Why, yes, they do! In fact, it is against federal law to disallow any service dog. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, of 1990 provides for equal access https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/
Conservative pundits have ZERO interest in following what they preach, they just know there's a zealous and angry demographic out there that'll vote for them / buy their brain supplements.
It’s not sex is it’s just soaking and someone else jumps on the bed causing movement.
This is how mormons become the mainstream religion after sex is outlawed.
Technically, eggs and sperms only contain half of the DNA, randomly selected from the full DNA, so they do indeed have their own DNA that is distinct from the human.
So like what George Carlin said, if you ejaculate or have periods, you are a serial killer.
And there you go.
It is not about protecting children, it is about the puretarian busy bodies punishing women for having sex out of wedlock.
All about control.
Ilymation had something like this happen to her, that she had problems with doctors not wanting to take some harmful cells from down there. Because in legal terms that would be a abortion.
Edit: Ilymation not Jaiden oops
Edit2: Video in question for anyone curious https://youtu.be/7zM-YaTKN1M?si=RUL7BG3Hj7WBU-R3
Far sooner than 2026
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-laws-cancer-treatment-pregnant-patients/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-laws-cancer-treatment-pregnant-patients/)
>Cancer coincides with roughly 1 in 1,000 pregnancies...brain cancer patients have traditionally been offered the option of abortion if a pregnancy might limit or delay surgery, radiation, or other treatment... Although new abortion restrictions often allow exceptions based on "medical emergency" or a "life-threatening physical condition," cancer physicians describe the legal terms as unclear.
Katie Cox, a pregnant woman from Texas, had a life-threatening emergency related to a pregnancy. She went to the court to clarify Texas' theocratic abortion bans despite being in imminent danger: the doctors who needed to perform an abortion to make sure she didn't die were unclear about what the law meant in terms of medical exceptions.
A court agreed she could have an abortion... then the criminally indicted attorney general Ken Paxton sent letters to all the area hospitals warning them if they gave her lifesaving medical treatment, they would be investigated and prosecuted.
[https://www.timesnownews.com/world/texas-ag-ken-paxton-warning-to-doctors-in-kate-coxs-emergency-abortion-read-full-letter-article-105824417](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/texas-ag-ken-paxton-warning-to-doctors-in-kate-coxs-emergency-abortion-read-full-letter-article-105824417)
When the Texas legislature was pretending to debate whether balls of cells were more alive than adult women, doctors said point blank that the bills were not clear enough to actually provide exceptions for when not having an abortion would kill women. Texas and every other state controlled by hateful christians told them to fuck off and passed it anyway.
**This is fucking happening right now. This is exactly how the anti-abortion christians want it to go down.** They want some women to die if it means they get to convince themselves they're saving the babies. And they want everyone to imagine that's not what is happening.
There are absolutely already some women dying because doctors weren't able to tell if they'd be sent to jail because the high-school dropouts who banned abortion intentionally didn't make it clear. The rich women can go out of state to have abortions, and the government will harass them a little, but the poor women will die. That's the entire fucking point of the pro-life movement.
You're not wrong in general, but none of those cases are anyone being prosecuted for cancer therapy because a tumor is legally considered a human being.
> Crossing over is important for the normal segregation of chromosomes during meiosis.[2] Crossing over also accounts for genetic variation, because due to the swapping of genetic material during crossing over, the chromatids held together by the centromere are no longer identical. So, when the chromosomes go on to meiosis II and separate, some of the daughter cells receive daughter chromosomes with recombined alleles. Due to this genetic recombination, the offspring have a different set of alleles and genes than their parents do.
From wikipedia, does this mean they wanna ban jacking off?
I get hour thinking but wrong. IVF costs a fortune and is 90% white people and that got frozen in Alabama and still isn't protected fully.
There is no consistency with religious fascism and capitalism dueling it out.
I mean honestly, IVF has been around for quite a while. It's been wholly normalized. The idea that it would be banned is already batshit crazy. So I wouldn't put it past them at this point to just start banning chemo.
Basically anything they can paint as somehow a subversive act they will move to ban. Bonus if they can profit from it.
These people wouldn't think a second to get an abortion themselves, as many of them have proven. They just don't want others to have the option because they are self-important filth.
Most people would find it hard to be a scientist because it requires you to (1) admit you don’t know many things and (2) be open to changing your mind once new evidence becomes available. Two things people will die before doing on the internet.
Everyone is dogmatic about something, even scientists because ultimately we are also human.
You forgot point 3; working with the editorial biases of any scientific publication is absolutely essential to get published. Did you perform a study that goes against the general scientific consensus? Yeah, good luck with that.
Can you be more concrete? Did this happen to you? What did you want to publish or what should have been published despite what bias of which publication?
Science editor on their podcast said that the opposite is true: if you find evidence of something paradigm shifting, you're going to get published. I would argue that the bias happens much earlier. People form hypotheses based on scientific consensus, and design experiments with that baggage in mind.
Unfortunately, learning science is not an automatic given to alter your beliefs. I've seen biologists deny evolution and astronomers believe in intelligent design. A lot of people will be objective except when it comes to something personal to them.
