(08-21-2015, 01:13 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A tumor does have human DNA. The DNA is defective. The defect causes the tumor.

(08-21-2015, 01:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It doesn't have the full set of human DNA . It's only partial. If you took the DNA out of a tumor and tried to clone a human it wouldn't work. It would only clone another tumor.

(08-21-2015, 01:17 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: It doesn't have the full set of human DNA . It's only partial. If you took the DNA out of a tumor and tried to clone a human it wouldn't work. It would only clone another tumor.

(08-21-2015, 01:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A tumor does contain the full set of human DNA. The DNA is defective which is why it produces tumor cells instead of normal cells.

An example would be melanoma. Normal skin cells with normal and complete human DNA damaged by UV radiation so much the normal DNA mutates to create skin cancer cells instead of more normal skin cells.

(08-21-2015, 01:32 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Actually in most if not all cancers, when the cell that has been damaged, and goes to split, it creates some cells with more chromosomes than normal and others with less than normal.  It is these cells that go haywire.

That being said it is still human DNA, just damaged.

The better question is whether the OP believes that Downs Syndrome affected children are not human...You know since they have a different amount of Chromosomes than a typical human.

(08-21-2015, 02:14 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Obviously people with Downs Syndrome are human. A Tumor isn't a human, because it's a part of a person.

(08-21-2015, 02:24 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: A liver isn't a human it is part of a human.  Therefore given your logic, the liver of a Downs Syndrome affected individual is not human because it does not have the exact chromosomes as a non-affected person.

Stop attempting to split hairs and recognize the fact that cancer has Human DNA it is just damaged or has more or less chromosomes than does a typical human.  You would never get a single scientist to agree that the DNA in a human cancer cell is not human.

(08-21-2015, 02:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Ok, so a tumor might have the DNA of a human, but it's still not a human. It's a part of a human.

(08-21-2015, 10:07 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We agree those types of tactics really aren't necessary.  For the most part, I agree having a conversation about topics can be a positive.  However, if I know the producers are intentionally misrepresenting the truth to sell their POV it makes all their statements suspect; even the ones which are truthful.  For the most part, I give people the benefit of the doubt.  I assume they are being honest until I know they aren't.  When I have confirmed they aren't being honest I just tune them out.  It took them less than 70 seconds for me to confirm they weren't being honest with me.  I'm not going to pay attention to them after I know they are dishonest.  So who is their target audience?  Whose minds are they going to change with false or misleading information?  I think they do their cause more harm than good with their lack of integrity.  Just my two cents.

(08-21-2015, 02:26 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Ok, so a tumor might have the DNA of a human, but it's still not a human. It's a part of a human.

(08-21-2015, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See, here's the rub.  The vast majority of pro choice people don't consider it killing babies.  You do, good for you.  It still doesn't give you the right to dogmatically impose your beliefs on others.

(08-21-2015, 02:33 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I'm curious, when do you consider a "human" as "human" and not just a "part" of a "human"?

(08-21-2015, 02:33 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Meh, it's the same as any news outlet or blog.  They're looking for clicks.  Those that will rush to click that stuff already have their mind made up. 

It's no different than a guy like Glenn Beck predicting gloom and doom right before his commercials urging people to buy gold.  

(08-21-2015, 01:32 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Actually in most if not all cancers, when the cell that has been damaged, and goes to split, it creates some cells with more chromosomes than normal and others with less than normal.  It is these cells that go haywire.

That being said it is still human DNA, just damaged.

The better question is whether the OP believes that Downs Syndrome affected children are not human...You know since they have a different amount of Chromosomes than a typical human.

(08-21-2015, 02:35 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not imposing my belief on others.  Nobody is forced to change their minds based off of my opinion. 

I'm sharing my opinion.  I believe it to be murder.  You're free to disagree.  I'm not telling you to stop trying to impose your beliefs on me, am I?  So who's being disingenuous here?

(08-21-2015, 02:42 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When it has it's own individual set of DNA. A part of a human will have it's owners DNA in it. A tumor still has the DNA of the person that created it, but an unborn baby will have DNA from another person too.

(08-21-2015, 02:35 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: I'm not imposing my belief on others. 

 So who's being disingenuous here?

(08-21-2015, 02:56 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: So you're saying that if DNA from another human is introduced into another human, that product is now considered human?

(08-21-2015, 02:42 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: When it has it's own individual set of DNA. A part of a human will have it's owners DNA in it. A tumor still has the DNA of the person that created it, but an unborn baby will have DNA from another person too.

(08-21-2015, 02:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are being disingenuous because you use your opinion as facts on which to support your arguments.

You say that people who are pro-choice have no problem with murdering babies, but that is not true at all because people who are pro-choice do not consider abortion "killing babies".  So your entire argument fails unless your opinion that abortion equals "killing babies" is a fact instead of an opinion.  Basically all you are saying is that pro-choice people are wrong because they do not agree with your opinion, and that is not a very persuasive argument.

I realize that i probably don't change anyone mind in any of the political discussions around here.  But I am really bored with these abortion debates because it is all based on opinion.  When it comes to political policies I can always point to history or other countries as solid proven facts on which to support my arguments.  But with abortion their are no facts that people can agree on.

Right now the law is based on the idea that in order for the baby to have individual rights that are greater than the host mother it musy be possible for the fetus to live as an individual separate from the host mother.  Until that point the mothers individual rights rule.  Some people refuse to accept that argument and claim that a fetus should have the same rights as any other individual from conception forward.  Others believe that the individual rights of the mother are more important until it is possible for the fetus to live as an individual itself.  There are not "facts" that will change either side's opinion.