYING THE ANTECEDENT, which goes as follows:

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

Quote:

TWhy don't you just admit that the DNA sequence proves a seperate identity to the mother and counters your false "the egg and fetus is not a seperate life-form" claim.

The zygote is physically dependant on the mother for life, just as hair is dependant upon the head for life. The zygote is just a cell in a woman's body up until the time it develops it's own inter-working and independant systems.

But even if I were to grant your claim that a zygote is a separate entity, why should that entitle a cell to legal and moral protection?

I consider cows to be separate entities and yet I have no qualms about eating hamburger.

Quote:

I am arguing that the child exists, as a new life-form. DNA supports that claim. It was you who claimed that it did "not exist" as a new life-form. I said DNA ID testing is evidence of existance, not the lack thereof.

No, no no no..... that's not what you said.

You said it was a "separate" life-form. You didn't say anything about it being new.

Quit trying to change the argument.

You've essentially contrived a standard to support your pre-determined conclusion.

Quote:

Incorrect again, FF. DNA testing was not conducted by Me. The conclusions of DNA identitly testing is scientific FACT, and it is not contrived by Me.

No the "standard" was contrived by you.

It was you that decided that different DNA = separate lifeform.

I accept DNA testing, you wish you could take credit for it's existence.

Where is is stated anywhere that a living thing must have different DNA from it's "mother" to be considered a separate living thing?

Quote:

Basically, thats not what was said. It's not a case of "what it must have to be a seperate living thing", as you say above. It's a case of what It cannot have if it is the same life-form as the mother.

If that's the case then you haven't supported your claim.

It's a case of what It cannot have if it is the same life-form as the mother.

Showing something is not false does not make it true.

Quote:

DNA identity testing. Common sense. Logic. Reason. All things you seemingly have no access to. You see, the only way it could have got seperate DNA is if it is a new, unique and seperate life from.

Not necessarily.

Your DNA could be changed during your life....this doesn't mean you are a separate entity.

Quote:

For example : your hair has your DNA. No hair you ever produce has different DNA to you. That is why we don't charge barbers with murders, to use your analogy.

And suppose your hair did have different DNA, would you consider barbers murderers.

I know what this argument is really about. This isn't about what zygotes are, it's about what they could be. Your arguing on the basis that zygotes and fetuses are "potential" human life. Hair does not have the potential to become a human.

Quote:

here is an example of your idea failing in reality : What happens when they identify a serial-killer by using DNA identification? By the above statement you made:
Can he then say "Oh, where does it say that because my DNA is unique, that I must be me. Maybe I am other people...I am not a seperate life-form to every one else. You will have to arrest everyone."

Strawman

A person is not a person because he is a separate entity, but because he posses the traits of humanity.

And where did I say anything about being unique? Of course having different DNA makes you unique, having different [SIZE="5"]ANYTHING[/SIZE] makes you unique this does not necessarily entitle you to life. Each mosquito is unique, do I value the lives of mosquitoes?

Quote:

Identity via DNA testing works.

I agree.

Quote:

You can make the argument that it is not the be all and end all of the debate if you wish. But to suggest that the DNA test did not prove a seperate identity is just plain deperation on your part.

It doesn't. You can potentially find hundreds of one type of plant all with the same exact DNA.

Identity is determined by more than the mere presence of unique DNA.

Quote:

Answer this : Are you stating that DNA identity testing does not work?

no

Quote:

So you are trying to argue that if something is true, then opposite to it must be false (Or vice versa) AGAIN.

Two mutually exclusive positions cannot both be true.

Quote:

Humans are not asexual.

Special pleading fallacy (again)

Why does having unique DNA denote a "seperate entity" with humans but not other animals, especially those that defeat your assertion?

Sure you ignore examples that contradict you...

I'm Shocked:eek:

Quote:

They are the only species to have an abortion. By the way, like identical twins, clones do NOT have the same DNA, either.

Incorrect.

Cloning in biology is the process of producing populations of genetically-identical individuals that occurs in nature when organisms such as bacteria, insects or plants reproduce asexually.

Cloning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

How can something that has unique DNA, that is seperate from the mother, possibly not be a seperate thing?

My point was that it WASN'T separate from the mother.

If you'd been following the forum you would've noticed that i've argued that having different DNA does mean something is a separate entity.

Take for instance:

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/773/260817.JPG

This is an asexual organism, it has runners that will form into a new plant and yet this new plant will have the same DNA as the parent plant. This is an example of two separate things having the same DNA

Quote:

Claim : The egg/foetus is not another life-form. It is part of the woman's body.
Problem : (A) all parts of the woman's body have her DNA, not a new DNA.

COUNTER: having different DNA does not mean it's a different life-form.

Quote:

(B) Anything organic having DNA is a form of life.
Can you actually answer? Or are we going to get another example about the "identical DNA" of some life-form that has no relevancy to this argument?

