3RU7AL

Not all of your cells have identical DNA coding.  The human chimera example closes the case on that.

A rare case.

Fairchild's attorney was determined to solve the mystery. That's when he came across Keegan's chimera story in the New England Journal of Medicine.

"I asked the judge to postpone the case until these tests could be done," Tindell said.

And therefore, (IFF) DNA determines human rights (THEN) any creature with 97% DNA matching a human should be granted 97% human rights.

Try again. First, define determine and commensurate.

I know Vietnamese families that bought out the entire fishing industry on the Louisiana gulf coast by living on the boat and working 16 hours a day and saving all the money.

But there is no contradiction between Christianity and science.

...if not its content, its scope...

For the purpose of this thread, "objective morality" is the position that some moral propositions, like "killing someone without sufficient justification is morally wrong" are *factually* true.

Of course, we'll never know,

Noumenon isn't merely a tautological consequence of epistemology. It's an argument of its own using the premise "we don't know everything." It first assumes "everything," if not its content, its scope (counterintuitive.)

I have not refused to support my claim,

The entire Schiff show is an appeal to emotion.

This is why the partisan House minus 2 Democrats hoping to keep their job is busy removing an elected president.

Since you are not an independent,

you really do not understand the optics.

Minority had subpoena power in Bill Impeachment. Also, vote to proceed was bipartisan.

The catalyst is human survival instinct.

Your start-point appears to be arbitrary.

I'm not arguing over this, anymore.

This is going to vary from one person to the next and would require nearly catastrophic testing to verify.

Why catastrophic?

Biden NEVER "went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution".

Ukraine is a primary source of what happened there, FACT

Ukraine is a primary source of waht happened

Trump also referenced alleged corruption by then-Vice President Joe Biden: “The other thing, There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

However, the transcript of the call shows that the help sought by Trump was in regard to activities that took place during and before the 2016 election.

“I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike … I guess you have one of your wealthy people … The [DNC] server, they say Ukraine has it,” Trump said to Zelensky.

But doesn't the link primarily focus on gene expression (e.g. tight skin, hair color, brain cells, etc...) especially when it mentions that the codes "aren't working well" as opposed to the codes being distinct? Even when it makes reference to the code, it makes an immediate mention of its expression. Other than the mention of viruses being able to rewrite the code, isn't most of its conclusions derived from gene expression? (I'm genuinely curious.)

Its bidens scandal

Impeachment bad

Amazing. Where does it state that the children were forcibly removed?

Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N

Y.

Are you suggesting that personhood determines human rights? Y/N

Y.

Because you need diplomacy to ask another nation for justice?

ITs just an interview, it hold zero weight

I explicitly said code.

Reference?

In one of these cases, a woman's womb did not match her standard DNA swab and this resulted in her children being forcibly removed.

Reference?

How would you do this?  Redefine "individual human" as 99.99999999999% matching DNA?

Not necessary; the only thing needed is to determine what is exclusively his.

You're hair-splitting.

No, I'm not. Prevent is different from stop. Stop is to end an occurrence, which necessitates that it occurs.

To prevent is to put an end to its ever occurring, which does not necessitate that it occurs. No one disputes that humans are necessary; no one disputes that sperm and ovum are necessary.

But that's not the inception of human development.

They're essential inputs, no doubt. But the catalyst is fertilization.

I'll leave it to you. Your response to my saying that I never stated that rights were commensurate to DNA content spurred you to invoke the law of excluded middle to conclude DNA determines rights. Elaborate.

The only way for you to not have a "subject's perspective" would be for you to know all things and see all things with 100% equal clarity.

In order for you to know that I don't know everything with 100% equal clarity, you'd have to some sense of 100%. Do you?

The only way to avoid the "subject's perspective" is for you to not be a subject with a perspective.

Who said anything about "avoiding"? Embrace it; incorporate it. To be ontologically subjective is not synonymous with to be inaccurate or epistemologically subjective.

NOUMENON = THE UNKNOWN

Somewhat, not exactly. Noumenon is independent from ontological subjectivity, not necessarily isolated from it.

It is possible to represent an object in Noumenon, for example, objectively as a matter of coincidence.

Of course, in order for us to gauge this accuracy we'd of course have to isolate it, but since we're discussing Noumenon, this coincidental representation is ontologically objective.

This obviously is epistemologically insignificant.

They are intrinsically linked, not necessarily "the same thing".

I'm pointing out that your desire is prerequisite to your method.

Your method means nothing and can never happen without your prerequisite desire.

Your desire is biased, shaped by your personal feelings and whims.

This bias contaminates your method.

Desire is like the battery of a robot.

Without desire (a battery) then the robot (your method) is dead (moot).

Explain.

Objective = unbiased

Subjective = biased and the most fundamental bias of all is sample-bias.

Substantiate this claim.

Moral truths are embedded in rationality and the parameters that define rationality are objective.

You however, are conflating preservation with value.

In the case of the death penalty, the convict's life is recompense for the lives presumably taken.

"all human life is precious" strongly implies that all human life should be protected and preserved at all costs, even and especially at the cost of personal privacy.

Interesting how that projection conveniently suits the context of the pro-life argument. I do not believe it means that which you state. I believe that the motto "all life is precious" is an argument for the inclusion of unborn children as it concerns the scope of legal protections afforded everyone.

This seems to me like an off topic tangent.

So while I think "Life" is an ironclad argument for theism,

You seem to want threads diverted to your preferred topic whenever you come across a topic you like. I think that is disrespectful to the OP.

OTHERWISE, HOW DOES IT INFORM ABORTION?

My presumption would be that they don't believe the privacy of its mother is commensurate to that of the value of her child's life. I disagree. But they sustain this consistently throughout its development until the child is no longer dependent.