quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong: Well, in one case, the person is going to be alive no matter what the timing. In the second, a few weeks/months make the difference between the thing being a life person and it being a parasite of indeterminant status.
There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:ETA: Rereading your post, I now realize that you anticipated that someone was going to respond to your cite with "only snarky one liners." Wow. I mean, you knew ahead of time. Amazing.
Because TGirl said this:
quote:As far as my choice of sites for fetal development, I used the one which was the most ideologically neutral I could find on short notice. I figure that if the only response I am going to get from you (and others like you) are short one liners, devoid of substance and only seeking to prove your point by mockery, why bother putting much effort into it.
I have had enough with spending time on carefully constructed, thoughtout, literature cited posts which are responded to with only snarky one liners made because you have nothing of real substance to say. My time and energy are better spent on other things.
quote:TGirl: No. I am annoyed because you seem to lack the subtlty to tell the difference between a site intended for women who are happily going through pregnancy from one which is blatantly pro-life.
I am agog at your the lack of basic subtlty it takes to get that a happily pregnant woman is more likely to view what is growing inside her as a baby than one who is unwillingly pregnant.
So is the cite you posted accurate or not? It was posted, apparently, in response to a cite that was inaccurate.
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
Possibly because other species are not renowned for their facility with English?
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that we know of. Just because humans may not call another species' offspring parasites does not automatically mean that that other species may not call its unborn offsping parasites.
Unless of course the species in question is a parasite. Then they more than likely call their unborn offspring parasites.
I'll get that -
-------------------- I swear, it was funnier in my head. Yeah, I used to be pink. vanilla_pink. Posts: 2493 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only point in posting that picture, Nobody Important, was to show an intact 9 week old fetus so people could compare. The people at that particular site have nothing to gain by posting false information, and I figured it would be more accurate and up to date. In my opinion, it looks like a much older fetus in the Priests for Life picture. You could disagree. We don't know, actually, because you are too busy trying to play some sort of warped "gotcha" game.
But, once again, you are spending a lot of time arguing over this, while ignoring the main point of my post.
Where is Canuck with his sig line when I need him?
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MaleOrderBride: Day 1 - conception takes place.
Defined how? And in an instant, or is there a time during which conception has partly taken place?
quote: 7 days - tiny human implants in mother’s uterus.
Any suggestion as to what this "tiny human" might actually be at this point? Because "tiny human" sounds to me as if it is indistinguishable from all other humans except in terms of size.
quote: 10 days - mother’s menses stop.
Um, doesn't this strike anyone as odd? Menses not stopping until ten days after conception, I mean. Unless something other than the commonly understood meaning of menses is intended.
-------------------- ~~Ai am in mai prrrrrraime!~~ Posts: 10111 | From: Oklahoma | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hero_Mike: Gibbie - there is no requirement for parental consent, approval, or notification when applying for or obtaining a driver's license in Ontario, and I would assume that this is both the default situation in most areas, and what was in place when most of us got our own license. Your situation is likely an anomaly. Incidentally, in Ontario one can have automobile insurance at the age of 16, totally independent of a parent.
ETA : Emphasized to note that I believe that parental consent for driver's licenses is a new thing - like graduating licensing and mandatory driver training. I recognize that things may be different in the US, however, my guess would be that parental conesent for such things was not required until the last 5-10 or so years.
Your guess would still be incorrect. When I applied for a license twenty-four years ago, my parents had to give permission -- not only did they have to sign the form, but I had to be accompanied by one of them in person when I submitted the application to ensure I hadn't forged a signature.
In my state, anyone under 18 cannot execute a contract on hir own behalf, including one for automobile insurance. Minors who drive must be covered as additional drivers on an adult's policy. This was also the case way back when I applied for my own licence.
Canadian law obviously varies. It is inappropriate to make a generalization about the US based on Canadian law. And since I think at least half of the members of this board are USAians, IMO it is inappropriate to say your experience is the "default" when referring to the members of the ULMB, as well.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: My only point in posting that picture, Nobody Important, was to show an intact 9 week old fetus so people could compare. The people at that particular site have nothing to gain by posting false information, and I figured it would be more accurate and up to date. In my opinion, it looks like a much older fetus in the Priests for Life picture. You could disagree. We don't know, actually, because you are too busy trying to play some sort of warped "gotcha" game.