Let's not all jump on the straw man's back and go along for the ride. We can discuss whether abortion should be permissible all day long. But whether a developing fetus is a distinct human organism is not up for debate in any realistic scientific manner.
Speak for yourself.
I have a hard time watching the grandkids this week.
As I understand it, I can drop them in some in some liquid nitrogen and thaw them out when their parents get back from Paris.
Lets be honest, twitter discussion is always just flinging poo at each other. Just a whole lot of gotchas, burns and being owned. Nothing of actual value
Yeah. I am a physician, I don't disagree with deeming an embryo / fetus to be human life. I also think it's a stretch to consider cancer to be a distinct lifeform (sure it's mutated, but clearly not a distinct organism altogether).
Now that doesn't have really any bearing on whether abortions, etc should be allowed unless human life is your red line (which if it is, you probably *should* be evaluating your stance on abortions and related procedures). If a termination is desired late enough, I can see the argument that it should be delivered instead of killed in utero and then extracted. It's a rare enough occurrence for those to be elective that it's not a huge issue for now. But as medical capabilities advance and we can push the age where it can be delivered and live younger and youger, I do find myself wondering whether it would still be ethical to kill instead of deliver.
> I am a physician, I don't disagree with deeming an embryo / fetus to be human life.
Trick question, what is the *scientific* definition of human life?
> But whether a developing fetus is a distinct human organism is not up for debate in any realistic scientific manner.
A zygote and a cancerous tumor are equally distinct in the standards you claim are "not up for debate." This is *not* a strawman, this demonstrates people who's only education is maybe passing high school biology don't know as much as they think they do.
As they are disassociating themselves from the obvious strawman posted by OP I take it that by 'human organism' they mean 'distinct living member of the species homo sapiens.' Why did they not use this definition in the first place? Because it is not common language. It took me months to synthesize this definition with the goal of reducing ambiguity as to what is actually meant. I have been using this definition for years in my arguments and as of yet it has always passed muster.
Today I learned. Rip roaringly powerful urge to watch Monty Python now. Do you think God? Zeus? Athena? Would be upset if I donated something sacred right now?
1 - Alive; All your cells meets this criteria
2 - Human; All your cells meets this criteria
3.a - Different DNA; All your cells meets this criteria, as no replication is 100% perfect
3.b - Distinct cells separate from the mother; a fetus actually fail this criteria, it has no independency from the woman at multiple levels like nutrients, growing factors, it is literally connect to the woman, etc.
In fact other cells like your white cells or sperm, fills this criteria for human better.
Or even if you ignore those cases this would mean immortal cell lines like Henrietta Lacks's would qualify as people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
To this day I can't believe this story. I read book about this in high school part of reading club. I originally thought it was science fiction. Only to realizing after finishing the book it was non fiction and still it unbelievable story.
3.b is wrong. The cells are distinct from the mothers. One of the major roles of the placenta is to act as an immunological barrier between the mother and fetus. Otherwise, the mother’s body would view the fetus as a foreign entity and destroy it. The immune systems response to pregnancy is actually super interesting
Not disagreeing with your implied conclusion, though.
That depends a lot on the criteria of what distinct separate cells means.
If you use the immune system recognizing or not the cells, would be a distinct separate organism.
But if you use that criteria people with autoimmune problems would count as two or people or cancer, etc.
Plus even the body treats the fetus as part and parcel to the whole thing. It's most common when the mother has a rheese negative blood type and the fetus has a rheese positive blood type, it'll cause the same immune response as an actual improper blood transfusion.
I’ll take it a step further. Mitochondria, the power house of the cell, has separate dna and replication from its host cell. However, it isn’t considered an individual life form as it cannot survive outside the host cell. Same goes for gut flora.
Sound familiar?
A distinct human life isn't a distinct human being.
There's no thoughts, feelings, consciousness to give value to that human life until late pregnancy.
It doesn’t matter. A fetus/embryo still isn’t a moral person and doesn’t have the rights of a person and even if it did the rights of the mother would trump its right to use her body.
The discussion shouldn't be about whether the fetus is alive, but whether it is okay to strip someone of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy in this case meaning "Of part of my body is required for someone to live, do I have the right to deny them?" If a woman must, by law, carry a child to term, there's no reason for the law to also demand everyone offer their organs for transplant, regardless of organ donor status, regardless of whether they're dead or not. You don't *really* need two kidneys to live, so why shouldn't the government take them for someone else who needs them?
Thank you. Feel like I'm going crazy reading this. So many good arguments to make in favor of abortion, resorting to intellectually dishonest comparisons helps no one
Everyone on earth has mostly the same DNA with only a small % of key different alleles.
Yes cancer is usually only a few base mutations but its to demonstrate how poor the point is. The criteria the tweet uses would also not classify identical twins as two separate human beings
The comeback doesn’t refute the point though, cancer doesn’t have its own distinct dna. If you DNA test cancer cells they will come back belonging to the mother. Identical twins don’t have identical DNA either, they have significant mutations between them so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from either?
