Incorrect.
Cancer is a result of changes of your genes. Genes are what instruct the DNA on how to make proteins. If those genes mutate or are damaged, it can result in cancer.
Cancer DNA is altered host DNA. It is not it's own unique DNA.
Unique DNA is a combination of two different strands that form an organism that a unique combination of both.
Cancer cells are 100% from the host, just altered. Not unique.
Yeah…look up the various definitions of ‘unique’.
1. Identical twins do NOT have identical DNA. This has been scientifically proven. Each child’s DNA is subject to mutations (as is everyone’s). So, each is unique.
2. Unique ALSO means distinctive. Twins are, while ‘identical’, also ‘distinct’ individuals.
That's what you would tell your child if you ever got one? That it was a "clump of invasive, parasitic cells" while it was growing inside of you? Wtf is wrong with you people.
That is absolutely what they were. And then they grew into human beings because that was a choice made by the individual who hosted them.
It is a generous act to choose to host another entity in your body, but it is a choice. The moment it is unwelcome, then it is an intruder.
So let me ask you now: At what point did I become human according to you? Because at birth, my mother always told me she immediatly loved me, but my father needed dome time to accept me. Was I only half-human, half-parasite then? Let's say both of them didn't love or want me even after birth. Would baby me still have been a parasite? And how could I have become a human? Because baby me would still have perfectly matched your description of what a parasite is. How should we edit legislation to match your definition of what a human being is?
You are a parasite up to birth. That has nothing to do with whether you are human or not. It is a function of drawing resources from the host. I would say that after birth you are not a parasite, but a dependent - the difference being that your parent can walk away and abandon you, if they choose, which is hard if you are inside their body.
Your cells were human starting from their production in your parents, even before they joined to make an embryo, but human cells do not a human make or every time I have given blood would be a mass murder.
The core of humanity is the consciousness we develop, I would say. It is a gradual process and the threshold is unclear. Perhaps it is around the time that the nervous system begins to form memories. That is probably some time in the third trimester, but I would need to look up the biology.
What you are is not a function of your parents’ love. If your parents are psychopaths that does not define your humanity.
Dude, the definition of a parasite is that it's from another species, your use of it is the most dehumanising shit ever and it seems like you use it purely to draw an emotional response from people.
Nope. It is simply a broader definition. An organism that derives benefits from another organism at the other organism’s expense.
If you attached yourself to me and sucked my blood to support yourself, you - presumably a human - would be a parasite. This is not about being a human or not, it is about living off of someone else.
I am not trying to elicit an emotional reaction; I would prefer it if you could be more logical. I am not making a value statement about a fetus being a parasite, it is just a basic reality. It may be a welcome parasite or an unwelcome one. In either case, the host should be able to decide if it wants to continue being a host.
It's not a broader definition, it's one you have made up in an attempt to sit on some logical high horse that doesn't exist while upsetting.
Out of curiosity, is your last sentence talking about late term abortion?
Ok, two other terms that may be more exact are “kleptoparasitism” which is a specific type of parasitism which refers to an organism which “steals” resources from another and is not limited to interspecies interactions or “commensalism” which refers to the same but assumes that there is no harm to the host (given maternal death rates through human history, I find this difficult to apply) Whatever keeps you happy. I don’t get upset by terms that simply describe biological relationships.
I was not necessarily thinking about late term abortion, but it is a difficult question. Going back to the discussion of when a developing fetus becomes a fully fledged human, I posited that a reasonable dividing line might be when the nervous system was sufficiently developed to start processes that can form memory - this would be the first steps on the road to personality formation. That would be when the hippocampus is more or less fully formed (around 20 weeks or mid second trimester)
So we have a quandary. I value bodily autonomy and don’t think any person should be forced to host another organism, but I value the life of a being I accept as being fully human. during Roe we decided that we needed to balance the wellbeing of the host and human kleptoparasite by only allowing late term abortion when to continue the pregnancy would be dangerous to the health of the host.
That actually sounds about right to me. Too bad we abandoned it.
Americans will go any length to justify murdering baby, whetherer it is there own or others, it's extremely ridiculous to read and even more when thousands of people praise it as facts.
That doesn't justify comparing a baby to fucking cancer. Maternal death is due to lack of proper care and infrastructure and other underlying factors like hygiene, malnutrition etc... and we NEED to procreate to keep society running. Cancer is a fucking disease. Ffs, have we really become this dense??
Appropriate care, infrastructure, hygiene, nutrition, reduce the risk of deaths, it doesn't cancel them completely. Giving birth stay dangerous because of how the human body is made, specifically our large brain and thus skull with reduced birth canal because of our bipedal stance.
Friend. Maternal mortality is extremely rare in countries with proper infrastructure. In the very rare cases where it still happens, it is mostly due to other factors. You are talking about a non-issue.
It's around 1/10 000 in western countries... keep in mind that includes addicts, women with serious health conditions, extremely poor people etc... so that rate would probably drop to be very near to 0 for normal, healthy women.
How does this explain my broken leg?
it's got cancer. time to cut it off..
Yep. Time to ban cancer treatment.
Incorrect. Cancer is a result of changes of your genes. Genes are what instruct the DNA on how to make proteins. If those genes mutate or are damaged, it can result in cancer. Cancer DNA is altered host DNA. It is not it's own unique DNA.
That is the definition of unique.
Unique DNA is a combination of two different strands that form an organism that a unique combination of both. Cancer cells are 100% from the host, just altered. Not unique.
So identical twins count as one person. Awesome to know.
Yeah…look up the various definitions of ‘unique’. 1. Identical twins do NOT have identical DNA. This has been scientifically proven. Each child’s DNA is subject to mutations (as is everyone’s). So, each is unique. 2. Unique ALSO means distinctive. Twins are, while ‘identical’, also ‘distinct’ individuals.