But, once again, you are spending a lot of time arguing over this, while ignoring the main point of my post.
Where is Canuck with his sig line when I need him?
I'm just saying, don't post cites if you don't want people to read them. And don't take it personally if they do.
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Canuckistan
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: Where is Canuck with his sig line when I need him?
Right here!
But you think I'm getting involved in an abortion debate!
-------------------- People need to stop appropriating Jesus as their reason for behaving badly. It's so irritating. (Avril) Posts: 8429 | From: New York run by the Swiss (Toronto) | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding my previously-stated belief that parental consent was required for most "teen-legal" activities such as driving - I guess I have been brainwashed by too much television, and the portrayal of "emancipated minors" (not the strict legal definition, but teens who drive, own cars, work various jobs - with nary a sign of a parent in their lives) has made me believe that this is the case here. Too much "Beverly Hills 90210", I'm afraid.
Quite frankly, I'm amazed. I was not aware that parental consent was, in fact, the default. I even checked the Canadian passport application, and while the "adult" passport application is used for anyone over the age of 16, there is no provision for signature of a "parent or guardian" if the applicant is not yet an adult. A parental is only required for a Social Insurance number application, if the applicant is *under twelve*.
I can see how I can get confused by this - teenagers are obviously assumed to be capable of much more responsibility here in Canada.
-------------------- "The fate of *billions* depends on you! Hahahahaha....sorry." Lord Raiden - Mortal Kombat Posts: 1587 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TurquoiseGirl: My only point in posting that picture, Nobody Important, was to show an intact 9 week old fetus so people could compare. The people at that particular site have nothing to gain by posting false information, and I figured it would be more accurate and up to date. In my opinion, it looks like a much older fetus in the Priests for Life picture. You could disagree. We don't know, actually, because you are too busy trying to play some sort of warped "gotcha" game.
But, once again, you are spending a lot of time arguing over this, while ignoring the main point of my post.
Where is Canuck with his sig line when I need him?
I'm just saying, don't post cites if you don't want people to read them. And don't take it personally if they do.
You are missing the point. No one has issues with you reading the cite. What the problem is (that you fail to grasp) is that you have this annoying habit of "tearing apart" a well thought out, researched post with snide one-line comments that do nothing to further the debate or help your cause in any way, shape, or form. You believe you are "tearing apart" a post, others believe you are just trying to deflect the discussion into a snark fest with no useful information to impart. Try posting a well thought out, researched post or rebuttal to another's post and you might find the responce to it treating you like a person with an opinion, unlike a poster who thinks they have the upper hand but just keeps looking like an immature poster with no useful information.
Besides, I don't think I would call Pregnancy.org a "blatent pro-life" cite. It is a website devoted to informing woman about pregnancy and everything related to it. There doesn't appear to be any heavy bias towards abortion one way or the other anywhere on the site. Perhaps my definition of "pro-life cite" does not agree to yours, in that it does not include websites that cater to women who wish to carry a pregnancy full-term and therefore does not cover abortion as it is not an option to these particular women. YMMV of course.
-------------------- I swear, it was funnier in my head. Yeah, I used to be pink. vanilla_pink. Posts: 2493 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nobody Important: There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
Other species will sometimes eat the newborns. The other animals in the herd/group do not expel the parent for this behaviour. So the behaviour of other species with regards to unborn and born children is probably not a good comparison.
Also, the parasite was used to provide how a pregnant woman herself might view the fetus. Since we don't know that animals have the self-knowledge to think of an unborn as a parasite, we don't refer to the unborn as a parasite.
