"So, basically, there is not a lot of difference among the blood of different species of mammals. In order to identify the origin of a sample of blood, one would need to do DNA testing."Is your claim DNA?
From this I gather human blood tested by using anti-human serum which is gained by injecting the blood into rabbits and waiting a period of time for the antibodies to kick in. When that is done the blood is drawn then tested on human serum proteins to see if it clumping. If that happens it is human blood. Correct?
Your [LINK] stated this "So, basically, there is not a lot of difference among the blood of different species of mammals. In order to identify the origin of a sample of blood, one would need to do DNA testing.".What does this mean?
To the best of my knowledge.
What does this mean?Answer?
To the best of my knowledge.Are you telling what makes a human is their blood cells?
Would you say humans are different DNA or humans have DNA?In order to determine which individual organism the cells are members of, DNA testing would be required.
If a sample contains an overwhelming majority of human blood cells, then that sample is, in all reasonable likelihood, from a human.
A biologist stated Rhesus monkeys have blood types in common with humans. Are Rhesus monkeys human?
I don't really want to continue this conversation. Next time I'll just go straight into commenting what I want instead of asking you questions in hopes to not require even more questions to understand.
This is not the slightest bit arbitrary.At birth the umbilical cord is cut and the mass of cells ceases to be a parasite, which is comprised of nearly 100% material from the host and instead at that moment, becomes a semi-autonomous citizen of the state.It moves from being inside the mother's sovereign territory and into the sovereign territory of the state.This is a type of migration.Applicable laws are based on jurisdiction.If you're standing in Croatia, then Croatia's laws apply to you.If you're standing in India, then India's laws apply to you.If you're inside another person, then you are at their mercy.
You're not necessarily contradicting my point. You argue only that this arbitration is subject to the jurisdiction of a territory.
It's basically the same as what you said.The mother has sole jurisdiction over her womb.When the life-form moves outside of that jurisdiction (womb) it is subject to the laws of that new land.
I just think I am spending too much time on this.Well, if you pick a spot on the ground (a random topic) and you start digging (investigating, asking questions), you will very likely find things you weren't expecting to find long before you hit bedrock (or your shovel breaks, which seems to be the case this time).
Because the state owns the land and the roads and the bridges and the money, but NOT HER BODY.Why does the state get to compel those, but not her body?
No, the State effectively controls the lands, roads, bridges, and the money. It does not "own" it. The State, is argued, to be the proxy of its constituents; therefore, they would "own" the land since their tax dollars are used in the alienation of land, roads, bridges, and even money. However, since there no single proprietors sustaining ownership of the lands, it's essentially owned by no one. But I digress.Because the state owns the land and the roads and the bridges and the money, but NOT HER BODY.
No, the State effectively controls the lands, roads, bridges, and the money. It does not "own" it.
She can only dispossess her obligation if she's able to legally alienate it to another...
The state obligates her to provide her time, labor, and resources to her infant. She may only relinquish this responsibility if only if she's able to transfer this responsibility to another (e.g. medical professionals, public servants, prospective adoptive parents, etc.) That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.If you'd be so kind as to rephrase this.
The state obligates her to provide her time, labor, and resources to her infant. She may only relinquish this responsibility if only if she's able to transfer this responsibility to another (e.g. medical professionals, public servants, prospective adoptive parents, etc.) That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.
That makes her time, labor, and resources subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration of the State.
This is not necessarily true.Most jurisdictions have exceptions to child abandonment in the form of safe haven laws. Safe Haven Laws allow mothers to safely abandon their newborn infants in safe locations - such as churches, hospitals, and fire stations - without fear of being charged with the crime of child abandonment. [*]
I'm not sure how this is considered an extraordinary case.The time, labor, and resources of all citizens is subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration (whim) of the state.Pretty much the only thing they don't already own (capriciously confiscate (take ownership of) at will) is your body and whatever might be inside it.
This is necessarily true.
Safe haven laws presume the transfer of responsibility even if the transfer doesn't happen in person because those safe havens are legally recognized corporations/institutions.
And the premises are part of their corporate entity. But could she do the same at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse?
I'm not sure how this is considered an extraordinary case.The time, labor, and resources of all citizens is subject to the jurisdiction and arbitration (whim) of the state.Pretty much the only thing they don't already own (capriciously confiscate (take ownership of) at will) is your body and whatever might be inside it.Hence, arbitrary, more so inconsistent.
You're moving the goal posts.It is not the mother's responsibility to procure the safety of their abandoned child.It is merely the mother's responsibility to locate a sanctioned drop-off-point.Your assertion would be like saying that people can't throw away their garbage whenever they want, because they need to drive-all-the-way to the nearest sanctioned city dump and then follow proper procedure (or pay someone to do it for them).
Sure, but the mothers "responsibility" ends the moment she drops the kid off at a sanctioned drop-off-point. Easy-peasy.
It is merely the mother's responsibility to locate a sanctioned drop-off-point.
You're basically asserting that because you have failed to identify any coherent framework or principle, that there must be no coherent framework or principle (therefore arbitrary).
If your claim (of "inconsistent") is regarding a particular perceived inconsistency, please be more specific.
The analogy is congruent.There are no moving goal posts. It would be like my saying that disposing garbage is under my sovereign jurisdiction, but I'm still obligated to the dictates of the City Dump. That's the reason it's necessary for you to include the qualifier "sanctioned." Once again, could she do this at an abandoned church, hospital, or firehouse? Why must she transfer responsibility (in accordance to the dictates of the State) and not simply relinquish it (like abortion)?
you want to abdicate responsibility for a blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus (THEN) you must visit a properly equipped and sanctioned facility.
Substantiate that the properly equipped and sanctioned facility is subject to the dictates of the State.
Please be more specific.Are you suggesting that medical facilities are NOT licensed by the state?
