toldailytopic: Do you support embryonic stem cell research?

[Lighthouse]

Ok, sure. What makes that so important?

:doh:

Consciousness, the ability to form interpersonal relationships. That's a start.

Why draw the line at either point?

You do realize consciousness comes before birth, right?

You said it was the potential to become a fully-formed human.

Before full formation it is human that is not yet fully formed.

I didn't say its potential to become human, nor did I say its potential to become a person.:nono:

I suggest you hold your breath.

That's rude. Suggesting I potentially kill myself like that. Shame on you!

No, it's a hypothetical, unless you want me to disassemble you cell by cell to find the mutants. But it's a hypothetical that's likely to be actually true.

So there is no evidence to support this hypothetical, at all? No research showing that we all have mutated cells? Nothing?

:think:I wonder what that means for your argument...

The only reason identical twins would have different genomes would be if a mutation occurred in addition to fission of the blastocyst. Other than that, you're just denying basic biological realities, and if you're relying on that to sustain your personhood arguments, you've got a hard fight ahead of you.

Identical twins don't even have similar fingerprints, so they're DNA is not 100% identical. It is even different enough to be able to tell that they are not the same person by their DNA results alone. It's not different enough to be able to tell who fathered which children by DNA alone, but it is still not 100% identical.

Right. They're one organism/animal/person with two or more distinct genomes. That was kinda my point. You just handed me unique DNA as the standard to determine personhood, and I'm trying to see if you're serious about it. Of course you aren't, but you'd rather resort to denialism of biological reality for a second time in a row than admit that you aren't.

Regarding human chimera one twin was absorbed by the other in utero in the earliest stages of development, leaving only one twin alive. It is the living person that is a person. Didn't you already go over that with sod?

Not the point, nor relevant. The point is that we've been able to identify people without being able to identify unique genomes. Why do you suppose that is?

Because knowledge was less then than it is now. And at the time to which you referred your criteria were not used to recognize personhood else the child in the womb would not have been recognized as such, for it was not known when consciousness began.

Try again.

 

[Granite]

A non sequitur my man!
The use of a condom prevents fertilization.
No fertilization, no embryo.

So you have no problem with preventing the existence of the blastocyst (and remember, we are talking about a clump of 60-100 cells here, not an infant or fetus). In other words you don't have an issue pre-empting the process. By what standard then do you draw this line?

Show me the person within the blastocyst.

 

[Granite]

To allow scientists a free hand with that which is the beginning of all life is insanity.

Well thanks to religious wingnuts and the poorly informed faithful medicine and science do not have a free hand...

How many of those blastocycsts are being brought further along developmentally in their petri dishes, the place they must call home?

There is no consciousness, no suffering, no awareness, and NO PERSON there. Again: do you even know what a blastocyst IS?

 

[Lighthouse]

Will Granite ever be a person?

 

[Granite]

We're still waiting for you to grow up, kiddo. I just wanted to tell you good luck, Brandon. We're all counting on you.

 

[rexlunae]

Why draw the line at either point?

Because those are the things that makes personhood meaningful. The destruction of a blastocyst doesn't represent the end of any meaningful existence beyond a technical biological one. It causes no pain, no loss of dreams, or thought, or feeling. The blastocyst isn't aware of it.

You do realize consciousness comes before birth, right?

But well after the blastocyst stage. That's what we're talking about here.

Before full formation it is human that is not yet fully formed.

No disagreement here. Just questions about the relevance.

So there is no evidence to support this hypothetical, at all? No research showing that we all have mutated cells? Nothing?

:think:I wonder what that means for your argument...

I think you've failed to understand the concept of a hypothetical. This conversation appears to be over your head.

Identical twins don't even have similar fingerprints, so they're DNA is not 100% identical.

Wrong. DNA doesn't determine fingerprints.

It is even different enough to be able to tell that they are not the same person by their DNA results alone.

That's plain not true.

