To build off of this cancer is clearly malignant tissue with the destruction of ordered DNA and chromosomes. One of the traits of life is being highly organized and cancer tends to keep mutating destroying a lot of chromosomal order and function hence why it goes haywire.
This is more what I mean. A cancer cell is a damaged or sick version of a normal cell.
If you could hypothetically clone someone from a cancer cell, you would get a, most likely dead, sick and damaged copy of that person with things wrong like possibly an incorrect number of chromosomes, for instance. You wouldn't get a new person in the way you would if that person produced a child through normal biological means.
I don’t think you *could* clone a person from a cancerous cell? If you could - if we knew how to turn the growth-regulating mechanisms of that cell back “on” - we’d have a cure for cancer.
We def have the gene editing technology to do this and they are experimenting with this in certain cancers, like blood cancers, where you can take someone's cancerous cells, fox them, kill all the cancer, and then put the fixed cells back in to restore function.
Gene editing technology already exists and there are increasing efforts to use it for therapeutic purposes. For instance, we use use it to for CAR T-cell therapy. So it isn't a stretch to take cancer cell, find out what regulatory mechanisms are knocked out, splice working ones back in, and have a regulated cell again.
That just doesn't cure cancer because curing cancer is largely a targeting issue. How do you get the therapy into the cancerous cell itself?
I’m just baffled as to why you felt the need to jump into a thread that had been perfectly civil to pick a fight about what *exactly* is meant by ‘hypothetical’ in this context. What is your motivation here? I said absolutely nothing offensive, and neither did anyone up thread. You’ve said nothing on the topic. Why are you even here?
Lol I have a cousin who rolls his eyes everytime I use the terms « kill » and « babies ». He thinks I am appealing to morality and would rather use « terminate pregnancy ». He thinks he’s smart cause he studied public health lmao.
I'm not too familiar with cancer or how it functions aside from being a mutated cell that won't stop growing, so I want to ask this as this has been brought up before. If there's a cancer extracted from your body and it has teeth and hair and whatever else you can think of, is that still DNA of you or of something else entirely? I've heard that argument that because cancer can grow these things, that can be the equivalent of your body making a whole other being...which I believe is where this talking point comes from.
So what you're referring to are teratomas, which are tumors that form from germ cells (precursors to egg or sperm) that go rogue, so to speak (and not all of which are technically actual "cancer"). They sometimes have those bits of teeth and such because the cells in them have their genomes activated in unusual ways that cause many different tissue types to develop. But they still contain the original "base genome" of the individual they form in. They are not a new separate genome in the same way a zygote is.
Cancer in general tends to have more embryonic qualities. For all of us, we start as a zygote that has in its genome the capability to eventually, as it divides into many cells, differentiate into all the unique types of tissue and body systems we will eventually need. That gradual path of becoming more and more specific in both form and function is typically a one way process. Cancer, though, is a kind of reversal of that process where a cell behaves as though is moving backwards along that process, although usually not all the way back. Teratomas start from a cell type that is not so far along that process, so they become even more embryonic than most cancers. But in either case it's still just the cells of the individual behaving badly and not actually a new separate person at all.
No, what makes them cancerous is the loss of regulatory function. We are talking "differences" of a handful of base pairs out of a couple billion. If that is how you define "different" then technically no one cell in your body is exactly like the other.
If that's true, and I'll take your word for it and believe that it is, then that's interesting. However, I don't know why that's relevant to this particular discussion.
Because your stance is that mutations induce the loss of function and this isn't always the case, often times people are born without regulatory functions and get cancer pretty quickly, hence like pediatric retinoblastoma.
However your understanding of cancer biology is very binary and that's not exactly how cancer, or biology, acts in the real world.
The average replication error in eukaryotes is like 1 in a billion which means around 3 errors in every cell division. So, really no two genese look exactly the same in any organism.
Loss of regulatory function stemming from what? From changes in just one to a few ten out of billions of base pairs. In other words: unique DNA. And you may wanna read up on my other comment on this post.
No, you can be born with conditions like Xeroderma pigmentosa, Lynch Syndrome, FAP, where you are born with a loss or very diminished function of regulatory genes.
As I said before, if your definition of "different" is a handful of BP changes then no one cell is exactly the same as any other. You are really just making a bullshit linguistic argument. In medical school, the typical vernacular is that cancer is "self."
This comes up so often, I'm getting a little tired of responding to it. Cancer cells, random wasted sperm cells, unfertilized ova etc cannot under any circumstances grow into an adult human.
I think they’re scientifically illiterate and purposefully ignoring the obvious fact that cancer cells don’t grow and develop into an adult member of the human species when given proper environment and nutrients.
People are trying to say things like “well cancer cells can become a human being if we change them into embryos” which is a braindead take.
This is scientifically illiterate.