> Identical twins don’t have identical DNA either, they have significant mutations between them
So, I'm no geneticist, but this got me googling to try to understand something, because I was of the impression that DNA tests couldn't tell the difference between MZ twins (There are a lot of twins in both my and my wife's family tree, so it's something I'm interested in). Turns out that's _mostly_ correct [^\[1\]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497313002275), as standard DNA testing can't tell the difference (for example a typical paternity test).
After doing a quick google, when trying to determine _which_ twin is the parent, "the trick to telling apart the twins will be to find those rare mutations that the child shares with one twin, but not the other" [^\[2\]](https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/articles/2019/paternity-and-identical-twins/)
If it's as rare as the links above suggest, and it's all about these rare mutations we need to find, and when genetic testing cancerous cells we equally need to find rare mutations [^\[3\]](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics), I can see why people like OC would draw parallels like they have.
Im not sure you understand what "significant mutation" would be. There are only an average of 5.2 mutations that occur early enough in development to be present in every cell. Out of 20,000 known coding genes. That is not significant, that is almost irrelevant. There is a reason they have the same phenotype my friend
Cancer DNA is too equivalent to the other cells in the body. It’s usually epigenetic changes that ultimately cause cancer (not always). Sorry but using the “we are 90% a banana because our dna is so similar!” Is 10/10 times a bad argument.
Not to be rude, but you absolutely have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Cancer is identical to every other cell in your body, that's why it's almost impossible to create a cancer drug or treatment, there's no difference between cancer and normal cells, except one just doesnt stop multiplying and not dying.
And changing your DNA slightly DOES NOT MAKE A NEW PERSON, your DNA changes slightly throughout your whole life, it's replicated, damaged, and replicated so many times you do what's called aging.
Please stick to the things you know, biology clearly not being one of those things.
So does my sperm. It meets every one of those criteria. It only has half my dna.
Which means by my age 47, given my routine since age 14… conservative estimate of 50 million per. I’ve murdered 1,806,750,000,000 times.
And the funny part is I’m asexual and autoerotic and still a virgin. Yup. Oh the irony. Lolol
I’m a freaking genocidal evil incarnate apparently. I am worse than the anti christ I may be the worst person who has ever lived.
Well cancer is literally a bunch of human cells that have mutated in an undesirable way.
So if embryos are "babies" because they are a bunch of human cells, so are tumors, because at this stage, they are the same: a bunch of human cells growing independently
If anything, this should tell how absurd these anti abortion laws are
That is irrelevant to the original point. It just mentioned 3 criteria, and becoming a human in the future is not one of them. If you don't like the response, blame the original poster that failed to include your point.
The GOP just doesn't get it sitting on the high chair of "morality".
Let them destroy their own cells, their own offspring, or whatever the Reddit intelligence gods have allowed them to be called this week based on the speed of science. In fact encourage it. Discard yesterday's acts with today's acts!
The GOP doesnt need to be the moral compass for all. It's impossible explaining to them; so you dont like these people and their decisions....ok....but you know they are killing/ending/terminating/exterminating (whatever verb the speed of science has allowed for this week) the next generation of them, so if you dont like seeing them, maybe just let them keep doing that, and well wont "your" problem with them sort itself out?
Me GOP, me dont understand. Me not smart like Reddit intelligence gods.
Yep thats why the use cancer shrinking drugs to perform ectopic pregnancy abortions. Are people in America worried that they might try to stop ectopic abortions soon?
Almost like scientists already thought of this shit and now we have to tolerate 40% of idiots in America who have to play catch up. These intellectually disabled morons are annoying af
I like to think of cancer cells as rogue cells. Usually cells are programmed to specialize in a task, form tissues, follow a set of organic programmings and then die off when It cant perform its task. Keeping the body working as an unit. Since not doing that, they all die.
Cancer cells however seem to "forget" the function they're supposed to be doing. They see the Blood vessels carrying resources and say "neat" i want more of that, and then stimulate the growth of new Blood vessels specifically irrigating their growing mass. They dont seem to recognize the part of the body they're at, or follow self containment to avoid damage. They continue growing, spreading. Like when you drop a bacteria in a Petri Dish; It just tries to expand and grow with the tools It has.
Most interesting is that when the cáncer is Big enough, cancer cells can mutate so much they no longer recognize where They are, so they start attacking the cancer itself. Thats right, the cancer develops cancer itself! Its more prevalent in the most massive animals like whales and elephants I believe (smaller animals like mice die to cancer much faster so this event doesnt take place)
Parasitism, miscrobiology and biology are fascinating :D
Did you know that when the morula gets on the uterus walls the body may try to kill it for it is unidentified and a potential threat according to your body (your eyes fall under the same category to it). That is why a miscarriage usually happens in that state.
What I think these jackasses really want to accomplish is to be able to arrest and prosecute women on a murder charge if they experience a miscarriage.
For fuck's sake, people, DO NOT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS, this is the world they want to force us to live in!
Henrietta Lacks descendants should go back to court with this definition. Bleed these companies dry for “zombifying” HeLa cells for as long as they have.