It's not different enough to be able to tell who fathered which children by DNA alone, but it is still not 100% identical.

We're talking about identical twins here. There is one father, who contributes one sperm, and one mother who contributes one egg. After fertilization, so while it's already a person by your figuring, the blastocyst splits into two, and then both develop into separate babies. Are you not familiar with this process?

Regarding human chimera one twin was absorbed by the other in utero in the earliest stages of development, leaving only one twin alive. It is the living person that is a person.

I don't think you understand. It's not that one twin eats the other, leaving one genome. The twins merge into one body, which then has two distinct genomes. In human chimeras, this means that there are two different and complete sets of human DNA in one body.

You said that the unique DNA of a blastocyst makes it a person. I'm trying to probe whether you're serious about that. Does a human chimera, who appears to be one person, actually constitute two people, one for each set of DNA they possess?

Didn't you already go over that with sod?

Actually SOD was trying to help you out before you shined your ignorance of the terminology any brighter. You might have done well to pay him some attention.

Because knowledge was less then than it is now. And at the time to which you referred your criteria were not used to recognize personhood else the child in the womb would not have been recognized as such, for it was not known when consciousness began.

No really common criteria were used to identify persons at the time. But the concept existed without any knowledge of DNA. Why do you suppose that is? Are you suggesting that we should reinvent the concept from scratch, disconnected from its past?

 

[Lighthouse]

Because those are the things that makes personhood meaningful. The destruction of a blastocyst doesn't represent the end of any meaningful existence beyond a technical biological one. It causes no pain, no loss of dreams, or thought, or feeling. The blastocyst isn't aware of it.

Their not being aware of it makes it okay? I was under the impression that loss of life is the key here, not loss of dreams, thought, feelings, hopes, etc. I was also not aware that a painless death is morally superior to a painful death in regard to the loss of innocent life.

But well after the blastocyst stage. That's what we're talking about here.

That's actually irrelevant to my point. The ability to form interpersonal relationships cannot happen until after birth, so your two conditions happen at completely different times. It seems that in order to draw your lines you're just drawing straws.

No disagreement here. Just questions about the relevance.

Human=person.

I think you've failed to understand the concept of a hypothetical. This conversation appears to be over your head.

I know what a hypothetical is. The issue is that it's a failed argument in this arena as the issue is actuality, the actuality of personhood.

Wrong. DNA doesn't determine fingerprints.

Source?

It's still true that their DNA is not 100% identical.

That's plain not true.

Prove me wrong.

We're talking about identical twins here. There is one father, who contributes one sperm, and one mother who contributes one egg. After fertilization, so while it's already a person by your figuring, the blastocyst splits into two, and then both develop into separate babies. Are you not familiar with this process?

:dunce::duh:

I don't think you understand. It's not that one twin eats the other, leaving one genome. The twins merge into one body, which then has two distinct genomes. In human chimeras, this means that there are two different and complete sets of human DNA in one body.

Who said anything about eating?

You said that the unique DNA of a blastocyst makes it a person. I'm trying to probe whether you're serious about that. Does a human chimera, who appears to be one person, actually constitute two people, one for each set of DNA they possess?

How many living beings?

Actually SOD was trying to help you out before you shined your ignorance of the terminology any brighter. You might have done well to pay him some attention.

:doh:

I was referring to the Terri Schiavo argument between the two of you.

No really common criteria were used to identify persons at the time. But the concept existed without any knowledge of DNA. Why do you suppose that is? Are you suggesting that we should reinvent the concept from scratch, disconnected from its past?

:bang:

 

[some other dude]

There is no consciousness, no suffering, no awareness, and NO PERSON there. Again: do you even know what a blastocyst IS?

Sounds like you're describing Terri Schiavo. :idunno:

 

[rexlunae]

Their not being aware of it makes it okay?

Not just being unaware, but possessing no awareness at all.