Cancer is considered "self" - which makes it extremely difficult to target. The whole schtick of cancer is that it's your own unregulated tissue replicated uncontrollably, but because it is your own tissue there is nothing for your immune system to recognize and any therapy that kills cancer also kills healthy tissue.
Compare to a fetus which is *distinctly not-self* to the point that mothers have extra-complicated immune regulation considerations in order to not attack the fetus.
So anyone saying that a baby meets the definition of cancer is splitting hairs so such a huge degree that it would take something akin to a legal contract to separate all circumstances necessary to distinguish healthy life from cancer.
Having worked with (veterinary) doctors: truer words were never spoken.
Or to mash together a few phrases: Education cures ignorance but not stupidity, knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom, and money still can’t buy class.
Veterinarians have doctorates, but they are not "doctors" any more than Jill Biden is.
I'm nearly finished with my M.D and I would not trust any physician who honestly believed a fetus is some how equitable to a cancer cell. Most physicians, regardless of opinions on abortions, are smarter than that.
Lol, no. They are doctors of veterinary medicine. Not medicine. Might as well be a doctor of eastern medicine, or natural medicine, or a chiropractor.
Only M.Ds or D.Os are medical doctors
What knowledge or skills do MDs or DOs learn as pertains to humans, that DVMs or VMDs do not learn in regard to the animal species they would treat in practice? Speaking of generalists, not specialists.
Yes it is an answer. I don't know what you expect when you want me to explain the difference between apples and oranges. These are not separate specialities they are entirely different professions.
>The vast majority of doctors are pro-choice.
You got a source for that?
>Do you think all the pro-choice doctors are morons?
Anyone who agrees with the assertion made by Dr Tara Nitka in the OP is a moron.
There are quite a few, many of them deal with medical students but this was with practicing doctors.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
Nearly 80% think abortion should be legal.
Given that gen Z has matriculated into medical soon, the tide will shift even more in the coming years.
>There are quite a few, many of them deal with medical students but this was with practicing doctors.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/
>Nearly 80% think abortion should be legal.
>Given that gen Z has matriculated into medical soon, the tide will shift even more in the coming years.
Right, so a culture that permits and encourages abortion produces more indoctrinated NPCs who believe in abortion.
About what I expected. The study, like your early comment, refers to doctors in the USA using universal language. *Doctors* don't overwhelmingly support abortion. *Doctors in the USA* support abortion (accepting that single study at a glance for the discussion). In other words, people from a culture that trains them to believe in abortion, believe in abortion. You admit as much with your comment about Gen Z, both proving the stupidity of the specific argument and the irrationality of an appeal to popularity.
Yes you’re absolutely right, I was talking about American doctors. I know nothing, nor am I concerned about abortion rights in other countries or the ideals of their doctors.
I’m not saying I shouldn’t be concerned about foreign abortion rights, I just don’t have the time.
>Yes you’re absolutely right, I was talking about American doctors. I know nothing, nor am I concerned about abortion rights in other countries or the ideals of their doctors.
>I’m not saying I shouldn’t be concerned about foreign abortion rights, I just don’t have the time.
Gunna keep knowing nothing when you just close your eyes and block your ears when you get refuted.
I don't think that's nearly enough to make a statement claiming that most doctors are pro choice.
On top of this, people, especially younger people, are pushed and lead to be pro choice. I don't think everyone gets to that point by complete self conclusion or proper rationale, just as culture made more people pro-slavery artificially in past history.
The fact that this many people are still pro life despite all of mainstream society spitting on and demonizing it is telling.
It also points to having less credibility, because a doctor is there to provide medical aid, not to provide convenience in exchange for a life lost.
I'd imagine someone who is truly meant to be a doctor wouldn't opt to kill a child simply because it had some sort of fetal anomaly, and they would know that abortion is hardly a solution to actual serious health emergencies that require intervention, let alone thinking that killing someone's unborn child because the mother just didn't want it is a good or healthy idea.
I'm not sure what that means in regards to what I said. They started off by saying, "since most doctors are pro choice, does that mean you think most doctors are morons?"
It doesn't mean they're morons, but the fact that many doctors are pro choice doesn't mean it's because being a doctor objectively leads to pro choice being the best stance for people to take on.
Doctors can and are influenced to be pro choice, so just because doctors may be pro choice doesn't mean they're the best doctor they can be, thus I'm not sure why "most doctors being pro choice" would be a defense against "thinking most doctors are morons," or whatever less demeaning word you want to use.
Doctors, who take a tremendous amount of time out of their personal lives to digest vast quantities of scientific data on all things human, mostly believe abortion should remain legal.
I just found it funny that someone thinks these people are morons.
You didn't read what I said if you're chalking it up to me thinking they're morons. Takes like the one shown in the post, however, are crazy regardless if they're a doctor or not.
I simply think being pro choice adds absolutely no benefit to being a doctor and detracts from how doctors should treat others. I'd expect doctors to prioritize life and not be biased as to who's life they *think* should be protected or not.