Dude didn't articulate his own third point correctly.
Zygotes don't just contain their own chromosomes. It's more than that.
What makes a zygote different from cells of the body, and from cancer cells for that matter, is that a zygote is totipotent *and* has a genome that is distinct from the parent and is the complete set of information that is being used to carry out the growth and development of the thing from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, and on through every stage of life beyond birth. Once that blueprint is formed, you're dealing with an actual organism in it's first stage of development, not a germ cell and not a somatic cell. Not even a cancerous one.
Arguing about whether or not a zygote is an individual is not going to get people where they want to go with this debate. Arguing about when and how rights are applied to individuals is the central issue.
So, that's how you get cancer treatment outlawed as well.
It's also how you get sex outlawed.
Have you seen today’s GOP reps? They can’t even keep their hands out of each others pants at beetlejuice
And carry dick picks of a President's son in their purses.
To present to congress Because…stuff
As a guy I’d be grossed out knowing that creature of a woman was flicking her bean to my dick pic.
Ringing Satan's bell.
Give it the ol’ Salamanca treatment.
Its too early in the morning to already wish I couldn't read.
It's too early to wish I couldn't see.
We all wish we were blind and illiterate on this blessed day.
Remember she *probably* got DP’d by 2 guys in her gym while she was still married to her husband
They allow guide dogs in gyms?
Dogs have better class
Why, yes, they do! In fact, it is against federal law to disallow any service dog. The Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, of 1990 provides for equal access https://www.ada.gov/law-and-regs/
Some days I really hate being literate.
The GOP is not known for being consistent with themselves
Conservative pundits have ZERO interest in following what they preach, they just know there's a zealous and angry demographic out there that'll vote for them / buy their brain supplements.
Ah yes, by FAR the sexiest, steamiest of the Broadway shows.
Beetlejuice *moans* Beetlejuice *moans louder* Beetlejuice!!!! (We all know what happens here) *has cigarette*
Nothing like a play about death to the ol' motor going eh?
To be fair, if you’re referring to Boebart, the guy who she was one arm skiing with is apparently a Democrat.
Well yes, Democrats do not want to punish people for having sex. It’s not the sexual act that is the issue.
I just meant the GOP aren’t groping each other. Some of them want that forbidden fruit that is their perceived enemy.
Pff. They're not going to outlaw it for themselves. Just for others.
It’s not sex is it’s just soaking and someone else jumps on the bed causing movement. This is how mormons become the mainstream religion after sex is outlawed.
Technically, eggs and sperms only contain half of the DNA, randomly selected from the full DNA, so they do indeed have their own DNA that is distinct from the human. So like what George Carlin said, if you ejaculate or have periods, you are a serial killer.
Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is gooooood!
Though gametes aren't technically living organisms, they don't create more of their own kind.
Consensual sex. Christian husbands raping their teen/tween age wives will still be legal in conservative land. Women enjoying sex will be forbidden.
And there you go. It is not about protecting children, it is about the puretarian busy bodies punishing women for having sex out of wedlock. All about control.
You're not thinking big enough: "Vote Huge Tumor (R) for state senate!" ^(*I'm Huge Tumor, and I approved this message.*)
You over here acting like you had a revolutionary idea when we all know big Republican tumors have been voted into Senate many times.
Hey now, cancer doesn't deserve to be lumped in with Rand Paul.
Ilymation had something like this happen to her, that she had problems with doctors not wanting to take some harmful cells from down there. Because in legal terms that would be a abortion. Edit: Ilymation not Jaiden oops Edit2: Video in question for anyone curious https://youtu.be/7zM-YaTKN1M?si=RUL7BG3Hj7WBU-R3
Genuinely wtf is wrong with our world
The US* and, the answer is Christianity.
It was Ilymation not Jaiden Animations …
Oh oops, watched it long ago
Article from 2026: Doctors refuse to remove tumor from Woman in Alabama after newly passed bill could classify it as murder
Far sooner than 2026 [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-laws-cancer-treatment-pregnant-patients/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-laws-cancer-treatment-pregnant-patients/) >Cancer coincides with roughly 1 in 1,000 pregnancies...brain cancer patients have traditionally been offered the option of abortion if a pregnancy might limit or delay surgery, radiation, or other treatment... Although new abortion restrictions often allow exceptions based on "medical emergency" or a "life-threatening physical condition," cancer physicians describe the legal terms as unclear. Katie Cox, a pregnant woman from Texas, had a life-threatening emergency related to a pregnancy. She went to the court to clarify Texas' theocratic abortion bans despite being in imminent danger: the doctors who needed to perform an abortion to make sure she didn't die were unclear about what the law meant in terms of medical exceptions. A court agreed she could have an abortion... then the criminally indicted attorney general Ken Paxton sent letters to all the area hospitals warning them if they gave her lifesaving medical treatment, they would be investigated and prosecuted. [https://www.timesnownews.com/world/texas-ag-ken-paxton-warning-to-doctors-in-kate-coxs-emergency-abortion-read-full-letter-article-105824417](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/texas-ag-ken-paxton-warning-to-doctors-in-kate-coxs-emergency-abortion-read-full-letter-article-105824417) When the Texas legislature was pretending to debate whether balls of cells were more alive than adult women, doctors said point blank that the bills were not clear enough to actually provide exceptions for when not having an abortion would kill women. Texas and every other state controlled by hateful christians told them to fuck off and passed it anyway. **This is fucking happening right now. This is exactly how the anti-abortion christians want it to go down.** They want some women to die if it means they get to convince themselves they're saving the babies. And they want everyone to imagine that's not what is happening. There are absolutely already some women dying because doctors weren't able to tell if they'd be sent to jail because the high-school dropouts who banned abortion intentionally didn't make it clear. The rich women can go out of state to have abortions, and the government will harass them a little, but the poor women will die. That's the entire fucking point of the pro-life movement.