-------------------- IIRC, it wasn't the shoe bomber's loud prayers that sparked the takedown by the other passengers; it was that he was trying to light his shoe on fire. Very, very different. Canuckistan Posts: 3694 | From: Arizona | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vanilla: You are missing the point. No one has issues with you reading the cite. What the problem is (that you fail to grasp) is that you have this annoying habit of "tearing apart" a well thought out, researched post with snide one-line comments that do nothing to further the debate or help your cause in any way, shape, or form. You believe you are "tearing apart" a post, others believe you are just trying to deflect the discussion into a snark fest with no useful information to impart. Try posting a well thought out, researched post or rebuttal to another's post and you might find the responce to it treating you like a person with an opinion, unlike a poster who thinks they have the upper hand but just keeps looking like an immature poster with no useful information.
Except that I understood TGirl to say (and I am paraphrasing here) that she posted the cite on short notice, because I (or anyone who might have a different opinion) am not "worth" a well thought out, researched post. Or at least, that was implied after the fact. So, I'm not sure I was responding to a well thought out, researched post to begin with, or something that was posted hurriedly to counter MaleOrderBride's pro-life propaganda.
This is TGirl actually said:
quote:As far as my choice of sites for fetal development, I used the one which was the most ideologically neutral I could find on short notice. I figure that if the only response I am going to get from you (and others like you) are short one liners, devoid of substance and only seeking to prove your point by mockery, why bother putting much effort into it.
Maybe I misunderstood this. But I don't think so.
quote:vanilla: Besides, I don't think I would call Pregnancy.org a "blatent pro-life" cite. It is a website devoted to informing woman about pregnancy and everything related to it. There doesn't appear to be any heavy bias towards abortion one way or the other anywhere on the site. Perhaps my definition of "pro-life cite" does not agree to yours, in that it does not include websites that cater to women who wish to carry a pregnancy full-term and therefore does not cover abortion as it is not an option to these particular women. YMMV of course.
Pregnancy.org probably is not blatantly pro-life, at least not in a political sense. But was I seriously citing it as blatantly pro-life or was I mocking pro-choice propaganda? You are free to decide, but not to have it both ways.
Posts: 482 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ryda Wong: Well, in one case, the person is going to be alive no matter what the timing. In the second, a few weeks/months make the difference between the thing being a life person and it being a parasite of indeterminant status.
There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
I may well regret this, but different mammals have different types of placentas. In some, the mother contributes tissue, in others, such as humans, the mother does not and it much easier to see the embryo as an invader.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen sperm under a microscope, and those little suckers are technically "alive," right? So what about them? Who, I ask you, is holding candlelight vigils for all them little lost spermies?
-------------------- "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" -- seen on a t-shirt Posts: 319 | From: Upstate NY | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SweetieBird: I've seen sperm under a microscope, and those little suckers are technically "alive," right? So what about them? Who, I ask you, is holding candlelight vigils for all them little lost spermies?
Or mourns for the loss of the millions of unfertilized eggs or unimplanted embryos shed by women each month.
Well, that is the problem I have with the whole "life begins at conception" argument. The theory of sponateous generation was disproven centuries ago. Becoming an individual human is a process, not a singular event.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody Important: There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
quote:TGirl: I may well regret this, but different mammals have different types of placentas. In some, the mother contributes tissue, in others, such as humans, the mother does not and it much easier to see the embryo as an invader.
OK - I'm going to assume that I'm going to be accused of snark in this post so I'll just get it over with.
Now - if you're still reading, I'll ask this question - if I read TGirl's post and the cite correctly, a human fetus could be described as less of a parasite than the feti of some other species. Is this correct?
quote:Originally posted by Nobody Important: Now - if you're still reading, I'll ask this question - if I read TGirl's post and the cite correctly, a human fetus could be described as less of a parasite than the feti of some other species. Is this correct?
quote: par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
quote:parasite
(Science: biology) An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism
quote:parasite n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host
quote:Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.
A fetus is, biologically, a parasite.
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nobody Important: Now - if you're still reading, I'll ask this question - if I read TGirl's post and the cite correctly, a human fetus could be described as less of a parasite than the feti of some other species. Is this correct?
quote: par·a·site (păr'ə-sīt') n. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
quote:parasite
(Science: biology) An organism which obtains food and shelter from another organism
quote:parasite n 1: an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); the parasite obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host
quote:Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.
A fetus is, biologically, a parasite.