I was under the impression that loss of life is the key here, not loss of dreams, thought, feelings, hopes, etc.

Nope. The loss of life is unimportant to me when the subject is not recognizably a person.

I was also not aware that a painless death is morally superior to a painful death in regard to the loss of innocent life.

Well, at the very least, if the blastocyst were capable of feeling pain, it would be cause to reconsider.

That's actually irrelevant to my point. The ability to form interpersonal relationships cannot happen until after birth, so your two conditions happen at completely different times. It seems that in order to draw your lines you're just drawing straws.

Nothing about my standard requires that everything start at once. There are degrees.

Human=person.

Nonsense.

I know what a hypothetical is. The issue is that it's a failed argument in this arena as the issue is actuality, the actuality of personhood.

It's not a failed argument when you've completely failed to address the objection relevant to the matter at hand. Do you think you can just call it irrelevant if you dodge the question long enough?

Source?

It's still true that their DNA is not 100% identical.

Prove me wrong.

Genetic and epigenetic similarity Monozygotic twins are genetically identical and they are always the same sex unless there has been a mutation during development. The children of monozygotic twins test as half-siblings (or full siblings, if monozygotic twin sisters reproduce with monozygotic twin brothers), rather than first cousins. On rare occasions, monozygotic twins may express different phenotypes, normally due to an environmental factor or the deactivation of different X chromosomes in female monozygotic twins, and in some extremely rare cases, due to aneuploidy, twins may express different sexual phenotypes, normally from an XXY Klinefelter's syndrome zygote splitting unevenly.[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin

Also this:

Friction ridges are formed during fetal development where their unique characteristics emerge due to genetic and epigenetic factors (maternal diet, pH, temperature, movement of the fetus, etc.). Even identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. Uniqueness among even identical twins is due to random, or stochastic, effects during fetal development. Stochastic effects have widespread scientific acceptance as a source of uniqueness and have been observed in several animal studies which included fingerprint and other unique traits (hair patterning) between both clones and nuclear transfers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerprint&oldid=190845125

:dunce::duh:

I only have to dumb it down to this level because you don't seem to understand basic biological processes.

How many living beings?

One "being", two genomes. Or, two people, per your previously stated standard. Unless you'd like to retract that?

:doh:

I was referring to the Terri Schiavo argument between the two of you.

To my knowledge I haven't discussed Terri Schiavo with SOD. Are you thinking of Granite?

 

[Dena]

I didn't read through the entire thread but my answer is "yes, I do".

 

[Silent Hunter]

I didn't read through the entire thread but my answer is "yes, I do".

I have read through the entire thread and my answer is, "Yes, I do," too.

 

[Lighthouse]

Not just being unaware, but possessing no awareness at all.

So it's okay to kill someone in a coma?

Nope. The loss of life is unimportant to me when the subject is not recognizably a person.

So when blacks weren't recognized as people it was okay to kill them?

Well, at the very least, if the blastocyst were capable of feeling pain, it would be cause to reconsider.

How do you know it isn't?

Nothing about my standard requires that everything start at once. There are degrees.

So at which point, by your standard, is it a person?

Nonsense.

Prove me wrong.

It's not a failed argument when you've completely failed to address the objection relevant to the matter at hand. Do you think you can just call it irrelevant if you dodge the question long enough?

Are there mutated cells in human bodies that have completely different DNA than the normal cells in the same human body?

How about this, in the case that mutated cells are present in a human body they have the same base DNA as the normal cells even if the differentiate to an extent; i.e. they are not 100% different DNA, not even to the extent that non-twin siblings with the same two parents have differing DNA.