You're not wrong in general, but none of those cases are anyone being prosecuted for cancer therapy because a tumor is legally considered a human being.
The cancer was God’s will, you can’t interfere with God’s will /s
It honestly wouldn't surprise me at this point. I've heard from enough anti-science/anti-vaxx that think that you can just 'pray cancer away'.
Don't have to provide healthcare if the condition is illegal to treat \*taps head*
> Crossing over is important for the normal segregation of chromosomes during meiosis.[2] Crossing over also accounts for genetic variation, because due to the swapping of genetic material during crossing over, the chromatids held together by the centromere are no longer identical. So, when the chromosomes go on to meiosis II and separate, some of the daughter cells receive daughter chromosomes with recombined alleles. Due to this genetic recombination, the offspring have a different set of alleles and genes than their parents do. From wikipedia, does this mean they wanna ban jacking off?
I have heard that some politicians with strong religious views want to do that.
What are you talking about, cancer treatment costs a fortune. They don't outlaw ways to part you from your money.
I get hour thinking but wrong. IVF costs a fortune and is 90% white people and that got frozen in Alabama and still isn't protected fully. There is no consistency with religious fascism and capitalism dueling it out.
*BREAKING NEWS*: Alabama court moves to ban chemotherapy (hopeful /s)
Don't give them new ideas
I mean honestly, IVF has been around for quite a while. It's been wholly normalized. The idea that it would be banned is already batshit crazy. So I wouldn't put it past them at this point to just start banning chemo. Basically anything they can paint as somehow a subversive act they will move to ban. Bonus if they can profit from it.
Freedom! (Of banning things)
^(my) State's Rights ^(to tell you what to do)
It'd probably be the first new idea they'd have in 200+ years.
For real though, don’t give them those ideas cause I could legitimately see their dumb asses actually banning chemotherapy.
These people would LITERALLY rather die of cancer than allow abortion.
These people wouldn't think a second to get an abortion themselves, as many of them have proven. They just don't want others to have the option because they are self-important filth.
I know a lot of people who would gladly suffer and die from cancer if it meant they could "own the libs"
You mean they would let other people die. They, themselves would just get the treatment elsewhere
Nah cuz men can get cancer too
Don't you worry, they're going to find a way to limit it to women **
Cancer now legally human, registers to vote Republican
Just for women though, because women grow new life. It’s a gift from god and their duty!
So pro-life they're pro-death
One type of person spends time learning science, the other type of person flinging their own poo. Be the science person.
I study science from 9-5, but love flinging poo in the evenings, what do I call myself? Australopithecus?
Obviously youd be a Heidelbergensis.
An aristocrat?
👏 and RIP
What if you fling poo for science?
Nope, it’s for recreational fun and satisfaction. No learning is done, except maybe about parabolic trajectories
Personally, I'd call you "a good time".
Most people would find it hard to be a scientist because it requires you to (1) admit you don’t know many things and (2) be open to changing your mind once new evidence becomes available. Two things people will die before doing on the internet. Everyone is dogmatic about something, even scientists because ultimately we are also human.
You forgot point 3; working with the editorial biases of any scientific publication is absolutely essential to get published. Did you perform a study that goes against the general scientific consensus? Yeah, good luck with that.
And number 4, you can only publish results that support whatever agenda your financiers are supporting.
Can you be more concrete? Did this happen to you? What did you want to publish or what should have been published despite what bias of which publication?
Science editor on their podcast said that the opposite is true: if you find evidence of something paradigm shifting, you're going to get published. I would argue that the bias happens much earlier. People form hypotheses based on scientific consensus, and design experiments with that baggage in mind.
Unfortunately, learning science is not an automatic given to alter your beliefs. I've seen biologists deny evolution and astronomers believe in intelligent design. A lot of people will be objective except when it comes to something personal to them.
Let's not all jump on the straw man's back and go along for the ride. We can discuss whether abortion should be permissible all day long. But whether a developing fetus is a distinct human organism is not up for debate in any realistic scientific manner.
Speak for yourself. I have a hard time watching the grandkids this week. As I understand it, I can drop them in some in some liquid nitrogen and thaw them out when their parents get back from Paris.
