Not defecting Carol. Just pointing out that it is a legitimate question about a curious phenomenon.

I don't think Ben was questioning their individuality. The question was why does their individuality obviously begin AFTER conception?

Hi, Jason. Yes, that's what I thought he meant, too. I was in school with a pair of twin girls; they both loved music, but one was into pop and the other into classical. They had matching skirt-&-sweater sets (all the rage, then)and one wore the pink and the other the blue every time. They were so alike that it was hard to tell them apart unless you saw them together. But once you got to know them, it was a lot easier: they both excelled in English Lit class, but one loved ENGLISH Lit and the other American Lit. One was always laughing about something, the other one was more serious. There were lots of little clues that made them unique from each other. Each must have had her own "call" on her life. Makes me wonder how they turned out.

Going back to Ben's question, I have to ask if twins have the same DNA, does that mean that only one of them is a "living" person? Obviously not.

Or, maybe, I don't understand the question. Am I missing something?

If I remember, Carol identical twins are formed by the splitting of a fertilized egg. I think that is what Ben was getting at.

Yes, identical twins are as unique to each other as they are to me (no blood relation). I've known several sets and, once you get past the physical similarities, they are often as different as night and day! Unique people with a unique calling.

Which is why I have to answer your question about a clone as Gina did: no, I couldn't and wouldn't. If the clone has "life", then it is a separate being from me and deserves a chance to live her own life, not be sacrificed for mine.

Gina - why do you mention adult stem cells? What do they have to do with embryonic stem cells? (other than that they both have "stem cells" in the name).


Hmm.. so.. if embryos made via IVF each represent a "life" because of their unique DNA, what if you were able to make embryos with no DNA? or even better, with copies of your own DNA? Is it a separate "life" if it just has your DNA (i.e., it'd be your twin).. or would it okay to use this kind of embryo to grow you a new set of lungs?

Scientists have been able to take skin cells and turn them into embryo-like stem cells, and, in mice, they grew baby mice from these. So.. when this research gets to the point where it works in humans, would killing these embryo-like cells be murder, too?

All your cells have the same DNA - the difference between your liver cells nad heart cells is which parts of the DNA are turned on/off. Heck, that's the same as for a pair of identical twins. So I don't exactly follow the "a new unique life starts at conception" line of argument. Aren't identical twins unique?

C'mon, we all know that there are people--including scientists--so wedded to the success of embryonic stem cells that they won't admit failure even when some of their own accoutrements desicate and drop off their own bodies! I'm, personally, a step farther out than Kim: put me in the "wait for it" category.

I'm sure that sacrifices to Molech seemed to work once in a while, also. Even if the technique works, and even if it helps people to the point if alleviating suffering, that doesn't make it morally or even ethically right.

...considering that this technique was probably the result of many years of research efforts, one can bet that it was not just one innocent human being who was destroyed in order for them to get partial sight.

I hope and pray I'm wrong, but these two women have a good chance of developing other symptoms, like tumors.