jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
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.
JDG--
Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point.
To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear
line between things that can turn into adult humans and things
that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just
like to argue for the fun of it. : )
May I propose that you reply: "Anything produced by combining
a human egg and sperm certainly counts as HUMAN. Other things
might also; we'll decide about clones later."
---David
(Must--not--argue--with--John... No, it's no use, I
can't help but gang up on you: Personally, I think
you ARE a long ways down a slippery slope to "every
sperm is sacred". Sorry.)
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
