Because it has its own DNA, a tumor is not part of an individual's body

I define a person as a human being with its own unique DNA. If you were to take a cell from a tumor and clone it, you would not get a twin of the host, but a twin of the tumor. Therefore, the tumor is its own separate being. This seems a concrete, unarguable way to define a person: a human being with its own unique DNA.

Using that definition, I believe that each person, benign or malignant, has equal rights under the law. No one has absolute power over the rights of another human being. This is part of the seamless garment of civil rights I fight for as a Democrat.

There are cases in which the tumor's right to life comes into conflict with the host's right to life. There are many legally difficult times when two humans' rights conflict. Each case must be decided on an individual basis. No law can successfully cover all possibilities.

If a host has willingly agreed to provide food and lodging for a child, and has provided it without coercion, then s/he can't simply say to another human being, his/her tumor, "I'm kicking you out," whether that child lives in her house or in her body. A father must provide child support; a husband must provide alimony; you can't simply cut someone off that you have pledged to care for. That is a basic civil right that single mothers cry out for with deadbeat dads.


There are many who want to see the Democratic party extend it's fight for civil rights to the cancerous, and I am one of them. Prove to me that the hosts and the tumor's DNA are the same, then I might change my mind. Until then--We're here. We're pro-life. Get used to it.

you're all for tumor rights until it's born - then you don't care.

:)

:eyes:

/sarcasm

A teratoma is a genetically discrete tissue mass from a failed twin pregnancy that was only partially reabsorbed. These are present from birth and occasionally may cause enough trouble later in life to require removal.

Regular cancer cells share one's DNA, but have had their instruction code go haywire. The DNA is still the same as the host's DNA.

However, your analogy breaks down completely when you equate one cell or even a thousand cells with a living, thinking, complete human being. It just isn't the case.

It also breaks down rather severely when you consider each living, thinking person's right to self defense. Cancer and pregnancy each carry risks, and it's up to the living, thinking adult to decide whether the risk of doing nothing is an acceptable one.

So please stop with silly analogies based on faulty knowledge of biology and the denial of basic human rights and we'll all get along better.

would could just as easily say stop trying to enslave women and we'll all get along better.

Tumors have different DNA. It might be as simple as a point mutation, but it's definitely a unique code.

"However, your analogy breaks down completely when you equate one cell or even a thousand cells with a living, thinking, complete human being. It just isn't the case."

Indeed, as does the argument that an embryo is a complete human being. Which is why this thread exists.

However, your analogy breaks down completely when you equate one cell or even a thousand cells with a living, thinking, complete human being. It just isn't the case.

I couldn't have said it better. In fact, I've tried.

So please stop with silly analogies based on faulty knowledge of biology and the denial of basic human rights and we'll all get along better.

Man, you're making this too easy.

What is that phrase? "Hoisted by your own petard"

Curse you all!

And they may even have a soul. Prove that they don't! After all, god made them.

It showed graphic, speeded up, manipulated footage of a tumor being exised (the very word sickens me) and it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that tumors feel pain, skip rope and make up nursery rhymes.

You should have seen how round and perfect it was sitting there nestled so sweetly in my gut growing and becoming stronger every day. I fell in love at first sight. If only everybody could have seen it, we would not be having this discussion because it was demonstrably pulsing with life and vitality.

after Rupert Murdoch, who he thought was a definite threat to broadcasting. Unfortunately, Rupert won.

I hope you have won your fight.

There was a woman who had a rare blood cancer in the 1950's.

She died soon after it was diagnosed... However, her blood
was still alive and was being used for research well into
the 1970's and '80s. (For all I know it's still alive.)

I think her name was Lucille... I'll have to look it
up sometime.

Ooops... My point being. Is she still alive then?

And what's more, she's over the limit on all her credit cards.

A :toast: to you, Modem Butterfly!!

as she's not totally dead yet.

African American woman who unfortunately died of a horribly virulent strain of cervical cancer in 1951.

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

Ironically, in her death she's become one of the most important figures in the fight against cancers. Her cancer is especially nasty. The cancer cells grew immediately when placed on petri dishes, and precautions even had to be made to prevent it from cross infecting other dishes. The "HeLa" cancer line has become an invaluable tool in cancer research. Strangely, in terms of biomass, there is more of the HeLa cell line now than there ever was of Henrietta Lacks.

That's her!

Thanks Dr.Weird... I owe you one. ;)

I read an article about her over ten years ago in
Time or Newsweek.

Hmm... Henrietta Lacks.

In that article they had a small picture of her
on one side.

I remember thinking, "What a shame."

I was going to the doctor and a lady had a stand outside with a sign, "Tumors deserve life Too!"...

She talked me out of it, and now my little tumor has grown up and has been the best part of my life!

become full term according to the pro-lifers.

... There's plenty of families out there who'd like to have a tumor,
but, can't have one of their own.

Really.

...but I think you might be right.

Absolutely best thread of the day!!

Make them give me alimony and I'll let the tumor live.

just contains the ex husband's DNA. Now if it had some of your DNA you could demand joint custody not that you would want any of his crap in the first place. He should keep all of his DNA to himself and raise and support his own crap without passing it on to you.He should pay you for letting him keep his own crap. So rules this judge.

Of course since you probably still have a lot of your ex husband's crap around in one form or another he should be paying you to keep it in the style to which it has become accustomed. :hi:

My ex kept all of his own crap then gave it to someone else. She had to deal with his crap and his DNA. I should send her a thank-you note.

Mz Pip
:dem:

i think this would fall under the category of "immaculate conception."

...I get it - hadn't noticed the abortion threads erupting everywhere again in GD.

Excellent satire, BTW.

having a tumor abortion, it just makes me cry. Tumors DO have their own DNA!!! THEY DESERVE TO LIVE!!!

(good one modem)