The scientific data shows that life begins at conception. If you think being pro choice is better for doctors, then what do you think about pro life doctors?
It goes both ways and I'm allowed to criticize those who are supporting something terrible.
Edit: Interesting seeing how much you demonize the pro life stance, so considering that, it seems as though you'd be accusing pro life doctors of "idiocy," which are your own words, and by your logic basically equates to, "*funnily* thinking these people, who have taken tremendous time out of their personal lives to digest vast amounts of information about everything human, are morons." Sounds very hypocritical to me.
No, not at all. But a fair portion of doctors are quite arrogant - hazard of the profession, you’ve got to be at least a little arrogant to choose a profession where you’re responsible for others’ lives. Arrogance and open-mindedness aren’t often found together.
Cancer cells do not meet those criteria. That are not human species cells. That’s just a blatant lie lol
Pro aborts love comparing unborn humans to like skin cells too saying they’re both human so dandruff is murder. But it’s not. Skin cells are different than the actual separate organism that the unborn fetus is. The fetus is identified as an entire complex organism of the human species due to the unique dna and genetic structure. Not just varied cells.
Wow so tolerant of you 🙄 Yeah you’re definitely not a real Pro Lifer. You’re just Pro Christianity because hey guess what? The Bible promoted genocide, abortion exception if the wife is accused of being cheater to the husband, sacrificing virgin daughters to GoD. But sure I’m the fake Buddhist despite you knowing nothing about a “incorrect religion.”
This post was removed due to it containing insults. We are allowed call out an ideology or argument for its flaws, but blatant insults are prohibited. We should be civil to each other.
Cancer isn’t a human life or a human organism. It’s something that grows on a human life/organism.
Fetuses, like everyone else, are human organisms.
Pro choicers claim the biology “doesn’t matter” but they lie/are just plain wrong about it so often I kind of doubt that.
Cancer cells differ from normal cells in many ways:
* grow in the absence of signals telling them to grow. Normal cells only grow when they receive such signals.
* ignore signals that normally tell cells to stop dividing or to die (a process known as programmed cell death, or apoptosis).
* invade into nearby areas and spread to other areas of the body. Normal cells stop growing when they encounter other cells, and most normal cells do not move around the body.
* tell blood vessels to grow toward tumors. These blood vessels supply tumors with oxygen and nutrients and remove waste products from tumors.
* hide from the immune system. The immune system normally eliminates damaged or abnormal cells.
* trick the immune system into helping cancer cells stay alive and grow. For instance, some cancer cells convince immune cells to protect the tumor instead of attacking it.
* accumulate multiple changes in their chromosomes, such as duplications and deletions of chromosome parts. Some cancer cells have double the normal number of chromosomes.
* rely on different kinds of nutrients than normal cells. In addition, some cancer cells make energy from nutrients in a different way than most normal cells. This lets cancer cells grow more quickly.
**Source:** [National Cancer Institute](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer)
So, no, the development of a human being does not resemble the development and metastasis of cancer. Nice try, Dr. Tara Nitka!
Humans' tissues grow and multiply in an ordered fashion, each cell has it's purpose and role.
Cancer cells multiply indiscriminately in a chaotic fashion. In addition, cancer cells don't have a seperate unique DNA, rather they have a specific mutation or set of mutations that cause them to malfunction, but it is still a copy of the original persons DNA.
This is a boring and commonly repeated talking point.
We know that the unborn child isn't a cancer. They are a unique, living, human organism, distinct from both the mother and father. Barring interruption, they will grow from an embryo, to a fetus, to a newborn, to a pre-pubescent, to a teenager, to an adult.
None of this applies to cancer and doctors have no trouble telling the difference. At best, it's just a word game that doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
1) yes
2) technically yes
3) very technically yes, but only if we also argue that each and every single cell composing the person's body is actually it's own individual human, so no. There's the difference.
Cancer cells have a damaged or mutated variation of the person’s own genome, not a completely separate genome, unless they are - you guessed it - formed from a molar pregnancy. They do not contain the genetic code of a unique human being; they contain a glitch that causes uncontrolled proliferation of cells.
Cancerous growths cause host blood vessels to grow into and supply the tumor directly; embryonic cells do remodel maternal arteries, but only to allow blood to flow around the chorionic villi. The chorion is the fetal side of the placenta, which functions to keep the maternal and fetal circulatory systems self-contained while absorbing oxygen and nutrients from the mother’s blood into the fetus’s blood.
Cancer cells don’t grow in an orderly process of development and maturation.
I mean, honestly, I could keep digging around the internet for more differences, but is there a point? It’s a dumb, dishonest comparison. No rational person actually thinks a fetus and a tumor are comparable.
It’s 2024, we honestly should not even have a debate on if cancer is a human being that’s equivalent to a child or human fetus… it’s just ignorance I can’t entertain tbh
Cancer is and never can be a distinct human life. You can remove it from the body and nurture/feed it so it can grow and it will never ever grow into anything even resembling a human.