Any separate lifeforms having the same DNA is relevant to this discussion, because such examples contradict your insistence that different DNA = separate lifeform.

Of course I can see why you'd want to ignore such examples as "irrelevant", anything that contradicts your claims are "irrelevant" :rollinglaugh:

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms (Here we go again)
RED=OLD POSTS RE-QUOTES

Maybe a different approach will get you to see your error:

Originally stated by Seer Travis Truman
Why is it not a good reason, FF? Because it doesn't suit your conclusion?

I just explained why. Because it is not applicable or universal as a rule or a necessity.

Yes it is universal. My argument was :

Every human mother has different DNA from its womb-trapped child.

That holds true in every single case. Therefore, this proves a new life-form exists (i.e. not the old one). Unless you are going to argue that the womb-trapped child (or foetus) is not alive....stop wasting space and time.
You argued it was not human.

DNA PROVES WOMB TRAPPED CHILD<>Mother
If child in womb is alive THEN :
Child is alive and it is not the same life form as the mother...or a plant...or one of your hairs.

If it is not the same as any other life-form, and it is alive, then HOW can it not be a new life-form?

Got it?

You attempt to disprove the above obviously sound statement thus :
That above statement (Yellow) cannot be true because asexual organisms have the same DNA. (as do your hairs and head, apparently).

These arguments are not mutually exclusive.

My argument that mother is not the so-called "foetus" STILL HOLDS.

NOW, YOU WERE SAYING THAT. You even suggested that (A) your hair and (B) a woman and her womb-trapped child were compareable.

You then tried to say twins had the same DNA. You were wrong. The reason you said that is to attempt to disprove My above statement.

SO : My statement in Yellow : applicable (to abortion and this debate). It is universal. WHY?
(A) : All mother's have different DNA to thier offspring). There.
(B) I specifically stated the point was that mother could not be the womb-trapped child. Therefore, I was not refering to your precious twins, hairs or plants.

DNA ID tests PROVED you wrong. The new, unique life form is proven. That is what I mean by "seperate". What else would I be refering to? I did not mean the baby grows outside the womb. You know that.

SO:
SEPERATE LIFE FORM = UNIQUE/NEW/INDEPENDANT LIFE FORM. Stop hiding behind semantics.

You were trying to say that some life forms have identical DNA. That is not correct. They might have identical DNA, but the number, amount, effect that DNA has on the life form is unique to all life forms, even your asexual plant.

But it does not matter. WHY? Because even if the plant is the same as the other plant, My argument clearly was to inform you that the mother and the child were not the samelife-form (IE SEPERATE).

You are just really stubborn, or have really deseased mental function.

You are trying to say : My argument is invalid because My evidence does not apply to something that has no bearing on the subject.

DOES AN ASEXUAL ORGANISM HAVE DIFFERENT DNA COMPARED TO THE MOTHER HAVING AN ABORTION AND HER WOMB-TRAPPED BABY? YES!
SO : We can use DNA to identify that the mother is not the same life form as the womb-trapped child (or "fertilised egg" "foetus", if you must). Whether or not this test proves the mother is a plant is irrelevant.

Besides, we have to look at the context of it's use. NO? Only humans have abortions. All humans subject to abortions develop in the womb of the mother. The mother and NEW life-form have different DNA. Why is this not good reason considering the subject? Were are not talking about plants here. That ridiculous plant diagram is not relevant to human beings. WHY? Human being are not plants, and plants do not have wombs, sex, or abortions.

A cell is not a human being, regardless of what DNA it has.
Where is your argument and supporting evidence? Who mentioned a cell anyway? WE said : Womb-trapped child(Me) , foetus(you), fertilised egg (you).

My Conclusion:
A) NOT the same life form as the mother host (or a plant).
B) It came from human biological parents
C) It grows without DNA mutation or matamorphisis (like a catapiller) into what you admit is an adult human
D) IT is alive
How, then, do you claim it is not a new human life-form?

Your only position is now to argue that it is not alive. You cannot present any evidence that it is not human. I presented proof it is human, via inpdependant DNA testing.

Here is the position abortion supporters and abortionts have:
1) They claim it cannot be proven who is right.
2) They obviously think (1), because they insist that we both have an "opinion", not concrete fact/proof.
3) They support an action, that could be a murder of a human life-form if their opinion was ever proven/is provable to be wrong.
4) Therefore, abortionists and supporters cannot say they are not murderers for sure and should refrain from same.
UNLESS:
One side is absolutely right and the other is wrong.

This may not apply to you. You may suggest you can prove you ar right. Do you make this claim?

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms continues :

But even if I were to grant your claim that a zygote is a separate entity, why should that entitle a cell to legal and moral protection?
A) Society has a obligation not to murder all other life-forms. (Individuals do not have same ob.)
[/quote]

According to what exactly? There is absolutely nothing that compels me to spare the life of an incessant house fly or spider.