Genetic and epigenetic similarity Monozygotic twins are genetically identical and they are always the same sex unless there has been a mutation during development. The children of monozygotic twins test as half-siblings (or full siblings, if monozygotic twin sisters reproduce with monozygotic twin brothers), rather than first cousins. On rare occasions, monozygotic twins may express different phenotypes, normally due to an environmental factor or the deactivation of different X chromosomes in female monozygotic twins, and in some extremely rare cases, due to aneuploidy, twins may express different sexual phenotypes, normally from an XXY Klinefelter's syndrome zygote splitting unevenly.[18][19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin

Wikipedia? Really?

Also this:

Friction ridges are formed during fetal development where their unique characteristics emerge due to genetic and epigenetic factors (maternal diet, pH, temperature, movement of the fetus, etc.). Even identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. Uniqueness among even identical twins is due to random, or stochastic, effects during fetal development. Stochastic effects have widespread scientific acceptance as a source of uniqueness and have been observed in several animal studies which included fingerprint and other unique traits (hair patterning) between both clones and nuclear transfers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerprint&oldid=190845125

Again...

I only have to dumb it down to this level because you don't seem to understand basic biological processes.

My response was intended to indicate that you were telling me something I already knew.

One "being", two genomes. Or, two people, per your previously stated standard. Unless you'd like to retract that?

One being=one person.

To my knowledge I haven't discussed Terri Schiavo with SOD. Are you thinking of Granite?

Possibly.

 

[some other dude]

Possibly.

Perhaps you're thinking of my conversation witth Quip.

 

[Lighthouse]

Perhaps you're thinking of my conversation witth Quip.

Possibly. They all look alike to me.

 

[rexlunae]

So it's okay to kill someone in a coma?

Only if there's no chance of them waking, to resume the life they'd been living.

So when blacks weren't recognized as people it was okay to kill them?

Are blacks recognizably people? Yes. So the answer to your question: No.

How do you know it isn't?

It has none of the requisite organs to feel pain.

So at which point, by your standard, is it a person?

When it has a brain, it might be a person.

Prove me wrong.

Prove your bald assertion wrong? No, there's no need. I simply reject it, and ask that you sustain it if you want me to accept it.

Are there mutated cells in human bodies that have completely different DNA than the normal cells in the same human body?

No. But then the blastocyst doesn't have "completely different" DNA from its parents, either.

How about this, in the case that mutated cells are present in a human body they have the same base DNA as the normal cells even if the differentiate to an extent; i.e. they are not 100% different DNA, not even to the extent that non-twin siblings with the same two parents have differing DNA.

I don't quite get what you're trying to suggest here. Of course they aren't 100% different DNA. You don't have 100% different DNA versus a fish either. Are you saying that there's some range within mutations can occur before the mutant cell is considered truly a different person?

Wikipedia? Really?

Again...

It has citations, and it's better than anything you've offered. Stop being so lazy.

My response was intended to indicate that you were telling me something I already knew.

When you suggest things like that identical twins don't have the same DNA, it makes my question your grasp of the underlying processes.

One being=one person.

I take it the DNA standard is out then? It's for the better, if you ask me. It may seem alluring at first, but you simply can't use DNA to determine personhood. It fails on the edge cases, and it really isn't the important deciding factor anyway.

 

[Lighthouse]

Only if there's no chance of them waking, to resume the life they'd been living.

There's always a chance they'll wake up. One can never know.

Are blacks recognizably people? Yes. So the answer to your question: No.

It was once generally accepted that they were not recognizably people. You concede that those who did not recognize them as such were wrong, so what makes you think you're not wrong this time?

It has none of the requisite organs to feel pain.

A nervous system?

When it has a brain, it might be a person.

Might or is? Can you be certain either way?

Prove your bald assertion wrong? No, there's no need. I simply reject it, and ask that you sustain it if you want me to accept it.

If you cannot prove it's not a person then how can you claim it is not? Why are you willing to err on the side it's not a person and agree that it is okay to kill it if you cannot prove that it is not a person?

No. But then the blastocyst doesn't have "completely different" DNA from its parents, either.