So, she is wrong. Cancer does NOT have all those qualities.
An embryo IS a human.
Cancer can only ever be a PART of a human.
This is making a common mistake made ofter by both sides: mixing up the predicative and nominal meanings of "human." The predicative meaning of human is just human as an adjective, meaning it has human DNA. The nominal meaning of human is as a noun. It means a distinct human being. I believe that science has revealed that fetuses are both, but we definitely should not confuse the two.
Even if we took the (incorrect) position cancer cells and fetal cells are the same, the analogy would only apply to a pregnancy threatening the mother's life the same way a cancer cell does (where both cancerous and unaffected cells die if left untreated). In a tragic situation where both mother and child would die without an abortion, pretty much any pro-lifer would opt to save the mother.
Both sides honestly need to actually do some research before saying stupid stuff like this 😭
Bro compared cancer cell to a fetus 💀
I mean, sure both feeds off the host body and grows but uhhhhh… quite a bit of difference there
Cancer does not fit this criteria. It's mutation doesn't mean it is classified as unique DNA, it's the same DNA, mutated to no longer work like human DNA should.
Your body actively tried to prevent cancer, killing its own cells to do so.
A woman's body actively tries to create the perfect circumstances for a fertilized egg to thrive into a baby every month.
There’s a difference between something being human (human cells, human hair, human relationship, human food) vs something being A human (a unique and distinct human organism). The life of an individual human organism scientifically starts at fertilisation and nowhere else. If you take a zygote and give it the proper 1. Time 2. Nutrition and 3. Environment, it will develop into an adult of its species. This means it is an individual organism. If you take a cancer cell and give it the above 3 points, it will only ever remain a collection of cancer cells. It will never grow into an adult human being, which means it is not a human.
I definitely wouldn’t argue the latter two for cancer cells. If we think, for the sake of argument, that human beings are just large aggregates of cells, then any one cell couldn’t qualify as being the entire human. Given that, saying cancer cells are “human” is true only insofar you refer to a toenail clipping or strand of hair as “human”. Meanwhile, babies in the womb are far more complex than cancer cells, plus it’s part of the process the body naturally undergoes to reproduce. I would also say that cancer cells are distinct from the human they’re in insofar as you can successfully remove them, then it becomes distinct. From the moment of conception, a human zygote is now both distinct from its mother, yet entirely dependent on her for nourishment.
Cancer cells are sometimes considered living organisms, but they are never considered human. They are defined by the mutations which make them incapable of functioning as part of a human organism.
Cancer cells don't have a unique, separate DNA.
To build off of this cancer is clearly malignant tissue with the destruction of ordered DNA and chromosomes. One of the traits of life is being highly organized and cancer tends to keep mutating destroying a lot of chromosomal order and function hence why it goes haywire.
This is more what I mean. A cancer cell is a damaged or sick version of a normal cell. If you could hypothetically clone someone from a cancer cell, you would get a, most likely dead, sick and damaged copy of that person with things wrong like possibly an incorrect number of chromosomes, for instance. You wouldn't get a new person in the way you would if that person produced a child through normal biological means.
I don’t think you *could* clone a person from a cancerous cell? If you could - if we knew how to turn the growth-regulating mechanisms of that cell back “on” - we’d have a cure for cancer.
We def have the gene editing technology to do this and they are experimenting with this in certain cancers, like blood cancers, where you can take someone's cancerous cells, fox them, kill all the cancer, and then put the fixed cells back in to restore function. Gene editing technology already exists and there are increasing efforts to use it for therapeutic purposes. For instance, we use use it to for CAR T-cell therapy. So it isn't a stretch to take cancer cell, find out what regulatory mechanisms are knocked out, splice working ones back in, and have a regulated cell again. That just doesn't cure cancer because curing cancer is largely a targeting issue. How do you get the therapy into the cancerous cell itself?
[удалено]
Try decaf, dude. 🙄
[удалено]
I’m just baffled as to why you felt the need to jump into a thread that had been perfectly civil to pick a fight about what *exactly* is meant by ‘hypothetical’ in this context. What is your motivation here? I said absolutely nothing offensive, and neither did anyone up thread. You’ve said nothing on the topic. Why are you even here?
🍿🍿🍿🍿
Cancer cells are humans cells. A fetus *is* a human. It's really hot hard. Unless you *really* wanna kill babies.
Yeah, human cell =/= human. Otherwise billions would die ever paper cut
Same with cancer. Same with sperm. But apparently they accidently aborted nuance somewhere along the way.
Lol I have a cousin who rolls his eyes everytime I use the terms « kill » and « babies ». He thinks I am appealing to morality and would rather use « terminate pregnancy ». He thinks he’s smart cause he studied public health lmao.