Quote:

B) If the human outside womb is so entitled, and they are both humans (they are) then the human in the womb is entitled to same by default.

I only have an obligation to consider the life of a human being. A zygote is not a human being.

I care only of developed unborn. That is, I make considerations for late-term pregnancies only.

Quote:

C) By allowing one form of murder and demonising another, you are allowing arbitrary human judgements to effect what society claims constitutes murder. This proves society's inconsistence on the murder issue.

If ending potential human life is murder, then masturbation is genocide.

2 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms:

My point was that it WASN'T separate from the mother.

If you'd been following the forum you would've noticed that i've argued that having different DNA does mean something is a separate entity.

Based on what? All the evidence proving you wrong, with none of your own?

Take for instance:

(My change in red)

{PICTURE OF PLANT NOT HAVING AN ABORTION}
This is an asexual organism, it has runners that will form into a new plant and yet this new plant will have the same DNA as the parent plant. This is an example of two separate things having the same DNA

But that does not change the point I made.
Read highlights....OK. Your example features things that although have DNA, and are alive, are not relavent. You seem to have confused My meaning. I do not mean physically seperate. I mean new and unique. In that vein.

So, maybe I cannot determine how My agrument applies to this example, that in no way prevents Me from determining that the mother and child in the womb are not the same life form. Argument is not mutually exclusive.

It still stands. That does not prove My whole argument. Only that part. But that part was proven, and is an important stepping-stone in finding the Truth on this matter.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67654 wrote:

Now, if I am so foolish as you two claim, why not try answering to My points? I stand by My claim : I answer all posts directed at Me in full. Every one, every point. May not agree, but that's what I do. You don't. Because you can't.

nothing you are claiming can be backed up by anything but this "forbidden truth" that you claim to be in possession of.. if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.. im fine with that.. but your insinuating that the rest of us are stupid is hardly necessary..

and truth be told.. to sit here and answer your posts as fully as you do would be pointless.. you're arguments are hardly relevent.. there is no reason to respond to everything you say because you have nothing to back what you say.. except this "forbidden truth".. i just throw most of what you post out of my mind.. it's ridiculous... and here you are talking about a truth.. that no one knows about but you.. yet you wont explain what it is.. because if you do that then it would-
QUOTE from TRAVIS. (from the top of my head.. but i'll find it if i have to)"prove you wrong about the 99.9999999% of humanity being unaware of it"...
that's retarded.:rollinglaugh:

2 Replies

@mimidamnit,

Reply to mimidamnit
Quote:
Originally stated by Seer Travis Truman :
"Now, if I am so foolish as you two claim, why not try answering to My points? I stand by My claim : I answer all posts directed at Me in full. Every one, every point. May not agree, but that's what I do. You don't. Because you can't. "

nothing you are claiming can be backed up by anything but this "forbidden truth"
Totally incorrect. The Forbidden Truths are all 100% concrete, pure, and factually based. For example : The abortion debate. I see you visit My posts there. I actually provide the approprite evidence and rational arguments as I personally see fit to reveal to you in My True Reality. Therefore, your claim that nothing I say is backed up is false.

Ironically, nothing you say to Me has ever been "backed-up".

but your insinuating that the rest of us are stupid is hardly necessary..
I have never said you were stupid. Truth-recognition and embracement ability has nothing to do with intellect. I already revealed that.

and truth be told..
You are not capable of this awesome ability.

to sit here and answer your posts as fully as you do would be pointless.. you're arguments are hardly relevent.. there is no reason to respond to everything you say because you have nothing to back what you say.. except this "forbidden truth".. i just throw most of what you post out of my mind.. it's ridiculous...

The real reason why you throw the Truth out of your mind is because part of your sub-conscious mind ultimately knows, on some level, that it IS the Truth. And you cannot bear the Truth, it is too much for you.

and here you are talking about a truth.. that no one knows about but you..

Look, do not reply to My posts again unless you read the material. You dont currently read and think about the answers. I suspect this is a "social" excercise for you. I have recently answered the "no one knows but you" self-deluding statement. I have never claimed I am the only one who has access to the Truth.

yet you wont explain what it is..
It is not a case that I will not explain it to you. I explain portions of the Forbidden Truth as I see fit. It is a case that I cannot explain it to you. I can tell you the Forbidden Truth, and you can try to look at your Reality and see what it means to you. But you can't do that. You can't handle the Truth.

because if you do that then it would-
QUOTE from TRAVIS. (from the top of my head.. but i'll find it if i have to)"prove you wrong about the 99.9999999% of humanity being unaware of it"... that's retarded.

I can reveal what the FT is. That is no problem, should I choose to do so.
The problem lies with the Truth that virtually no human can recognise it, even when presented with it on a platter. This is because society attacked and destroyed both your natural love for Truth and ability to recognise same. This alone proves you are a tortured victim-creation of your malevolent and lie-based society.