Four Kitties
But a fetus does contribute to the survival of its host--Darwinically speaking.
Nonny
-------------------- When there isn't anything else worth analyzing, we examine our collective navel. I found thirty-six cents in change in mine the other day. Let no one say that there is no profit in philosophy. -- Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 10141 | From: Toronto, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Plague of Nonny: But a fetus does contribute to the survival of its host--Darwinically speaking.
A fetus contributes to the survival of the host's species in general, but not to the survival of the host individually (at least not until it supports its mother in her old age).
Four Kitties
-------------------- If swimming is so good for your figure, how do you explain whales? Posts: 13275 | From: Kindergarten World, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Plague of Nonny: But a fetus does contribute to the survival of its host--Darwinically speaking.
In those terms, the "benefit" of allowing the host's genes to be passed to the next generation is not considered a direct benefit to the individual host organism (the mother).
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nobody Important: There are pages and pages of debate on these boards about the p-word already, but I'll just reiterate that in no other species is the unborn offspring referred to as a "parasite."
quote:TGirl: I may well regret this, but different mammals have different types of placentas. In some, the mother contributes tissue, in others, such as humans, the mother does not and it much easier to see the embryo as an invader.
OK - I'm going to assume that I'm going to be accused of snark in this post so I'll just get it over with.
Now - if you're still reading, I'll ask this question - if I read TGirl's post and the cite correctly, a human fetus could be described as less of a parasite than the feti of some other species. Is this correct?
2. You could have asked the question without the snark, especially snark about stuff you invented. You accused me of being angry for you reading my cite. Vanilla countered that adequately.
3. My interpretation is that in other mammals, the contribution of maternal tissue makes it less parasitic. I view it as the difference between, say, a nitrogen fixating nodule in legumes where both host and organism contribute to the formation of the nodule and an a situation in which only the organism contributes. Other mammals do not implant into the uterus (which only occurs in those animals which mensturate), thus it is less invasive.
You, obviously, are free to disagree. But stop beating a dead unicorn.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SweetieBird: I've seen sperm under a microscope, and those little suckers are technically "alive," right? So what about them? Who, I ask you, is holding candlelight vigils for all them little lost spermies?
I told myself I wasn't going to post in this thread. I was just going to read it like a good little boy.
But I can't STAND this argument. There IS a FUNDAMENTAl difference between a gamete and a zygote. In humans, gametes do not contain enough information to possibly result in a human being further down the line. A zygote is diploid, while a gamete is haploid. It cannot possibly become a human being.
That aside, a zygote represents a genetically unique potential human being. A gamete represents the potential for a near infinite number of human beings, genetically.
I don't want to address the abortion issue directly, but there is NOTHING logically inconsistant about believing that "death" of a zygote/embryo/fetus is wrong and that there is absolutely nothing wrong with a sperm or egg "dying."
Sheesh. Talk about a strawman.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is still a fundamental difference. You can argue about whether it is meaningful in terms of the abortion debate, but the quoted statement is not a legitimate argument in any case. Gametes and zygote do not enter into it.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "it's a living thing" argument is equally illegitimate.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this forced abortion was because of race issues or just because they wanted to force it, it's wrong. Course there's people like this: http://ruthlessforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=19954 who make smartass remarks
-------------------- "High-Five!" - Borat Posts: 1056 | From: Racine, WI | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: The "it's a living thing" argument is equally illegitimate.
But that too is a huge strawman. No one makes "it's a living thing" arguments. Bacteria are living things too, and no one give's a rat's hind parts about them. People make the argument that it is a potential unique human life. Of course, many go further than that, calling it a full human life. The accuracy of that is debatable, and I feel there are legitimate points on both sides. Ethics is in many ways arbitrary, and often there are several legitimate points that disagree with each other.
But NO ONE says abortion is bad simply because "it's a living thing." A life, maybe, but the meaning there is a human life. And this is nothing new. It's not uncommon in a tragic event to hear something like "54 lives were lost." I don't think they're including intestinal bacteria in that number.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, you're saying that gametes are human and zygotes are not?