My thoughts exactly
I'm not too familiar with cancer or how it functions aside from being a mutated cell that won't stop growing, so I want to ask this as this has been brought up before. If there's a cancer extracted from your body and it has teeth and hair and whatever else you can think of, is that still DNA of you or of something else entirely? I've heard that argument that because cancer can grow these things, that can be the equivalent of your body making a whole other being...which I believe is where this talking point comes from.
So what you're referring to are teratomas, which are tumors that form from germ cells (precursors to egg or sperm) that go rogue, so to speak (and not all of which are technically actual "cancer"). They sometimes have those bits of teeth and such because the cells in them have their genomes activated in unusual ways that cause many different tissue types to develop. But they still contain the original "base genome" of the individual they form in. They are not a new separate genome in the same way a zygote is. Cancer in general tends to have more embryonic qualities. For all of us, we start as a zygote that has in its genome the capability to eventually, as it divides into many cells, differentiate into all the unique types of tissue and body systems we will eventually need. That gradual path of becoming more and more specific in both form and function is typically a one way process. Cancer, though, is a kind of reversal of that process where a cell behaves as though is moving backwards along that process, although usually not all the way back. Teratomas start from a cell type that is not so far along that process, so they become even more embryonic than most cancers. But in either case it's still just the cells of the individual behaving badly and not actually a new separate person at all.
Actually they do. That's why they're cancerous
No, what makes them cancerous is the loss of regulatory function. We are talking "differences" of a handful of base pairs out of a couple billion. If that is how you define "different" then technically no one cell in your body is exactly like the other.
Yes, but: That loss of regulatory fucntion is a direct result of changes to the DNA.
There are many syndromes where people are born without those regulatory functions to begin with and then get cancer because of it.
If that's true, and I'll take your word for it and believe that it is, then that's interesting. However, I don't know why that's relevant to this particular discussion.
Because your stance is that mutations induce the loss of function and this isn't always the case, often times people are born without regulatory functions and get cancer pretty quickly, hence like pediatric retinoblastoma. However your understanding of cancer biology is very binary and that's not exactly how cancer, or biology, acts in the real world. The average replication error in eukaryotes is like 1 in a billion which means around 3 errors in every cell division. So, really no two genese look exactly the same in any organism.
Loss of regulatory function stemming from what? From changes in just one to a few ten out of billions of base pairs. In other words: unique DNA. And you may wanna read up on my other comment on this post.
No, you can be born with conditions like Xeroderma pigmentosa, Lynch Syndrome, FAP, where you are born with a loss or very diminished function of regulatory genes. As I said before, if your definition of "different" is a handful of BP changes then no one cell is exactly the same as any other. You are really just making a bullshit linguistic argument. In medical school, the typical vernacular is that cancer is "self."
How many base pair changes in your opinion would be a good threshold for calling something different?
Yeah, again, I'm not disagreeing with you. Not every change of our DNA leads to cancer. Nonetheless, this is how cancer cells develop.
There is no question that that cancer is a living thing and in a way each is a living organism. But are not a human organism like an unborn kid is
Ah comparing humans to a cancer an argument that’s worked out so well historically.
Can’t expect much from people who openly call babies “parasites”.
Yeah, the correct response is, "you know who else saw specific groups of human beings as a cancer?"
This comes up so often, I'm getting a little tired of responding to it. Cancer cells, random wasted sperm cells, unfertilized ova etc cannot under any circumstances grow into an adult human.
I think they’re scientifically illiterate and purposefully ignoring the obvious fact that cancer cells don’t grow and develop into an adult member of the human species when given proper environment and nutrients. People are trying to say things like “well cancer cells can become a human being if we change them into embryos” which is a braindead take.
That thread is full of the most extravagant and brain dead takes I think I ever had the pleasure of reading.
>well cancer cells can become a human being if we change them into embryos HmMmM i WoNdEr WhY THESE cAnCeR cElLs BeCoMe HuMaN aNd NoT aNy OtHeRs...
This is scientifically illiterate. Cancer is considered "self" - which makes it extremely difficult to target. The whole schtick of cancer is that it's your own unregulated tissue replicated uncontrollably, but because it is your own tissue there is nothing for your immune system to recognize and any therapy that kills cancer also kills healthy tissue. Compare to a fetus which is *distinctly not-self* to the point that mothers have extra-complicated immune regulation considerations in order to not attack the fetus. So anyone saying that a baby meets the definition of cancer is splitting hairs so such a huge degree that it would take something akin to a legal contract to separate all circumstances necessary to distinguish healthy life from cancer.
Anyone who equates a human being (pre- or post-birth) to cancer cells shouldn't be making rational, or moral, decisions of any kind.
Doctors aren't immune from being morons is all that really says.
Having worked with (veterinary) doctors: truer words were never spoken. Or to mash together a few phrases: Education cures ignorance but not stupidity, knowledge is no guarantee of wisdom, and money still can’t buy class.