If you personally recognised the Truth, it would not matter. Only if a significant portion of humans could understand Me, would the principal percentage of 99.99999% be violated.
It is extremely important that this has never happened at any time after human societies formed. What would the consequences be?
The consequences would be : proof, beyond any doubt, that the Forbidden Truth was incorrect. There could be no "re-hashing" of the Forbidden Truth, no changes made to restore FT integrity, because that MUST be kept at a constant 100% purity. Besides death, this is the worst single thing that could happen to Me. Fortunately, this is impossible.

0 Replies

@mimidamnit,

Seriously, can you trim your responses travis?

For every sentence I write you write a paragraph response. I do not have the time nor the patience to go through all of this. I made one post and you made three posts in response.

I will respond to important points.

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67664 wrote:

To presume that there are types of clone that are perfect DNA copies, there is more to the clone than its underlying sequence of the gene itself. There are ways that they are expressed (and can be diff even with identical DNA), the number of copies...and so on.

Besides, clones are not formed in the womb.

Clones BY DEFINITION, are identical in DNA.

Clone Definition | Definition of Clone at Dictionary.com

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67665 wrote:

Reply to Fatal Freedoms:

.OK. Your example features things that although have DNA, and are alive, are not relavent. You seem to have confused My meaning. I do not mean physically seperate. I mean new and unique. In that vein.

Separation is a physical condition.

Quote:

So, maybe I cannot determine how My agrument applies to this example, that in no way prevents Me from determining that the mother and child in the womb are not the same life form.

Because you are tailoring your standard to fit your presupposition.

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Response to Fatal Freedoms

Seriously, can you trim your responses travis?I can, but I wont. I will use the required amount of space I see fit to answer the questions.

For every sentence I write you write a paragraph response. I do not have the time nor the patience to go through all of this. I made one post and you made three posts in response.

Perhaps, then, you can not make so many posts and think more about the idea in between. Then, you will hopefully and finally see you are both wrong and hiding from the fact you have lost the argument.

I will respond to important points.
OK. ALL My points are important.

Clones BY DEFINITION, are identical in DNA.

Clones do not have identical DNA. This is a fallacy promoted by society.
The definition was written at a time when even twins were still thought to have identical DNA. As you remember from previous posts, even Identical Twins don't have the same DNA.
Cloning works the same way as natural clones, or identical twins.

Clones may have exact copied genetic sequences, but there are more to DNA than exact DNA sequences. Most tyes, if not all, have exact copies of the DNA gene sequence, but it is not a copy of the entirety of the DNA of the original.

However, I do not see the relavency. Lets drop the idea that both have the same DNA. It need not come into this. I know what you are trying to do : You are suggesting that because something has DNA,that in itself does not mean it is alive or a new life form. I got that the first time. I understood. It is just your answer is not supported by anything, and goes against the evidence.

QUOTE Seer TT:
"OK. Your example features things that although have DNA, and are alive, are not relavent. You seem to have confused My meaning. I do not mean physically seperate. I mean new and unique. In that vein. "

Separation is a physical condition.
By your use of the word in your context, yes. But My point is I don't use it in the same context as you do. Put your dictionary down, stop the semantics.
In these posts, when I say "seperate" I mean a unique and new life-form. I explained that above. Stop the semantic games, and we will cut down on the post sizes.

Seer TT : "So, maybe I cannot determine how My agrument applies to this example, that in no way prevents Me from determining that the mother and child in the womb are not the same life form. "

Because you are tailoring your standard to fit your presupposition.
Wrong. Because your example has nothing to do with My example. That is why. It is like :
Me saying "your hair has DNA." -you try to refuete a FACT thus-
You reply "buildings do not have DNA. Your answer does not fit everything. Thats a special pleading fallacy."
But I never mentioned buildings. That is what it is like arguing with you. If we all did that, where would we be?

THE REASON YOU WONT ANSWER AT LENGTH IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG. Just like you were wrong about DNA in twins.

What reasoning, suppoerted by evidence, leads you to your conclusion that despite DNA testing proving that the fertilised egg and the mother have completely different DNA, they are the one and exact same life form?

Surely even you can see by now that it cannot be the ase that they are BOTH the one and same life form -AND- be two life-forms?
Only My version is supported by evidence. If that evidence was used in a different argument, surely you would have accepted it?

(1) You admit it is human :
Fatal Freedoms : "The only thing human about a fertilized egg is that it has human DNA"

**I know what you are saying. You say that other things are required in addition to DNA to make it human. Then list them and provide the evidence as to what they are and why it is that they are magically not present in humans in the womb.**

(2) Is the "foetus", as you call it, alive? Yes or no. Dont tell Me whether some plant you found is alive or not. Dont show Me a dead plant and try and tell Me that not all DNA life forms are always alive and that is a "special pleading fallacy". IS IT ALIVE? Yes or No.
(FYI, supporting abortion and then being pro death penalty etc is a special pleading fallacy.)