I disagree. They are both potential humans, one obviously closer to achieving its potential than the other, but still both a long, long way from being actual people.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, you're saying that gametes are human and zygotes are not?
Um, no. Gametes are definitely not human. They are not even really a potential human. Not an individual one, anyway. Sure, they have the potential to make a human if they fuse with their counterpart, but there are literally almost an infinite amount of humans that an individual gamete could lead to, in that sense.
Also, I was very careful not to actually say that zygotes are human (I think you flip-flopped my meaning a bit there). All I said is that they are undeniably a unique potential human life. (As opposed to gametes, which are not a unique potential human life.) I then went on to say that some people, when arguing from a pro-life standpoint (or at least one that holds abortion as not being a good thing, even if it is necessary) believe that since a zygote is a unique potential human life, that they are effectively a full human life.
The only point I really mean to make here is that the "If you think the "death" of a zygote is bad, you must think the "death" of a gamete is bad as well" argument is an entirely invalid argument. The two cells are fundamentally different in a way that it is not necessary logically inconsistant to view a zygote as a human life and a gamete as not being one (or even close!).
Although I will again reiterate here that I am not necessarily saying that a zygote is a full human life. All I'm saying is that a zygote is undeniably a unique potential human being and a gamete is not. I don't have the inclination or wherewithall to get into a full-fledged abortion debate here.
ETA:
quote:They are both potential humans, one obviously closer to achieving its potential than the other, but still both a long, long way from being actual people.
Directly addressing this, a zygote may or may not be a full human being (depending on who you ask), but it is a unique potential human, whereas a gamete is not.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gametes can't become anything but human, either, though. Sure, it takes a little more outside assistance than zygotes, but they certainly can't become anything else.
[ETA: A zygote can become more than one human. We call 'em twins. ]
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AnglRdr: Gametes can't become anything but human, either, though. Sure, it takes a little more outside assistance than zygotes, but they certainly can't become anything else.
Sure, they're human as an adjective, just like my skin cells are human. But there's no way you can call a gamete a human being. Yes, they have the potentially to eventually be part of something that leads to a human. But it is not a 1:1 correlation, it is a 1:many correlation. Again, one sperm or egg could lead to an almost infinite amount of unique individuals. But a zygote is always going to be one individual (if it implants and the pregnancy comes to term).
Looking at it from the other end, a gamete does not have enough information (in the form of chromosomes) to become a human being, whereas a zygote does.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please note, El Camino, I haven't said gametes are human. I have said they are potential humans. They are at a different level of achieving their potential than zygotes. But, like zygotes, they possess only the promise of becoming humans; as such, IMO, neither deserve the protection full-fledged, actually born humans are entitled to.
-------------------- "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...the twins thing is interesting. I don't think this minor issue really affects my arguments, though. So it's not a perfect 1:1 correlation, but identical twins are so rare that it's pretty darn close.
Also, genetically, identical twins are by their very nature almost the same. The interesting part is "What exactly causes the rare difference between identical twins?" One obvious answer is X chromosome silencing, which does not occur until later in development and is essentially random. (This of course only works for females...begging the hypothesis that female identical twins may be more different than male ones.) Another factor is probably mitochondrial DNA, because the mother's mitochondrial DNA is essentially randomly split with the cytoplasm during cell division.
Another obvious factor is environmental factors. This is going to be a huge factor for personality (probably mostly determined by environment anyways) and some aspects of physical appearance, but others (such as eye color, which is said to sometimes vary between identical twins) seem unlikely to be environmentally influenced. Total hijack, but does anyone know any other reasons for identical twins to be different from each other? I guess differential methylation of the DNA could occur early on and lead to different traits.
In any case, I don't think this minor detail really detracts from my argument. A zygote almost always leads to one unique individual, and in rare cases leads to two almost identical individuals. With gametes, again you're talking about the potential for trillions of unique individuals.
And this minor loophole can be avoided by simply waiting a few days. Once the zygote has divided to be say, 100 cells, there's pretty much no chance of identical twinning, so there is really a 1:1 embryo:potential human being ratio.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[fish]](graemlins/fish.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]
