|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:54 am
Legal definition of a person and the biological definition of a person are different. Legal definition (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. (b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section. I watched House M.D. last night. This episode was about a guy with chimerism. Then I thought... this could apply to the abortion debate. Chimerism is when someone has 2 DNA's. Instead of being conjoined twins, which are given 2 separate identities, why is this any different for those with chimerism? Instead of it being 2 visible bodies, it is actually 1 person as 2 people. 2 different zygotes were responsible for development of 1 person. What I am trying to state is that personhood isn't as blatant as a visible person. I'm trying to expand on this before I put this in my Pro-life thread in the ED. Any thoughts? Chimerism is actually VERY interesting. I did some research on it just a bit ago. Someone could give birth but the child wouldn't have any of their DNA. So legally, the child isn't theirs gonk
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:16 pm
It sound interesting. You could.
The one thing you said made me think of something I read in a book last summer. About how if you put a Chinese embryo into someone who is Frenchand they give birth to it won't make the child be French but they would still be Chinese. Maybe I'm not making sence it made prefect in the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:29 pm
Chimerism is really neat. Discovery Health had a show on it a while back and it just blew my mind.
Chimeras only have on consciousness though. They may have two sets of DNA, but that doesn't mean they are actually two people. Otherwise you'd also have to argue that identical twins are really only one person since they have the same DNA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:03 pm
Ava R. Chimerism is really neat. Discovery Health had a show on it a while back and it just blew my mind.
Chimeras only have on consciousness though. They may have two sets of DNA, but that doesn't mean they are actually two people. Otherwise you'd also have to argue that identical twins are really only one person since they have the same DNA. In the episode of House M.D., the guy had 2 consciouses. One person was the normal kid, the other one was someone with a memory of being abducted by aliens. It wasn't dissociative identity disorder xd They said it was chimerism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:20 pm
My Conscience Ava R. Chimerism is really neat. Discovery Health had a show on it a while back and it just blew my mind.
Chimeras only have on consciousness though. They may have two sets of DNA, but that doesn't mean they are actually two people. Otherwise you'd also have to argue that identical twins are really only one person since they have the same DNA. In the episode of House M.D., the guy had 2 consciouses. One person was the normal kid, the other one was someone with a memory of being abducted by aliens. It wasn't dissociative identity disorder xd They said it was chimerism. afaik, that doesn't actually happen. I love House, but the writers can get a bit ludicrous... stare I think you'd have more legal issues with conjoined twins who don't completely separate, like, share a whole torso or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 7:27 pm
My Conscience Ava R. Chimerism is really neat. Discovery Health had a show on it a while back and it just blew my mind.
Chimeras only have on consciousness though. They may have two sets of DNA, but that doesn't mean they are actually two people. Otherwise you'd also have to argue that identical twins are really only one person since they have the same DNA. In the episode of House M.D., the guy had 2 consciouses. One person was the normal kid, the other one was someone with a memory of being abducted by aliens. It wasn't dissociative identity disorder xd They said it was chimerism.
Um...yeah, that's...TV for you, I guess. xd In the show I watched, the different DNA wasn't actually in all parts of their bodies. One woman the only place they could actually find the DNA was in her ovaries (which is why her children were coming up tested as not her children).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:14 pm
La Veuve Zin My Conscience Ava R. Chimerism is really neat. Discovery Health had a show on it a while back and it just blew my mind.
Chimeras only have on consciousness though. They may have two sets of DNA, but that doesn't mean they are actually two people. Otherwise you'd also have to argue that identical twins are really only one person since they have the same DNA. In the episode of House M.D., the guy had 2 consciouses. One person was the normal kid, the other one was someone with a memory of being abducted by aliens. It wasn't dissociative identity disorder xd They said it was chimerism. afaik, that doesn't actually happen. I love House, but the writers can get a bit ludicrous... stare I think you'd have more legal issues with conjoined twins who don't completely separate, like, share a whole torso or something like that. Unless... a certain lobes of the brain was made by the second zygote and the rest was made by another o.O Sometimes when people have chimerism, one of th zygotes formed the female sex organs and the other one formed male emotions (maybe the brain or sex chemicals released) xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:40 pm
This whole topic reminds me of that movie "Twin Falls, Idaho".
In it, there's a pair of twins who invite a hooker to their hotel room on their birthday, and they're connected by the torso. One of them isn't getting the right nutrients, because more of the organs are functioning for the other brother. But if one dies, what happens then?
It's a good movie. I think in real life, you'd have one ******** up legal case.
I know I'm off topic. So what? I'm allowed to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 7:13 pm
Mcphee
In it, there's a pair of twins who invite a hooker to their hotel room on their birthday, and they're connected by the torso. One of them isn't getting the right nutrients, because more of the organs are functioning for the other brother. But if one dies, what happens then?Conjoined twins, especially in that kind of situation, are usually separated before they have a say in the matter. I can't think of a way to say how I'd probably come to feel about a twin sister who went everywhere with me except...attached. gonk Even to the point of wanting to do anything for her, even if I were suffering for it. I don't think I'd ever see my twin as a parasite at all, just like even if I were pregnant and didn't want to be, I'd still feel a psychological attachment to the fetus. Blood is thicker than water to me, and I couldn't bring myself to hurt a member of my family. Though I have a couple of aunts I'd like to slap sometimes... stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:08 am
I don't really see this as all that interesting an addition to the debate. When conception occurs there are hormones released by the zygote so that the mother's body doesn't attack it because it's a foreign object.
Yes someone might have two sets of DNA however the DNA is not a completely seperate entity like the fetus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:10 pm
Beware the Jabberwock I don't really see this as all that interesting an addition to the debate. When conception occurs there are hormones released by the zygote so that the mother's body doesn't attack it because it's a foreign object.
Yes someone might have two sets of DNA however the DNA is not a completely seperate entity like the fetus. Pro-choicers insist that people should onlybe protected, not homo sapiens. I'm just trying to prove how ambiguous the term person is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:23 pm
I guess the term person is ambiguous. The government has yet to take a stand on whether or not a fetus counts as a person and therefore citizen. Until then, we can't put into action our beliefs that as citizens, their right to life be observed.
But I think it's safe to say that if you looked at any single person on the street - every sex, race, ethnicity, size, and shape - it would be impossible to deny that that person was a fetus once. Take a full-grown human being and rewind his life span. At one point does he cease to be a person? When he becomes a fetus? Does it logically follow that if all people were fetusus, all fetuses will be people? They will if we don't kill them off.
As a former fetus, I am opposed to abortion. 4laugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:55 am
damn, give this person a medal! heart
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:16 am
The choicers would probably agree with you to some degree on this however, as they believe that personhood is based on your personality and all the fun stuff. Where as the common pro-life belief is that EVERY human is a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:06 am
Beware the Jabberwock The choicers would probably agree with you to some degree on this however, as they believe that personhood is based on your personality and all the fun stuff. Where as the common pro-life belief is that EVERY human is a person. I believe everyone human is a person. Pro-choicers believe the legal definition of person isn't ambiguous when it is crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