(3) DNA PROVES WOMB TRAPPED CHILD<>Mother
Just because a DNA match can show two samples are the same, does not mean it can ALSO show two samples are different.

Here is YOUR "special pleading fallacy" : Every single example shows that the hair..lugs etc. that are parts of the same person have THE SAME DNA. RIGHT? There are NO EXAMPLES of any part of a human body that has different DNA to the rest. Thats how cops can catch you from your DNA.
No one ever has a part (say fingernail) that has someone ELSE'S DNA.

So how come the two DNA samples are so different? Because they are from two unique living organisms. Thats just logical.

If there is some special exception to this rule, then state your agument, reasoning that lead you to this argument, and the evidence to support it.

You have none of these.

1 Reply

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67721 wrote:

Response to Fatal Freedoms

Seriously, can you trim your responses travis?I can, but I wont. I will use the required amount of space I see fit to answer the questions.

Well, then you're gonna have to be patient with my responses. I will get to them when I get to them.

Quote:

Clones BY DEFINITION, are identical in DNA.

Clones do not have identical DNA. This is a fallacy promoted by society.
The definition was written at a time when even twins were still thought to have identical DNA. As you remember from previous posts, even Identical Twins don't have the same DNA.
Cloning works the same way as natural clones, or identical twins.

Clones may have exact copied genetic sequences, but there are more to DNA than exact DNA sequences. Most tyes, if not all, have exact copies of the DNA gene sequence, but it is not a copy of the entirety of the DNA of the original.

You can't really argue this. Clones having an exact copy of DNA is self-evident. It is true by definition. that is, even if you find a clone without exact DNA copy, then by definition it isn't a clone.

Your assumption that clones do have different DNA even although it is still wrong by definition, but there is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence to support this. You're assuming future evidence will support that notion, this a a logical fallacy.

Quote:

Separation is a physical condition.
By your use of the word in your context, yes. But My point is I don't use it in the same context as you do. Put your dictionary down, stop the semantics.

No. I will not put my dictionary down. The whole reason I use the dictionary is so that you can't argue semantics, the dictionary decides who is correct, without it you will adopt whatever definition suits your agenda.

Quote:

In these posts, when I say "seperate" I mean a unique and new life-form.

That's not what you said. I've never argued that a fertilized egg wasn't new or unique, to be honest it's irrelevant. Being new or unique does not mean it's human or that it deserves life.

Seer TT : "So, maybe I cannot determine how My agrument applies to this example, that in no way prevents Me from determining that the mother and child in the womb are not the same life form. "

Quote:

THE REASON YOU WONT ANSWER AT LENGTH IS BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU ARE WRONG. Just like you were wrong about DNA in twins.

No, because I don't want to spend an hour responding to everything you say. Believe it or not I have more important things to do, I still need to get ready for my courses of higher education.

Quote:

(1) You admit it is human :
Fatal Freedoms : "The only thing human about a fertilized egg is that it has human DNA"

**I know what you are saying. You say that other things are required in addition to DNA to make it human. Then list them and provide the evidence as to what they are and why it is that they are magically not present in humans in the womb.**

BABY:

-A beating heart
-A brain
-Memory
-A body
-Ability to feel pain

etc...

Quote:

(2) Is the "foetus", as you call it, alive? Yes or no.

Zygote or embryo =/= fetus

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms:

Quote from FF : "Identical twins have the same DNA, so do you not consider them to be separate life forms because of that?"

"But what we found are changes on the genetic level, the DNA sequence itself." FROM :

Seer TT : Identical Twins Don't Have Same DNA - AOL Health

WRONG ! Remember that?

The principal with clones and twins from split cells is the same, and the actual scientific community says so. Although the DNA seq. in clones may be identical, what you have ignored is the fact that cloning does not replecata all the properties of the original, just like in the twins example you were wrong about. Research it...here is some research :

"That's because there's also an epigenetic code, which combines nature and nurture. It's written by proteins and other chemical structures that surround or attach to DNA and determine how the code is read - hiding some stretches and exposing others."

"When compared to their originals, "clones are genetically identical, but epigenetically they are quite different," said biologist Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass."

So we can TELL THEM APART BECAUSE OF THE DNA ETC. THATS THE RELAVENT POINT, IDENTIFICATION. NOT HOW WE MAKE THAT IDENTIFICATION.

There is plenty of reaserch available that will INFORM you that identical DNA sequences are not always complete, or have different copy numbers etc. etc. etc. etc.

WRONG !!!

What does it matter anyway? You dont have ANY REASON why you keep mentioning DNA likeness/matches except to change the subject and take the focus of your pathetic blunders by hiding them behind screens of posts. I will repost them until you answer them.

FF : "Clones, by definition have identical DNA".I said clones have differnces in DNA (I specified not necc. the DNA seq.), or words to that effect. The idea being the ACTUAL clones, NOT the words in your dictionary, which is probably outdated now anyway.