It's DNA is half of each parent, making it completely different [beyond a hypothetical mutation in DNA in a cell in a human body] than the DNA of either parent. It is identifiably an individual, separate from both of its parents. And it is living, as evidenced by its growth.

I don't quite get what you're trying to suggest here. Of course they aren't 100% different DNA. You don't have 100% different DNA versus a fish either. Are you saying that there's some range within mutations can occur before the mutant cell is considered truly a different person?

If a mutated cell were taken from my body the DNA would be close enough to mine to identify that it is one of my cells with a slight mutation and not a cell from a separate individual. A cell from a blastocyst will show that it is the descendant of both parents, but is also far enough removed from both parents that it is identifiable as a cell from a completely separate being.

It has citations, and it's better than anything you've offered. Stop being so lazy.

It's all irrelevant as the issue is the difference in DNA between the blastocyst and the biological parents, not the differences, or absence thereof, in twins.

When you suggest things like that identical twins don't have the same DNA, it makes my question your grasp of the underlying processes.

I can admit I may have been wrong, but it's irrelevant. I never studied the processes to that extent, of course I don't understand them. But I do know the DNA between parents and children is not the same, and that is the point.

I take it the DNA standard is out then? It's for the better, if you ask me. It may seem alluring at first, but you simply can't use DNA to determine personhood. It fails on the edge cases, and it really isn't the important deciding factor anyway.

Nope. See above.

 

[rexlunae]

There's always a chance they'll wake up. One can never know.

I'll let you know when my Great Great Grandfather wakes from his death. Any minute now...

It was once generally accepted that they were not recognizably people.

That's not entirely true. It was once used as a justification for treating them as chattel. I suspect that the people who argued that they weren't people like everyone else knew better, at least initially, and forced themselves to ignore that fact. Perhaps they even persuaded themselves that they weren't people. But it takes very little practical observation to see that that's not true.

You concede that those who did not recognize them as such were wrong, so what makes you think you're not wrong this time?

This is basically just the question "how do you know you're right?" Well, if I'm wrong, you haven't been able to show how.

A nervous system?

Sure, that's a good start.

Might or is? Can you be certain either way?

I did put the emphasis on "might" for a reason. I don't think anyone know exactly, and it's probably a process more than a discrete point. There are things, such as a brain, which are pretty clear prerequisites. However, the beginning of personhood is a bit later than the development of the brain.

If you cannot prove it's not a person then how can you claim it is not?

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I can't definitively prove that it is a person at any point. Only that at some point, there's enough doubt to credit it with the possibility of being a person.

Why are you willing to err on the side it's not a person and agree that it is okay to kill it if you cannot prove that it is not a person?

That's not what I do at all.

It's DNA is half of each parent, making it completely different [beyond a hypothetical mutation in DNA in a cell in a human body] than the DNA of either parent.

Ok, if by "completely different" you mean "half like one, half like the other". It's not quite that clean, but it certainly isn't "completely different" from either parent.

Would it make a difference to you if the baby were a clone of its mother, thus having exactly the same DNA?

It is identifiably an individual, separate from both of its parents.

I don't see how you can call something separate from its parents when it lives inside its mother's body.

And it is living, as evidenced by its growth.

So are many things that aren't people.

If a mutated cell were taken from my body the DNA would be close enough to mine to identify that it is one of my cells with a slight mutation and not a cell from a separate individual.

That's probably true. And it's entirely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one, i.e. it's based upon how much difference there is between that cell and your other cells.

A cell from a blastocyst will show that it is the descendant of both parents, but is also far enough removed from both parents that it is identifiable as a cell from a completely separate being.

Genetic tests don't actually reveal anything about "beings". You can infer parent/child relationships from genetic tests.

It's all irrelevant as the issue is the difference in DNA between the blastocyst and the biological parents, not the differences, or absence thereof, in twins.

Whereas I'd argue that neither is relevant at all.