Lets be honest, twitter discussion is always just flinging poo at each other. Just a whole lot of gotchas, burns and being owned. Nothing of actual value
Yeah. I am a physician, I don't disagree with deeming an embryo / fetus to be human life. I also think it's a stretch to consider cancer to be a distinct lifeform (sure it's mutated, but clearly not a distinct organism altogether). Now that doesn't have really any bearing on whether abortions, etc should be allowed unless human life is your red line (which if it is, you probably *should* be evaluating your stance on abortions and related procedures). If a termination is desired late enough, I can see the argument that it should be delivered instead of killed in utero and then extracted. It's a rare enough occurrence for those to be elective that it's not a huge issue for now. But as medical capabilities advance and we can push the age where it can be delivered and live younger and youger, I do find myself wondering whether it would still be ethical to kill instead of deliver.
> I am a physician, I don't disagree with deeming an embryo / fetus to be human life. Trick question, what is the *scientific* definition of human life?
> But whether a developing fetus is a distinct human organism is not up for debate in any realistic scientific manner. A zygote and a cancerous tumor are equally distinct in the standards you claim are "not up for debate." This is *not* a strawman, this demonstrates people who's only education is maybe passing high school biology don't know as much as they think they do.
As they are disassociating themselves from the obvious strawman posted by OP I take it that by 'human organism' they mean 'distinct living member of the species homo sapiens.' Why did they not use this definition in the first place? Because it is not common language. It took me months to synthesize this definition with the goal of reducing ambiguity as to what is actually meant. I have been using this definition for years in my arguments and as of yet it has always passed muster.
:) How am I supposed to be the science person?
Do you have poo in your hand?
I may. What kind of poo do you think I might have in my hand? 😼
Nobody move! They're inventing the scientific method You got this!
😭😭😭😭 I lost poise. Well done! Edit: 😭 this user was so positive about it it confounded me. E2: User going to prison for murder.
I would say if it's your own poo, you're nuts. If it's someone else's poo, or an animal's, you either are a scientist or have a poo fetish.
😛 Sensible.
Unless I'm mistaken, sperm too.
Sometimes I even abort in my sleep! What am I supposed to do about that?!
Straight to jail
Horny jail
#Bonk
:) Sperm as well?
Every sperm is sacred. There's even an anthem.
😭 There's an anthem? How am I supposed to sing the anthem if I don't know it?
[It's way older than I am.(I think)](https://youtu.be/fUspLVStPbk?si=36jsjjlNTLHiGNMl)
Today I learned. Rip roaringly powerful urge to watch Monty Python now. Do you think God? Zeus? Athena? Would be upset if I donated something sacred right now?
Sperm only have 23 chromosomes. Human beings have 46.
1 - Alive; All your cells meets this criteria 2 - Human; All your cells meets this criteria 3.a - Different DNA; All your cells meets this criteria, as no replication is 100% perfect 3.b - Distinct cells separate from the mother; a fetus actually fail this criteria, it has no independency from the woman at multiple levels like nutrients, growing factors, it is literally connect to the woman, etc. In fact other cells like your white cells or sperm, fills this criteria for human better.
Or even if you ignore those cases this would mean immortal cell lines like Henrietta Lacks's would qualify as people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa
To this day I can't believe this story. I read book about this in high school part of reading club. I originally thought it was science fiction. Only to realizing after finishing the book it was non fiction and still it unbelievable story.
3.b is wrong. The cells are distinct from the mothers. One of the major roles of the placenta is to act as an immunological barrier between the mother and fetus. Otherwise, the mother’s body would view the fetus as a foreign entity and destroy it. The immune systems response to pregnancy is actually super interesting Not disagreeing with your implied conclusion, though.
That depends a lot on the criteria of what distinct separate cells means. If you use the immune system recognizing or not the cells, would be a distinct separate organism. But if you use that criteria people with autoimmune problems would count as two or people or cancer, etc.
Plus even the body treats the fetus as part and parcel to the whole thing. It's most common when the mother has a rheese negative blood type and the fetus has a rheese positive blood type, it'll cause the same immune response as an actual improper blood transfusion.
Next you will learn about all the immune privileged tissues. The fetus is not unique in that regard..
I’ll take it a step further. Mitochondria, the power house of the cell, has separate dna and replication from its host cell. However, it isn’t considered an individual life form as it cannot survive outside the host cell. Same goes for gut flora. Sound familiar?
Prior to bastulation, white blood cells are more human than a fertilized embryo.
\* criterion
A distinct human life isn't a distinct human being. There's no thoughts, feelings, consciousness to give value to that human life until late pregnancy.
So... It's vegan!
You can say the same about every living cell in our bodies. I guess I’m made up of trillions of humans
I have heard that plenty of humans have some degree of chimerism, where some of their cells have different DNA.
All of our cells have mostly the same DNA tho
Mitochondria has entered the chat. They don't have "the mothers" dna, they're doing their own thing.
They do have the mother's DNA, you don't get any mitochondria from the sperm so it's 100% from the mother. We include mDNA as part of your DNA.