Previously from Seer TT : "The definition was written at a time when even twins were still thought to have identical DNA." GOT IT?

IDEA BEING :- Just because your dictionary defines a word a certain way, does not mean IT IS RIGHT OR APPLIES TO THE WHOLE SUBJECT IN THE REAL WORLD! (Sementics is what you are playing at, depite your insane attempts to reverse it onto Me).

By your logic, the above study is wrong: Mockery of FF : "Geee.err. My dictionary says that Identical twins are identical in DNA, so by definition the new study is wrong. STOP USING SEMANTICS SEER!"

OR "My really old dictionary defines the world as flat. They must be wrong to say the world is round, because the world is defined as flat in My dictionary".
Amazing.

SO : Quote FF : "You can't really argue this. Clones having an exact copy of DNA is self-evident. It is true by definition. that is, even if you find a clone without exact DNA copy, then by definition it isn't a clone."

But YOUR rambling argument relies on the definition and existance of clones, not mine.

2 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67784 wrote:

WRONG ! Remember that?

The principal with clones and twins from split cells is the same, and the actual scientific community says so.

You know nothing of the scientific community.

First of all how twins form and how clones form are two completely seperate processes.

Twins can only come from [SIZE="4"]meiosis[/SIZE]

Clones come from [SIZE="4"]mitosis[/SIZE]

Quote:

Although the DNA seq. in clones may be identical, what you have ignored is the fact that cloning does not replecata all the properties of the original, just like in the twins example you were wrong about. Research it...here is some research :

"That's because there's also an epigenetic code, which combines nature and nurture. It's written by proteins and other chemical structures that surround or attach to DNA and determine how the code is read - hiding some stretches and exposing others."

[SIZE="3"]"When compared to their originals, "clones are genetically identical[/SIZE], but epigenetically they are quite different," said biologist Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass."

Um, yeah you just quoted a scientist that said the exact same thing I did.

Thanks for supporting my point.

epigenetic differences =/= DNA differences

:rollinglaugh:

You're fighting a losing battle.

Quote:

So we can TELL THEM APART BECAUSE OF THE DNA ETC. THATS THE RELAVENT POINT, IDENTIFICATION. NOT HOW WE MAKE THAT IDENTIFICATION.

Not according to the scientist you just quoted. He said the difference in clones is not genetic, but rather what they look like (epigenetic).

swing and miss.

Quote:

There is plenty of reaserch available that will INFORM you that identical DNA sequences are not always complete, or have different copy numbers etc. etc. etc. etc.

In clones?

Wasn't it you that said that we will never have fingernail or hair that has different DNA than us?

Well, clones have the same DNA for the same reason our hair and fingernails have the same DNA, mitosis. It's the same process involved in both.

WRONG !!!

Quote:

What does it matter anyway? You dont have ANY REASON why you keep mentioning DNA likeness/matches except to change the subject and take the focus of your pathetic blunders by hiding them behind screens of posts. I will repost them until you answer them.

RECAP...

You said that something must have different DNA to be a separate entity, so I provide examples of this not being true.

FF : "Clones, by definition have identical DNA".

I said clones have differnces in DNA

and you are wrong and I explained why you are wrong:

[SIZE="2"]Wasn't it you that said that we will never have fingernail or hair that has different DNA than us?

Well, clones have the same DNA for the same reason our hair and fingernails have the same DNA, mitosis. It's the same process involved in both.[/SIZE]

Quote:

Previously from Seer TT : "The definition was written at a time when even twins were still thought to have identical DNA." GOT IT?

The definition of twin does not specify having the same DNA

Quote:

IDEA BEING :- Just because your dictionary defines a word a certain way, does not mean IT IS RIGHT OR APPLIES TO THE WHOLE SUBJECT IN THE REAL WORLD! (Sementics is what you are playing at, depite your insane attempts to reverse it onto Me).

The dictionary or travis, who am i gonna believe?

Quote:

OR "My really old dictionary defines the world as flat. They must be wrong to say the world is round, because the world is defined as flat in My dictionary".
Amazing.

Which dictionary is this?

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Reply to Fatal Freedoms :

FF : "Separation is a physical condition."

By your use of the word in your context, yes. But My point is I don't use it in the same context as you do. Put your dictionary down, stop the semantics. In the WAY IT WAS USED, it was possible to asscertain what I meant:
NOT 1) the baby in the womb is physically seperate from the mother
BUT 2) The baby is a seperate (or new or unique) life form.

No. I will not put my dictionary down. The whole reason I use the dictionary is so that you can't argue semantics, the dictionary decides who is correct, without it you will adopt whatever definition suits your agenda.
I just proved that is what you do. I DID define and inform you that I was not using the word your way. So how can I adopt different definitions? I dont CHANGE My definition, I just use a different definition. Seperation = new = different etc. GO BACK AND LOOK IT UP THE OLD POSTS.

I will ask the moderator about this issue if you continue. It is obviously you who is tring to argue incesantly about semantics that dont effect the point in focus.