I can admit I may have been wrong, but it's irrelevant. I never studied the processes to that extent, of course I don't understand them. But I do know the DNA between parents and children is not the same, and that is the point.

You know the one thing you care about and aren't interested in the problems. Great.

Nope. See above.

You'll really be better off the sooner you jettison the unique DNA argument. I know you won't take my word for it, but it really does fall down, as I've shown, and you've failed to effectively counter.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'll let you know when my Great Great Grandfather wakes from his death. Any minute now...

We're talking comas, not death.

I suspect that the people who argued that they weren't people like everyone else knew better, at least initially, and forced themselves to ignore that fact. Perhaps they even persuaded themselves that they weren't people. But it takes very little practical observation to see that that's not true.

:shut:

This is basically just the question "how do you know you're right?" Well, if I'm wrong, you haven't been able to show how.

Why should I need to? On which side would you rather err? Would you rather say it isn't a person and be wrong or vice versa?

Sure, that's a good start.

Why not start earlier?

I did put the emphasis on "might" for a reason. I don't think anyone know exactly, and it's probably a process more than a discrete point. There are things, such as a brain, which are pretty clear prerequisites. However, the beginning of personhood is a bit later than the development of the brain.

Why? What makes it so?

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I can't definitively prove that it is a person at any point. Only that at some point, there's enough doubt to credit it with the possibility of being a person.

Can you prove that it is not a person at any point?

That's not what I do at all.

Poppycock!

Ok, if by "completely different" you mean "half like one, half like the other". It's not quite that clean, but it certainly isn't "completely different" from either parent.

How about we go with it is not completely like either parent?

Would it make a difference to you if the baby were a clone of its mother, thus having exactly the same DNA?

human clones are impossible.

I don't see how you can call something separate from its parents when it lives inside its mother's body.

It is a separate being. Where it resides has no bearing on that.

So are many things that aren't people.

Irrelevant. We are discussing many things working together to show it is a person. It is human and it is developing, with DNA that is different [not exactly like] than either parents DNA.

That's probably true. And it's entirely a quantitative difference, not a qualitative one, i.e. it's based upon how much difference there is between that cell and your other cells.

:doh:

The mutated cell is not an individual entity.

Genetic tests don't actually reveal anything about "beings". You can infer parent/child relationships from genetic tests.

You're an idiot.

Whereas I'd argue that neither is relevant at all.

Support your argument.

You know the one thing you care about and aren't interested in the problems. Great.

What?

I was wrong, but that's a moot point because your twin argument was a rabbit trail.

You'll really be better off the sooner you jettison the unique DNA argument. I know you won't take my word for it, but it really does fall down, as I've shown, and you've failed to effectively counter.

It does not fail; your only counters were rabbit trails.

The DNA of the blastocyst is not exactly identical to the DNA of either parent, the blastocyst is human and it develops. It is therefore a separate entity from either parent. So, because it is human, its own entity and it develops it is a person.

 

[rexlunae]

We're talking comas, not death.

But you said always...

Why should I need to? On which side would you rather err? Would you rather say it isn't a person and be wrong or vice versa?

I'd rather not err at all. I will give the fetus the benefit of the doubt, but I have no doubt with regard to blastocysts. None.

Why not start earlier?

I don't see women as fancy incubators on which I can simply impose my whims. I take seriously any question that could hinder their rights.

Why? What makes it so?

It's the only standard that makes any sense to me at all.

Can you prove that it is not a person at any point?

Referencing the standard I've laid partially laid out, yes. Otherwise, can you prove that anyone is a person at any time without referring to some standard?

How about we go with it is not completely like either parent?

Sure. So you're saying that anything that's not completely like either parent is a separate person?

human clones are impossible.

Convenient that you don't believe in the things that challenge your preferred view of the world. Any reason you think human clones are impossible, or are you just unwilling to consider the question thoughtfully?

It is a separate being. Where it resides has no bearing on that.