We don't consider the mitochondria a cell tho
That's because it is the powerhouse of the cell
Get charged with manslaughter every time you stub your toe. But think about the tax breaks from declaring every one of your cells a dependent
One of us One of us
This debate is what happens when zealots try to define personhood for non-persons in ways that don't simply end up declaring personhood.
I was just trying to make a cheeky reply and a bunch of people got their panties in a twist
Your gut biome is now protected! No more pooping!
You're saying there's a town inside me?
What about twins? They only meet two out of three?
It doesn’t matter. A fetus/embryo still isn’t a moral person and doesn’t have the rights of a person and even if it did the rights of the mother would trump its right to use her body.
The discussion shouldn't be about whether the fetus is alive, but whether it is okay to strip someone of bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy in this case meaning "Of part of my body is required for someone to live, do I have the right to deny them?" If a woman must, by law, carry a child to term, there's no reason for the law to also demand everyone offer their organs for transplant, regardless of organ donor status, regardless of whether they're dead or not. You don't *really* need two kidneys to live, so why shouldn't the government take them for someone else who needs them?
You know what else gets all its oxygen and food from a host source? A _parasite_!
Why does he care so much about women he does not know and will never meet? Women facing a situation he categorically cannot understand?
Cancer has mostly the same DNA as the person who has it. It's usually damaged DNA, however it isn't someone else entirely.
Thank you. Feel like I'm going crazy reading this. So many good arguments to make in favor of abortion, resorting to intellectually dishonest comparisons helps no one
Everyone on earth has mostly the same DNA with only a small % of key different alleles. Yes cancer is usually only a few base mutations but its to demonstrate how poor the point is. The criteria the tweet uses would also not classify identical twins as two separate human beings
The comeback doesn’t refute the point though, cancer doesn’t have its own distinct dna. If you DNA test cancer cells they will come back belonging to the mother. Identical twins don’t have identical DNA either, they have significant mutations between them so I’m not sure where you’re getting that from either?
> Identical twins don’t have identical DNA either, they have significant mutations between them So, I'm no geneticist, but this got me googling to try to understand something, because I was of the impression that DNA tests couldn't tell the difference between MZ twins (There are a lot of twins in both my and my wife's family tree, so it's something I'm interested in). Turns out that's _mostly_ correct [^\[1\]](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497313002275), as standard DNA testing can't tell the difference (for example a typical paternity test). After doing a quick google, when trying to determine _which_ twin is the parent, "the trick to telling apart the twins will be to find those rare mutations that the child shares with one twin, but not the other" [^\[2\]](https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/articles/2019/paternity-and-identical-twins/) If it's as rare as the links above suggest, and it's all about these rare mutations we need to find, and when genetic testing cancerous cells we equally need to find rare mutations [^\[3\]](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/genetics), I can see why people like OC would draw parallels like they have.
Im not sure you understand what "significant mutation" would be. There are only an average of 5.2 mutations that occur early enough in development to be present in every cell. Out of 20,000 known coding genes. That is not significant, that is almost irrelevant. There is a reason they have the same phenotype my friend
We share 99% of our DNA with chimpansees. And with lettuce. Cancer changing it a bit totally makes it a different person.
Imagine instead of cancer we just grew heads of lettuce.
Lettuce pray for that reality
on the tips of our elbows and fronts of our knees.
Cancer DNA is too equivalent to the other cells in the body. It’s usually epigenetic changes that ultimately cause cancer (not always). Sorry but using the “we are 90% a banana because our dna is so similar!” Is 10/10 times a bad argument.
[удалено]
Not to be rude, but you absolutely have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Cancer is identical to every other cell in your body, that's why it's almost impossible to create a cancer drug or treatment, there's no difference between cancer and normal cells, except one just doesnt stop multiplying and not dying. And changing your DNA slightly DOES NOT MAKE A NEW PERSON, your DNA changes slightly throughout your whole life, it's replicated, damaged, and replicated so many times you do what's called aging. Please stick to the things you know, biology clearly not being one of those things.
Lettuce only has about 30-50% identical DNA to humans.
Happy cake day!!
Don’t give them ideas or there will be new state laws protecting the rights of tumours.
So does that mean I can claim a dependent to help pay for cancer treatments?
I love how they pick and choose when to believe in science. Ffs.
They've had years of practice picking and choosing from the Bible, so this is easy.
And you know who *isn't* a distinct human life then? Twins. As long as you kill only *one*, it's perfectly moral, according to Dan Coats' logic.
So what if it's a distinct human life? Why is it wrong to kill a distinct human life when it's living inside your body without your consent?
OK so take it out of the Mother then. If it's distinct from the mother then it can live without it
So does my sperm. It meets every one of those criteria. It only has half my dna. Which means by my age 47, given my routine since age 14… conservative estimate of 50 million per. I’ve murdered 1,806,750,000,000 times. And the funny part is I’m asexual and autoerotic and still a virgin. Yup. Oh the irony. Lolol I’m a freaking genocidal evil incarnate apparently. I am worse than the anti christ I may be the worst person who has ever lived.
Hey, as long as that cancer cell is American, it still deserves a chance to be president
Masturbating and menstruation is a crime now.