{taken from FF last post :
Previous Seer TT : "In these posts, when I say "seperate" I mean a unique and new life-form."

FF : That's not what you said.
AND YET YOU JUST QUOTED ME SAYING IT!!!!!!!! }

I've never argued that a fertilized egg wasn't new or unique, to be honest it's irrelevant.
It is relavent to the issue of abortion. You support abortion :
"I think abortion is acceptable until a certain developmental point in the pregnancy."

Being new or unique does not mean it's human or that it deserves life.
I did not say it did. I presented DNA evidence to that effect, and you cannot answer to it. The DNA research proved that the so-called fetrtiliased egg, feotus, baby and adult (All four are a human life form) have :
A) NEW DNA
B) Diff. DNA to the host/mother
C) Human DNA

You said you accepted the validility of DNA testing. These are the scientific findings, based on 100% concrete DNA evidence.

Your conclusion? Its not human? Because your dictionary definition does not match the scientific studies?

You say that "does not mean it derserves life", almost like you think life has to prove itself to you personally before it can have a right to life.

Fatal Freedoms : BABY:
-A beating heart
-A brain
-Memory
-A body
-Ability to feel pain

etc...
Um.....these are FEATURES of the life form, not a definition of life itself.

Anyway, you missed one...HUMAN DNA.
Just because a baby has a heart, and a earlier developing form does not, does not suggest in any way that it is not human. IT ONLY MEANS THE EARLIER FORM IS NOT A HUMAN "BABY" UNDER YOUR DICTIONARY DEFINITION. IT DOES NOT MEAN A "FOETUS" OR FERT-EGG IS NOT HUMAN. They are all human. They are all STAGES of the SAME developing life form.

See? Semantics all the way.

DONT REPLY UNLESS YOU STOP THE NONSENSE.

4 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

TO Fatal Freedoms :

First of all how twins form and how clones form are two completely seperate processes.

That is not the point. The point was you are wrong about the twins being identical. So stop pretending you know about genetics and DNA. You said that "you are confused and unclear" ... the next ninute you are some expert. Why listen to you?

Twins can only come from meiosis
Does not matter where they come from.
They are nothing to do with the validility of the DNA tests that prove My point.

Twins and clones are nothing to do with this. Scientific DNA testing is able to determine DNA identificiation. They say it is human. Remember when they got that guy in the swamp...they tested his DNA to identify his species. What is the species of life in the womb that a HUMAN has...that is born HUMAN? Wait....its a human species. DNA testing works.

It is not the Q I have asked you the last 20 posts or so. You are mentally ill. Literally. My argument has NOTHING to do with clones. It has NOTHING to do with twins. It has to do with a DNA scientific test that determines it is a living human organism that is NOT the mother/host.

THIS IS THE QUESTION PUT TO YOU :
"An embryo, no matter how undeveloped, is living. A DNA test can easily prove that it is a human species life form, and distinct from the mother/host. So if it is living and human, by what objective definition does it not constitute a human life?"
There. DO you believe in science and DNA or not? Yes or no? In other scenarios, you are all too happy to use DNA Identity testing. Are you saying that whether science and DNA testing works is subjective to every topic?

A Mother's child is the womb (At any stage)

A) It is alive.....CHECK
B) It is not part of the mother's body.....CHECK
C) It is human....DOING DNA TEST to conform the obvious common-sense answer.....CHECK
BING!

From your evolution discussion with Carico (Who you are barely better than) :
FF : "No it couldn't. Each bone would have the DNA of the animal it came from. The DNA would not mix, the only way you can get NEW DNA is with a new animal.
Here you support DNA species testing.
So if, as YOU say, "The only way to get new DNA is with a new animal", and DNA tests show a foetus/fert. egg/wombtrapped child has human DNA, then there can be no other explanation except that it IS human. Surely?

Fatal Freedoms (I add underlined section): "The only thing human about a fertilized egg is that it has human DNA, but so does my hair, perhaps barbers should be convicted of crimes against humanity for mass murder"

Check Your human hair :
A) It is alive....maybe for a short period.
B) It is not part of the same life-form BUZZ! DNA match (as well as plain common sense) shows it was a part of your body. Not somebody else. Oh, so it wasn't a distinct lifeform.

FF: The dictionary or travis, who am i gonna believe?
How about neither. Thats what I have been explaining to you all along. Believe the logic, reasoning and DNA scientific evidence. Don't believe them? Ask them to do a DNA test just for you.

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67789 wrote:

I will ask the moderator about this issue if you continue. It is obviously you who is tring to argue incesantly about semantics that dont effect the point in focus.

:rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh::rollinglaugh:

I am the moderator! Very Happy

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

TRAVIS: There is plenty of reaserch available that will INFORM you that identical DNA sequences are not always complete, or have different copy numbers etc. etc. etc. etc.

In clones?

