EmilyD

I just did.

Do you want me to say it twice? LOL!!

Ok...here ya go:

"You post a comment to me. I respond to you. And then you tell me you're not going to play.

That sounds about right....what else is new. Can't refute, so you do this:"

albertk

EmilyD

LOL! Her main sockie at KP!!

She killed Chezl off like she did wombatnomore...in a car crash?

albertk

Let me check MY rolodex.

Drue-Marie

If you say so...

Drue-Marie

If you say so...

albertk

EmilyD

That's just weird. There's an awful lot of "explaining" about why the "sister" is on the forum and what she's doing there. Very strange.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

As long as indisputable proof of a premeditated murder of an innocent is given I have no problem with it. Let me guess? You didn’t answer my question.

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

Actually Emily, your statement is not always correct. Although rare identical twins and triplets have IDENTICAL DNA with each other. In addition chimeras (2 independently fertilized eggs that fuse into a single individual) have a complex mosaic of DNA of both the "original" individuals.

I would also like to know what you consider the "moment of conception"?

1) Sperm cell penetrants the ova.
2) DNA packet in the sperm head works it way across the ova to the nucleus.
3) DNA packet is able to penetrate the nucleus of the ova.
4) The DNA of the sperm and egg cells are fully unwound.
5) Complementary strands of DNA from the sperm and egg are paired off and form a double helix.
6) The newly created complete DNA is rewound and organized into chromosomes.
7) The new chromosomes are integrated into the enzymatic structure of the the cell and can be read as needed.

The above process occurs over a period of 2-3 days, and has only about a 50% chance of implanting.

"Conception does not always lead to pregnancy. A person is technically not pregnant until implantation has occurred. This is the moment when the fertilized egg implants into the lining of a uterus, which occurs around 5–6 days after fertilization."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/conception

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Wrong poster..

EmilyD

You are responding to Drue-Marie, but you direct your comment to me in the first paragraph, so I'm not sure what your intention is, but to me, conception is the moment the sperm (which has its own DNA) meets the egg (also has its own DNA) and forms a new cell with their combined DNA, and immediately begins growing into a human being. So I stand by my response to Drue-Marie that there is DNA both at the beginning (and even before) of life and at the end (and even after as Drue-Marie pointed out) death...and that there is no doubt once the egg and sperm meet and form a new cell that it will be a human being. Your article states "...conception is not a scientific term. It comes from social and philosophical ideas about when human life begins." So one person's idea of when it begins may be different from another's, based on that concept. Whether it completes the implantation or not was not at issue - the issue was that the egg contains combined DNA and will become a human being if all goes well (which it does a very high percentage of the time.) I really don't know what the point of Drue-Marie pointing out that "the dead also have their own DNA" is.

I was surprised she did so, though, because it ruins the argument by the pro-death people that it's not a human fetus...that it's just a 'blob of cells', and therefore abortion is okay...

SeaLass Loc: Western Soviet Socialist Republics

Yes, it was suppose to be a response to you Emily, however I was unable to locate your initial post, so I fell back on your response to Drue-Marie. Sorry for any confusion.

The purpose of my reply was to point out that not everybody has a "unique DNA profile". If a single fertilization leads to two live births where does the "2nd" identical twin come from? If a dual fertilization results in two embryos that implant and are carried to full term but have merged to form a single individual, what happened to the "2nd" person (if they don't merge they become fraternal twins)? I was also pointing out that the process of fertilization is a complex and time consuming process, there is no clearly defined "moment of conception".
My disagreement is not with your conclusions, but with an attempt to provide a "scientific theory", also known as an explanation, without accounting for all the data or at least noting that unaccounted for data is evident.

EmilyD

Thanks for the clarification. As I said in my response, and as your article pointed out, "conception" is not a scientific term, it is a philosophical and social idea that people have about when human life begins.

And the point I was making wasn't about a "unique" DNA profile but just DNA in general. The point was made, for some reason I cannot fathom, that "the dead have their own DNA", which led to my point, which is that there is human DNA ALSO present not only at the time of conception (whenever you think that is) but BEFORE that time - in both the sperm and the egg....therefore making the discussion about whether what is inside the mother when the sperm and egg combine their two DNA's to form a single cell that immediately begins to grow is a "blob of cells" or the actual beginning of a human person's life. The DNA argument that it is present both before the beginning of life as well as after the end of life makes that argument very weak that it is just a blob of cells.

"When life begins" will become clearer as technology advances.

Sea-Lass

Since every living thing on earth has the same basic DNA structure, the differences being in the order of the nucleotides, I'm not sure just what you mean by "human DNA"? Why would ...-G-C-T-C-A-A-T-C-... be part of "human DNA" while say ...-A-T-C-C-G-T-G-C-... be part of "redwood DNA" since it is the summation of the DNA sequence that defines the organism? Humans and chimpanzees have ~99% of the same DNA, are chimps thus ~99% "human", vice versa.?

As for technology helping to define life I would submit that the trend is in the opposite direction. Once upon a time it was easy, a mouse was alive, a rock wasn't. Then mold, fungus, bacteria etc. were discovered, much simpler organisms, but pretty much alive. Then viruses came into view, very simple entities that may or may not be alive, depending on one's view. Most recently prions were discovered, abnormal proteins (far simpler than viruses) that although generally not considered living in the normal sense still show certain life-like functions. I would submit the concept that nature is very much "non-binary", nearly all of nature occurs along a continuum.