--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > His second objection was not valid. > > "For two, the wikipedia entry you posted says that these cells in > this case are not human, but are instead of another genera." > > This using of "what things are called" to define what they are is > a classic trick, but it's also a serious error. > > HeLa cells have human DNA. They're tumour cells from a human > cervical cancer patient. It has been proposed that as these cells > are free- living that they could constitute an incidence of > speciation, and a new name has been suggested (but is not > universally accepted). > > But the point remains. These are free living human cells, with a > full complement of human DNA. That someone has suggested they're a > new species is beside the point - these are free-living human > cells... so why aren't they human beings with the same rights as > the rest of us?
Do the cells *really* have human DNA? The wikipedia mentions their extraordinary reproductive properties - don't these properties necessitate some sort of change in the DNA? After all, if you took cells from my Mom's cervix, they wouldn't keep propagating in a laboratory. This possibility that they have non-human-DNA is perhaps particularly instructive if further proof is assembled for the theory that a virus is at the root of many cancers. The possibility of HeLa being a separate species is hardly "beside the point" - it is the point. If HeLa cells are not human, then they don't have human rights - they would have all the rights of a paramecium. In all honesty, I can't even understand for a second how you could argue that the humanity or non-humanity of the HeLa is "beside the point" - but perhaps that is at the heart of our failure to communicate. > "Killing a cell" and killing a person aren't the same thing either. At the heart of the issue is individuality. Killing a cell from an individual is one thing, killing an entire individual is another. > Just to make it clear, this is what we're talking about > having "full > human rights": > > http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/8cellicsi.jpg Of course, the images are ancillary to your argument, because you dont think that this: http://tinyurl.com/hwenv has human rights either. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