Well, it isn't really self-sustaining. It doesn't have any kind of mind. I'm not sure what meaning "being" has in that context. What qualifies it as a "being".

Irrelevant. We are discussing many things working together to show it is a person. It is human and it is developing, with DNA that is different [not exactly like] than either parents DNA.

And, again, I don't see the importance of the DNA being different. Why is that important? How do you deal with the edge cases I've already mentioned? You haven't answered any of that.

The mutated cell is not an individual entity.

True enough.

What?

I was wrong, but that's a moot point because your twin argument was a rabbit trail.

Well no. You suggested that unique DNA is an important defining part of personhood. I followed that to the logical conclusion, on several points, apparently further than you'd ever thought about it. If you want to change your mind now, that's fine, I think you should, because it's a bad argument. But it's not irrelevant, nor is it my fault, that I followed the argument you gave me.

It does not fail; your only counters were rabbit trails.

No, I showed you where your theory fails. And it doesn't take much to make it fail.

The DNA of the blastocyst is not exactly identical to the DNA of either parent, the blastocyst is human and it develops. It is therefore a separate entity from either parent. So, because it is human, its own entity and it develops it is a person.

It only develops with the active assistance of another person; and one who is not dependent in the same way. I'm not sure what you mean by being "its own entity" given its inherent dependency, and as you yourself conceded above, simply possessing its own unique DNA doesn't make it "its own entity". I will certainly agree, and I've never disputed, that it is human.

 

[Lighthouse]

But you said always...

I said there is always a chance someone in a coma could wake up, moron.

I'd rather not err at all. I will give the fetus the benefit of the doubt, but I have no doubt with regard to blastocysts. None.

Can you support this conviction?

I don't see women as fancy incubators on which I can simply impose my whims. I take seriously any question that could hinder their rights.

What about the rights of the other person in the equation?

It's the only standard that makes any sense to me at all.

That's a lousy reason. And you can't even tell me why it makes sense, which is even worse.

Referencing the standard I've partially laid out, yes. Otherwise, can you prove that anyone is a person at any time without referring to some standard?

A developing human is a person. No other standard necessary.

Sure. So you're saying that anything that's not completely like either parent is a separate person?

You're an idiot.

Convenient that you don't believe in the things that challenge your preferred view of the world. Any reason you think human clones are impossible, or are you just unwilling to consider the question thoughtfully?

Let's see them do it then.

Why do you think I think it's impossible? It should be rather obvious.

Well, it isn't really self-sustaining. It doesn't have any kind of mind. I'm not sure what meaning "being" has in that context. What qualifies it as a "being".

It isn't self-sustaining for a while after birth, either. But no surprise you have another poor argument.

And, again, I don't see the importance of the DNA being different. Why is that important? How do you deal with the edge cases I've already mentioned? You haven't answered any of that.

The difference in DNA shows that it is not the mother's body.

And your "edge cases" are irrelevant. I've already shown how they are, so let's move on.

True enough.

Then let it go.

Well no. You suggested that unique DNA is an important defining part of personhood. I followed that to the logical conclusion, on several points, apparently further than you'd ever thought about it. If you want to change your mind now, that's fine, I think you should, because it's a bad argument. But it's not irrelevant, nor is it my fault, that I followed the argument you gave me.

:bang:

I refined my argument to be more exact, because you're a flaming moron who couldn't figure out what I was saying on his own, so focus.

No, I showed you where your theory fails. And it doesn't take much to make it fail.

Imbecile.

It only develops with the active assistance of another person; and one who is not dependent in the same way. I'm not sure what you mean by being "its own entity" given its inherent dependency, and as you yourself conceded above, simply possessing its own unique DNA doesn't make it "its own entity". I will certainly agree, and I've never disputed, that it is human.

No, it develops with the passive assistance of another person. The born child that cannot take care of itself is the one who only continues to develop with the active assistance of another person.

Dependency is irrelevant to identity.