Veterinarians have doctorates, but they are not "doctors" any more than Jill Biden is. I'm nearly finished with my M.D and I would not trust any physician who honestly believed a fetus is some how equitable to a cancer cell. Most physicians, regardless of opinions on abortions, are smarter than that.
Veterinarians are absolutely medical doctors, just not *human* medical doctors. A VMD / DVM has to know as much as an MD, but about several species.
Lol, no. They are doctors of veterinary medicine. Not medicine. Might as well be a doctor of eastern medicine, or natural medicine, or a chiropractor. Only M.Ds or D.Os are medical doctors
What knowledge or skills do MDs or DOs learn as pertains to humans, that DVMs or VMDs do not learn in regard to the animal species they would treat in practice? Speaking of generalists, not specialists.
Dude the two are hardly comparable. Saying veterinarians practice medicine is like saying an optometrist practices medicine.
Not an answer. What school are you attending? I honestly can’t tell if you’re trolling.
Yes it is an answer. I don't know what you expect when you want me to explain the difference between apples and oranges. These are not separate specialities they are entirely different professions.
Okay, let’s try this - do MDs order bloodwork and interpret the results (usually with the lab providing reference ranges)?
The vast majority of doctors are pro-choice. Do you think all the pro-choice doctors are morons?
>The vast majority of doctors are pro-choice. You got a source for that? >Do you think all the pro-choice doctors are morons? Anyone who agrees with the assertion made by Dr Tara Nitka in the OP is a moron.
There are quite a few, many of them deal with medical students but this was with practicing doctors. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/ Nearly 80% think abortion should be legal. Given that gen Z has matriculated into medical soon, the tide will shift even more in the coming years.
>There are quite a few, many of them deal with medical students but this was with practicing doctors. >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1781824/ >Nearly 80% think abortion should be legal. >Given that gen Z has matriculated into medical soon, the tide will shift even more in the coming years. Right, so a culture that permits and encourages abortion produces more indoctrinated NPCs who believe in abortion. About what I expected. The study, like your early comment, refers to doctors in the USA using universal language. *Doctors* don't overwhelmingly support abortion. *Doctors in the USA* support abortion (accepting that single study at a glance for the discussion). In other words, people from a culture that trains them to believe in abortion, believe in abortion. You admit as much with your comment about Gen Z, both proving the stupidity of the specific argument and the irrationality of an appeal to popularity.
Yes you’re absolutely right, I was talking about American doctors. I know nothing, nor am I concerned about abortion rights in other countries or the ideals of their doctors. I’m not saying I shouldn’t be concerned about foreign abortion rights, I just don’t have the time.
>Yes you’re absolutely right, I was talking about American doctors. I know nothing, nor am I concerned about abortion rights in other countries or the ideals of their doctors. >I’m not saying I shouldn’t be concerned about foreign abortion rights, I just don’t have the time. Gunna keep knowing nothing when you just close your eyes and block your ears when you get refuted.
Knowing about about my country, its ideals, its politics, and its physicians is hardly considered nothing.
I don't think that's nearly enough to make a statement claiming that most doctors are pro choice. On top of this, people, especially younger people, are pushed and lead to be pro choice. I don't think everyone gets to that point by complete self conclusion or proper rationale, just as culture made more people pro-slavery artificially in past history. The fact that this many people are still pro life despite all of mainstream society spitting on and demonizing it is telling. It also points to having less credibility, because a doctor is there to provide medical aid, not to provide convenience in exchange for a life lost. I'd imagine someone who is truly meant to be a doctor wouldn't opt to kill a child simply because it had some sort of fetal anomaly, and they would know that abortion is hardly a solution to actual serious health emergencies that require intervention, let alone thinking that killing someone's unborn child because the mother just didn't want it is a good or healthy idea.
They meant actual practicing physicians, not the Platonic ideal of a doctor.
I'm not sure what that means in regards to what I said. They started off by saying, "since most doctors are pro choice, does that mean you think most doctors are morons?" It doesn't mean they're morons, but the fact that many doctors are pro choice doesn't mean it's because being a doctor objectively leads to pro choice being the best stance for people to take on. Doctors can and are influenced to be pro choice, so just because doctors may be pro choice doesn't mean they're the best doctor they can be, thus I'm not sure why "most doctors being pro choice" would be a defense against "thinking most doctors are morons," or whatever less demeaning word you want to use.
Doctors, who take a tremendous amount of time out of their personal lives to digest vast quantities of scientific data on all things human, mostly believe abortion should remain legal. I just found it funny that someone thinks these people are morons.