Wasn't it you that said that we will never have fingernail or hair that has different DNA than us?

Well, clones have the same DNA for the same reason our hair and fingernails have the same DNA, mitosis. It's the same process involved in both.

-----------

You missed this one :thumbup:

0 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

Seer Travis Truman;67789 wrote:

Fatal Freedoms : BABY:
-A beating heart
-A brain
-Memory
-A body
-Ability to feel pain

etc...
Um.....these are FEATURES of the life form, not a definition of life itself.

Actually it is neither. Lots of lifeforms don't have a beating heart or a brain.

The definition of life is the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.

The list I gave was of the differences between a clump of human cells and a baby.

We as humans are more than our mere Deoxyribonucleic acid. Why is one cell more deserving of life than all other cells simply because of the arrangement of it's base pairs?

Is humanity limited to an ACTG combination?

1 Reply

@Fatal Freedoms,

TO : Fatal Freedoms

I am the moderator!
OK.

In clones?
Yep. Maybe not in the way or sense you expect. However, clones are not the subject. Why do you keep bringing up clones? Even if we agreed they are 100% identical in every way (DNA or not), you have not explained how this invalidates DNA testing of identity and species.

You seem to accept DNA testing of identity and species in other debates. It is just not consistant.

Wasn't it you that said that we will never have fingernail or hair that has different DNA than us?
You are the master of mis-interpretation. That is out of context. That was supposed to tell you "all our cells and body parts share the same DNA". So, the womb-trapped human life-form can be shown not to be a part of the mother's body.

Well, clones have the same DNA for the same reason our hair and fingernails have the same DNA, mitosis. It's the same process involved in both.
In the way you use the word same, that may be right. It is not the correctness of you knowledge I challenge, but it's meaning and relavency to the question.

Originally stated by Fatal Freedoms
: BABY:
-A beating heart
-A brain
-Memory
-A body
-Ability to feel pain
etc...
Seer TT : "Um.....these are FEATURES of the life form, not a definition of life itself."

Actually it is neither. Lots of lifeforms don't have a beating heart or a brain.
Context, FF, context. I meant a human life-form. Your heading said "baby"...that's what I quoted. Dont try and lie now. You were talking a human and so was I. I dont have to be that specific. You are not stupid.We both know it was not a hippopotamus baby.

The definition of life is the sum of the distinguishing phenomena of organisms, esp. metabolism, growth, reproduction, and adaptation to environment.
That a definition, not the definition.
I think that a womb-trapped child has all of these, FF.

The list I gave was of the differences between a clump of human cells and a baby.
What you do NOT provide is what I have been asking for. Exactly HOW do these differences mean that it is not human, as you keep claiming? I already produced evidence to support My facts. It's human. Common sense also says it is human, it comes from a human, DNA says it is human, you admit it grows into a human, there is no massive mutation involved in the DNA. What else can we conclude?

There are people without limbs, for example. Are these people in a different catagory of life than people who can walk about? NO!

We as humans are more than our mere Deoxyribonucleic acid.
Yes, that is correct. But we are also never less than human DNA. Human DNA is the one common thing we all share, that no other life-form has.

I notice that you did not address My points in post # 55. I know what this is about. You want to say "humans dont have a right to life. Only citizens of society who obey the law have rights".

2 Replies

@Seer Travis Truman,

I will try a new approach :

If I cut My fingernail off, and it was scientificaly tested to have human DNA, and you chopped My fingernail in half, could you be legitimately accused of the murder of human life?

The Forbidden Truth dictates : no. You are correct. That is not where My argument lies.

Problem : DNA testing is not the only indicator here. Maybe you have been looking at these arguments seperately. Looking at the combined effect is another matter. (The idea being the total is not the sums of the parts).

For example. Common sense. We are talking about a natural process here. There is no way, that despite DNA testing of identity and species, that I, or any genetic scientists, would or could ever fail to tell the difference between a fingernail-clipping and a woman's womb-trapped child.

Look at the practicality. It is not just DNA alone.

A) Common sense in that - The mother is human, all offspring are the same species as the mother, therefore her offspring is human.
B) DNA scientific testing of species.
C) DNA scientific testing of identity to determine that the mother is not the same life as the human womb-trapped life-form.
D) Common sense in that - In addition to DNA testing, we are able to eliminate other possibilities such as fingernails, hairs etc.

Your argument:
E) My dictionary/personal definition of the word human (no practicle value, the word was only able to be defined because the subject it refered to existed first) does not match.

Your finger nail example versus more than one point at once:
A) Does not refute a. A holds. E not relevant.
B) Both B and E hold.
C) C holds. E FAILS!!! The DNA of the nail matches the host. However, this is not enough for you due to the twins/clones example. (And I still assert that twins are disinishable and these "lab clones" are not the result of pregnancies)

D) FAIL!!!! I am sorry, there is a simple test that your fingernail clipping/murder concept does not pass : My own eyeballs. Common Sense.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know