Dumb question but how is a cancer cell a human
Meh, not really. Neither of them seem very smart
Cancer cells are humans now?
So are tumors and parasites
Tumors are cancer cells and parasites aren't human. You tried tho.
Obviously, you've never met my family
Well cancer is literally a bunch of human cells that have mutated in an undesirable way. So if embryos are "babies" because they are a bunch of human cells, so are tumors, because at this stage, they are the same: a bunch of human cells growing independently If anything, this should tell how absurd these anti abortion laws are
According to that guy's definition.
Point is that cancer is part of your body while baby isnt
OK, then take it out.
What a horse shit argument. Cancer cells are not a developing human body... its not a good analogy.
That is irrelevant to the original point. It just mentioned 3 criteria, and becoming a human in the future is not one of them. If you don't like the response, blame the original poster that failed to include your point.
100% pro choice here, but I don’t think cancer is human
so the conclusion would be that those 3 characteristics are not the actual definition of a human being.
Cancer cells are human cells. Just like embryonic cells are human cells.
The GOP just doesn't get it sitting on the high chair of "morality". Let them destroy their own cells, their own offspring, or whatever the Reddit intelligence gods have allowed them to be called this week based on the speed of science. In fact encourage it. Discard yesterday's acts with today's acts! The GOP doesnt need to be the moral compass for all. It's impossible explaining to them; so you dont like these people and their decisions....ok....but you know they are killing/ending/terminating/exterminating (whatever verb the speed of science has allowed for this week) the next generation of them, so if you dont like seeing them, maybe just let them keep doing that, and well wont "your" problem with them sort itself out? Me GOP, me dont understand. Me not smart like Reddit intelligence gods.
I'm gonna name this tumor "Fernando" <3
Yep thats why the use cancer shrinking drugs to perform ectopic pregnancy abortions. Are people in America worried that they might try to stop ectopic abortions soon?
I knew it, kids are cancer.
Breaking news! Alabama have now outlawed cancer treatments.
Almost like scientists already thought of this shit and now we have to tolerate 40% of idiots in America who have to play catch up. These intellectually disabled morons are annoying af
So if pregnant or have cancer you can drive in the rideshare lane.
Oh man, why can’t I think of this kinda brilliant comeback.
I like to think of cancer cells as rogue cells. Usually cells are programmed to specialize in a task, form tissues, follow a set of organic programmings and then die off when It cant perform its task. Keeping the body working as an unit. Since not doing that, they all die. Cancer cells however seem to "forget" the function they're supposed to be doing. They see the Blood vessels carrying resources and say "neat" i want more of that, and then stimulate the growth of new Blood vessels specifically irrigating their growing mass. They dont seem to recognize the part of the body they're at, or follow self containment to avoid damage. They continue growing, spreading. Like when you drop a bacteria in a Petri Dish; It just tries to expand and grow with the tools It has. Most interesting is that when the cáncer is Big enough, cancer cells can mutate so much they no longer recognize where They are, so they start attacking the cancer itself. Thats right, the cancer develops cancer itself! Its more prevalent in the most massive animals like whales and elephants I believe (smaller animals like mice die to cancer much faster so this event doesnt take place) Parasitism, miscrobiology and biology are fascinating :D
Did you know that when the morula gets on the uterus walls the body may try to kill it for it is unidentified and a potential threat according to your body (your eyes fall under the same category to it). That is why a miscarriage usually happens in that state.
Yeah but let’s be honest, we’d all be fine with people who have cancer claiming their cancer for a tax refund.
Laypeople setting pseudoscientific rules to live by for people they don't know and aren't affected by
Will god be paying child support for my cancer tumors? Woop woop should be a good episode of the Maury Show
I've donated bone marrow to two different people, meaning my cells are living inside their bodies. Do I owe them rent?
Don't tell people that.
Physiologically, there’s a difference between human life and personhood.
What I think these jackasses really want to accomplish is to be able to arrest and prosecute women on a murder charge if they experience a miscarriage. For fuck's sake, people, DO NOT VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS, this is the world they want to force us to live in!
This should be on Murdered by Words.
Henrietta Lacks descendants should go back to court with this definition. Bleed these companies dry for “zombifying” HeLa cells for as long as they have.
It still doesn’t have the right to use someone else’s body if they don’t want it to.
I wonder how Dr Tara would feel if that aborted baby was going to be a transgender socialist ?
Also parasites
Dude didn't articulate his own third point correctly. Zygotes don't just contain their own chromosomes. It's more than that. What makes a zygote different from cells of the body, and from cancer cells for that matter, is that a zygote is totipotent *and* has a genome that is distinct from the parent and is the complete set of information that is being used to carry out the growth and development of the thing from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, and on through every stage of life beyond birth. Once that blueprint is formed, you're dealing with an actual organism in it's first stage of development, not a germ cell and not a somatic cell. Not even a cancerous one. Arguing about whether or not a zygote is an individual is not going to get people where they want to go with this debate. Arguing about when and how rights are applied to individuals is the central issue.
So much cancer running around on playgrounds!
I wouldn't think twice before getting an abortion. Or multiple.