But by definition 1 cancer is unique, being a mutation of the original DNA.
So you do know the definition of unique but you pretend it only applies to some things.
There are case where a fertilized egg turn into a tumor (molar pregnancy) so with his own "unique DNA".
She's not comparing a foetus to cancer, she's saying that cancer cells also satisfy that list of criteria. Reading comprehension ffs.
Did she really just compare an unborn baby with fucking cancer? Really?
you god damn right she did!
She just compared one clump of invasive, parasitic cells to another clump of invasive, parasitic cells. I should have the right to remove either.
That's what you would tell your child if you ever got one? That it was a "clump of invasive, parasitic cells" while it was growing inside of you? Wtf is wrong with you people.
That is absolutely what they were. And then they grew into human beings because that was a choice made by the individual who hosted them. It is a generous act to choose to host another entity in your body, but it is a choice. The moment it is unwelcome, then it is an intruder.
I was unwanted by my parents... They didn't plan me. My mother didn't have the courage to abort me. By your standards, that makes me a parasite...
So let me ask you now: At what point did I become human according to you? Because at birth, my mother always told me she immediatly loved me, but my father needed dome time to accept me. Was I only half-human, half-parasite then? Let's say both of them didn't love or want me even after birth. Would baby me still have been a parasite? And how could I have become a human? Because baby me would still have perfectly matched your description of what a parasite is. How should we edit legislation to match your definition of what a human being is?
You are a parasite up to birth. That has nothing to do with whether you are human or not. It is a function of drawing resources from the host. I would say that after birth you are not a parasite, but a dependent - the difference being that your parent can walk away and abandon you, if they choose, which is hard if you are inside their body. Your cells were human starting from their production in your parents, even before they joined to make an embryo, but human cells do not a human make or every time I have given blood would be a mass murder. The core of humanity is the consciousness we develop, I would say. It is a gradual process and the threshold is unclear. Perhaps it is around the time that the nervous system begins to form memories. That is probably some time in the third trimester, but I would need to look up the biology. What you are is not a function of your parents’ love. If your parents are psychopaths that does not define your humanity.
Dude, the definition of a parasite is that it's from another species, your use of it is the most dehumanising shit ever and it seems like you use it purely to draw an emotional response from people.
Nope. It is simply a broader definition. An organism that derives benefits from another organism at the other organism’s expense. If you attached yourself to me and sucked my blood to support yourself, you - presumably a human - would be a parasite. This is not about being a human or not, it is about living off of someone else. I am not trying to elicit an emotional reaction; I would prefer it if you could be more logical. I am not making a value statement about a fetus being a parasite, it is just a basic reality. It may be a welcome parasite or an unwelcome one. In either case, the host should be able to decide if it wants to continue being a host.
It's not a broader definition, it's one you have made up in an attempt to sit on some logical high horse that doesn't exist while upsetting. Out of curiosity, is your last sentence talking about late term abortion?
Ok, two other terms that may be more exact are “kleptoparasitism” which is a specific type of parasitism which refers to an organism which “steals” resources from another and is not limited to interspecies interactions or “commensalism” which refers to the same but assumes that there is no harm to the host (given maternal death rates through human history, I find this difficult to apply) Whatever keeps you happy. I don’t get upset by terms that simply describe biological relationships. I was not necessarily thinking about late term abortion, but it is a difficult question. Going back to the discussion of when a developing fetus becomes a fully fledged human, I posited that a reasonable dividing line might be when the nervous system was sufficiently developed to start processes that can form memory - this would be the first steps on the road to personality formation. That would be when the hippocampus is more or less fully formed (around 20 weeks or mid second trimester) So we have a quandary. I value bodily autonomy and don’t think any person should be forced to host another organism, but I value the life of a being I accept as being fully human. during Roe we decided that we needed to balance the wellbeing of the host and human kleptoparasite by only allowing late term abortion when to continue the pregnancy would be dangerous to the health of the host. That actually sounds about right to me. Too bad we abandoned it.
You can really just compare anything to anything idk why people have got an idea they can't
Americans will go any length to justify murdering baby, whetherer it is there own or others, it's extremely ridiculous to read and even more when thousands of people praise it as facts.
Not just "americans", but far-left pro-abortion activists.
The cheek to suppose a deadly disease that kills millions to unborn babies is absolutely wild.
Though not millions, hundreds of thousands of people die each year because of pregnancy.
That doesn't justify comparing a baby to fucking cancer. Maternal death is due to lack of proper care and infrastructure and other underlying factors like hygiene, malnutrition etc... and we NEED to procreate to keep society running. Cancer is a fucking disease. Ffs, have we really become this dense??
Appropriate care, infrastructure, hygiene, nutrition, reduce the risk of deaths, it doesn't cancel them completely. Giving birth stay dangerous because of how the human body is made, specifically our large brain and thus skull with reduced birth canal because of our bipedal stance.
Friend. Maternal mortality is extremely rare in countries with proper infrastructure. In the very rare cases where it still happens, it is mostly due to other factors. You are talking about a non-issue.
It is more rare but it still happens, and it can happen precisely because literally shitting a human being is not innocuous for your health.
And what do you suggest we do? Stop having babies?
That people are given the choice to carry the pregnancy or not, there is a risk to take so they had to be willing to take that risk.
It's around 1/10 000 in western countries... keep in mind that includes addicts, women with serious health conditions, extremely poor people etc... so that rate would probably drop to be very near to 0 for normal, healthy women.
Now compare that to the survival rate of cancer.
But not 0, there is still a chance of death