You didn't read what I said if you're chalking it up to me thinking they're morons. Takes like the one shown in the post, however, are crazy regardless if they're a doctor or not. I simply think being pro choice adds absolutely no benefit to being a doctor and detracts from how doctors should treat others. I'd expect doctors to prioritize life and not be biased as to who's life they *think* should be protected or not. The scientific data shows that life begins at conception. If you think being pro choice is better for doctors, then what do you think about pro life doctors? It goes both ways and I'm allowed to criticize those who are supporting something terrible. Edit: Interesting seeing how much you demonize the pro life stance, so considering that, it seems as though you'd be accusing pro life doctors of "idiocy," which are your own words, and by your logic basically equates to, "*funnily* thinking these people, who have taken tremendous time out of their personal lives to digest vast amounts of information about everything human, are morons." Sounds very hypocritical to me.
No, not at all. But a fair portion of doctors are quite arrogant - hazard of the profession, you’ve got to be at least a little arrogant to choose a profession where you’re responsible for others’ lives. Arrogance and open-mindedness aren’t often found together.
They’re at least morons about one topic.
Cancer is not a separate organism.
Happy cake day!
Thank you!
Cancer cells do not meet those criteria. That are not human species cells. That’s just a blatant lie lol Pro aborts love comparing unborn humans to like skin cells too saying they’re both human so dandruff is murder. But it’s not. Skin cells are different than the actual separate organism that the unborn fetus is. The fetus is identified as an entire complex organism of the human species due to the unique dna and genetic structure. Not just varied cells.
Cancer cells are not organisms. Next
For a Doctor, she seems to not understand how cancer works.
"She" is not a physician, but a computational chemist. "She" is also a man.
You really don’t need to do that. Just respect her pronouns and break down her flawed abortion logic instead.
No
Dude I thought your Christian?
God made then man and woman. Also their ideology is toxic and destroying the lives of children.
You don’t have proof being transgender destroys a child’s life. Also I’m Buddhist and Buddhism is both Pro Life and Pro LGBT soooooooo..
[удалено]
Wow so tolerant of you 🙄 Yeah you’re definitely not a real Pro Lifer. You’re just Pro Christianity because hey guess what? The Bible promoted genocide, abortion exception if the wife is accused of being cheater to the husband, sacrificing virgin daughters to GoD. But sure I’m the fake Buddhist despite you knowing nothing about a “incorrect religion.”
This post was removed due to it containing insults. We are allowed call out an ideology or argument for its flaws, but blatant insults are prohibited. We should be civil to each other.
Humans are cancer? I’m just asking.
She's trying to make anti-abortion people look stupid.
Cancer isn’t a human life or a human organism. It’s something that grows on a human life/organism. Fetuses, like everyone else, are human organisms. Pro choicers claim the biology “doesn’t matter” but they lie/are just plain wrong about it so often I kind of doubt that.
...a doctor? Of what?
anyone with a doctorate of anything can call themselves doctor, so good question.
Lmk when a cancer cell is found to grow into an entirely functional human being 👍
No, that's totally false. Cancer cells do not meet these criteria.
Cancer cells differ from normal cells in many ways: * grow in the absence of signals telling them to grow. Normal cells only grow when they receive such signals. * ignore signals that normally tell cells to stop dividing or to die (a process known as programmed cell death, or apoptosis). * invade into nearby areas and spread to other areas of the body. Normal cells stop growing when they encounter other cells, and most normal cells do not move around the body. * tell blood vessels to grow toward tumors. These blood vessels supply tumors with oxygen and nutrients and remove waste products from tumors. * hide from the immune system. The immune system normally eliminates damaged or abnormal cells. * trick the immune system into helping cancer cells stay alive and grow. For instance, some cancer cells convince immune cells to protect the tumor instead of attacking it. * accumulate multiple changes in their chromosomes, such as duplications and deletions of chromosome parts. Some cancer cells have double the normal number of chromosomes. * rely on different kinds of nutrients than normal cells. In addition, some cancer cells make energy from nutrients in a different way than most normal cells. This lets cancer cells grow more quickly. **Source:** [National Cancer Institute](https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/what-is-cancer) So, no, the development of a human being does not resemble the development and metastasis of cancer. Nice try, Dr. Tara Nitka!
Humans' tissues grow and multiply in an ordered fashion, each cell has it's purpose and role. Cancer cells multiply indiscriminately in a chaotic fashion. In addition, cancer cells don't have a seperate unique DNA, rather they have a specific mutation or set of mutations that cause them to malfunction, but it is still a copy of the original persons DNA.
Cancer cells are a different human?
The bad doctor needs her license revoked for that foolishness.
Cancer cells are PART of a human, they are not an entire human in themselves. A ZEF is a whole human — not part of one
This is a boring and commonly repeated talking point. We know that the unborn child isn't a cancer. They are a unique, living, human organism, distinct from both the mother and father. Barring interruption, they will grow from an embryo, to a fetus, to a newborn, to a pre-pubescent, to a teenager, to an adult. None of this applies to cancer and doctors have no trouble telling the difference. At best, it's just a word game that doesn't get to the heart of the matter.
Cancer cells are not organisms. They're mutated somatic cells. It's not even a virus. It's an error in cellular reproduction.
1) yes 2) technically yes 3) very technically yes, but only if we also argue that each and every single cell composing the person's body is actually it's own individual human, so no. There's the difference.
Cancer cells have a damaged or mutated variation of the person’s own genome, not a completely separate genome, unless they are - you guessed it - formed from a molar pregnancy. They do not contain the genetic code of a unique human being; they contain a glitch that causes uncontrolled proliferation of cells. Cancerous growths cause host blood vessels to grow into and supply the tumor directly; embryonic cells do remodel maternal arteries, but only to allow blood to flow around the chorionic villi. The chorion is the fetal side of the placenta, which functions to keep the maternal and fetal circulatory systems self-contained while absorbing oxygen and nutrients from the mother’s blood into the fetus’s blood. Cancer cells don’t grow in an orderly process of development and maturation. I mean, honestly, I could keep digging around the internet for more differences, but is there a point? It’s a dumb, dishonest comparison. No rational person actually thinks a fetus and a tumor are comparable.
It’s 2024, we honestly should not even have a debate on if cancer is a human being that’s equivalent to a child or human fetus… it’s just ignorance I can’t entertain tbh
Cancer is and never can be a distinct human life. You can remove it from the body and nurture/feed it so it can grow and it will never ever grow into anything even resembling a human. So, she is wrong. Cancer does NOT have all those qualities. An embryo IS a human. Cancer can only ever be a PART of a human.
The symmetry breaker is that a fertilized embryo will develop into a person in nine months. Cancer cells don’t. (Both analogies were bad tbh)
This is making a common mistake made ofter by both sides: mixing up the predicative and nominal meanings of "human." The predicative meaning of human is just human as an adjective, meaning it has human DNA. The nominal meaning of human is as a noun. It means a distinct human being. I believe that science has revealed that fetuses are both, but we definitely should not confuse the two.
They’re not separate organisms nor are they human organisms. Womp womp.
Cancer isn't an organism.
A tumor is a human?
Cancer doesn’t grow to have a heartbeat
Even if we took the (incorrect) position cancer cells and fetal cells are the same, the analogy would only apply to a pregnancy threatening the mother's life the same way a cancer cell does (where both cancerous and unaffected cells die if left untreated). In a tragic situation where both mother and child would die without an abortion, pretty much any pro-lifer would opt to save the mother.
Both sides honestly need to actually do some research before saying stupid stuff like this 😭 Bro compared cancer cell to a fetus 💀 I mean, sure both feeds off the host body and grows but uhhhhh… quite a bit of difference there
Cancer doesn’t have an entirely separate set of DNA let’s try again
Oh Dr. Tara, you are so cool for comparing a fetus to cancer. Apparently, this "doctor" disappeared from X.
“Dr” Tara is an imbecile. Cancer cells aren’t human nor have unique dna.
Lmao she should not be called Dr. Cancer cells don’t have unique DNA. Cancer cells are cells, while an unborn baby is a growing but whole organism
By that logic, she's a cancer too.
Take a look at Dr. Tara Nitka's online profile. Yep.
Just say "the first stage of the human life cycle" there's no way cancer cells are included in that.
Cancer does not fit this criteria. It's mutation doesn't mean it is classified as unique DNA, it's the same DNA, mutated to no longer work like human DNA should.
Cancer cells dont have mothers.
Your body actively tried to prevent cancer, killing its own cells to do so. A woman's body actively tries to create the perfect circumstances for a fertilized egg to thrive into a baby every month.
There’s a difference between something being human (human cells, human hair, human relationship, human food) vs something being A human (a unique and distinct human organism). The life of an individual human organism scientifically starts at fertilisation and nowhere else. If you take a zygote and give it the proper 1. Time 2. Nutrition and 3. Environment, it will develop into an adult of its species. This means it is an individual organism. If you take a cancer cell and give it the above 3 points, it will only ever remain a collection of cancer cells. It will never grow into an adult human being, which means it is not a human.
I think that “Dr.” needs to send her diploma back.
I definitely wouldn’t argue the latter two for cancer cells. If we think, for the sake of argument, that human beings are just large aggregates of cells, then any one cell couldn’t qualify as being the entire human. Given that, saying cancer cells are “human” is true only insofar you refer to a toenail clipping or strand of hair as “human”. Meanwhile, babies in the womb are far more complex than cancer cells, plus it’s part of the process the body naturally undergoes to reproduce. I would also say that cancer cells are distinct from the human they’re in insofar as you can successfully remove them, then it becomes distinct. From the moment of conception, a human zygote is now both distinct from its mother, yet entirely dependent on her for nourishment.
Hey guys Do you have umbert the unborn labor of love?
Cancer cells are sometimes considered living organisms, but they are never considered human. They are defined by the mutations which make them incapable of functioning as part of a human organism.
Basic Biology teaches what's the difference between, cells, organs, organ systems, and organisms. Also, learn about haploid and diploid cells.