5 ms·

This reminds me of Doc Daneeka from Catch-22: For those who haven't read it, he's a flight surgeon who hates flying, but since he's attached to a bomber squadr

This reminds me of Doc Daneeka from Catch-22: For those who haven't read it, he's a flight surgeon who hates flying, but since he's attached to a bomber squadron, he's required to get a certain amount of flight time a month to get flight pay. He hates flying, so he bribes the guy in charge of the flight log to just say he got his flight time. The problem, is the plane he was officially on (but not on in reality) crashed killing everyone onboard. This is the official record for the government, and since the official record says he's dead, he must have died. This causes all sorts of problems when people in the bureaucracy notice that he's not dead. Instead of accepting that their records don't match reality so the records are wrong, they reason that reality doesn't match their records so reality must be wrong. His wife realizes that it's financial beneficial for her if she acknowledges his death, so she pretends he's dead as well. It's a brilliant satire on government bureaucracy and how members of the bureaucracy take it as being fact, and until I read this story about the woman murdering her twin in the womb, it was hilarious to me. Now it's a bit more frightening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Daneeka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doc_Daneeka

anigbrowl 12y ago
'woman murdering her twin in the womb'?! What a bizarre and offensive thing to say. What the article says: In human biology, a chimera is an organism with at least two genetically distinct types of cells -- or, in other words, someone meant to be a twin. But while in the mother's womb, two fertilized eggs fuse, becoming one fetus that carries two distinct genetic codes -- two separate strands of DNA.
- Mz 12y ago
  "The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you. So, y'know, try to show a little respect?" The question is: Which baby ate the other and whom do we charge with murder? (the "/s" tag does not fit here -- someone clue me as to what kind of tag I need here, k? thx.)
  - colanderman 12y ago
    I think you were downvoted because your comment, while humorous, doesn't really add to the conversation. Humor is appreciated more on HN when it is coupled with insight.
    - Mz 12y ago
      Well, I don't agree. If it was twins and they "fused" and you are going to assume one "murdered" the other, then which one is the murderer? It is a serious question. Also, how did the one baby "murder" the other? What does a baby in utero have on hand to attack its twin? The body kills invaders by, essentially, eating them (white blood cells engulf and consume microbes). At the cellular level, it is a battle and it is a case of eat or be eaten. I realize humor is a big risk on hn. But, for me, it seems to be a big risk anywhere. (shrug)
      - colanderman 12y ago
        IANAB, but the way things went down was probably more like this: Two embryos, composed entirely of stem cells, were growing adjacent to each other and bumped into each other, forming a larger embryo composed entirely of stem cells. The stem cells probably aren't really aware that their neighbors have slightly different DNA, so they just cooperate like stem cells do in forming a single human being.
        Mz 12y ago
        Yeah, I actually get that. I am not the one who called it murder. I was kind of mocking the idea that it was murder. Thx.
acqq 12y ago
No, it's not "a person murdering other person." Definitely and absolutely not "a woman murdering the twin." The small set of cells is still not a person. The cells just started to grow (multiply) together instead of separately. If you believe that the "person" starts as soon as the chromosomes of the two parents mix, you probably have some strong religious views, but then try to inform yourself how much such "persons" become destructed all the time and question who made the world to be so: http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm During the first week: "It is estimated that 3 out of 4 eggs that are fertilized (..) either do not attempt to implant or fail at implantation." Do you call those "murders" too? If you do, by whom? If not, why do you call that other cell behavior, where the two sets continue to grow together (note: both sets continue to live!) a murder?
- afarrell 12y ago
  Well it seems to me that it would be an considered accidental death. Of course, if 75% of egg fertilizations result in the death of a person, then having unprotected sex shows a callous disregard for human life.
  - acqq 12y ago
    Still in the article case, there's certainly no "death" of the genetic information of both "twins." They both still live inside of the same body: one in some organs, another in the rest of the organs of the same body. If the "person" exist as soon as the egg and sperm mix, both of the mixes exist and live in the same body, that is, both "persons" according to that (in my opinion, just constructed out of the suspicious religious premises) definition are alive. And under different definition of the person (which I prefer, as something that has to have "a personality" to be considered as a person) there was always only one person: the woman that has different DNA in different organs of her. The joining of the different cells happened before a functional organism existed, and since then, it's only one.

anigbrowl 12y ago

'woman murdering her twin in the womb'?! What a bizarre and offensive thing to say. What the article says: In human biology, a chimera is an organism with at least two genetically distinct types of cells -- or, in other words, someone meant to be a twin. But while in the mother's womb, two fertilized eggs fuse, becoming one fetus that carries two distinct genetic codes -- two separate strands of DNA.

Mz 12y ago
"The point is, you are alive when they start to eat you. So, y'know, try to show a little respect?" The question is: Which baby ate the other and whom do we charge with murder? (the "/s" tag does not fit here -- someone clue me as to what kind of tag I need here, k? thx.)
- colanderman 12y ago
  I think you were downvoted because your comment, while humorous, doesn't really add to the conversation. Humor is appreciated more on HN when it is coupled with insight.
  - Mz 12y ago
    Well, I don't agree. If it was twins and they "fused" and you are going to assume one "murdered" the other, then which one is the murderer? It is a serious question. Also, how did the one baby "murder" the other? What does a baby in utero have on hand to attack its twin? The body kills invaders by, essentially, eating them (white blood cells engulf and consume microbes). At the cellular level, it is a battle and it is a case of eat or be eaten. I realize humor is a big risk on hn. But, for me, it seems to be a big risk anywhere. (shrug)
    - colanderman 12y ago
      IANAB, but the way things went down was probably more like this: Two embryos, composed entirely of stem cells, were growing adjacent to each other and bumped into each other, forming a larger embryo composed entirely of stem cells. The stem cells probably aren't really aware that their neighbors have slightly different DNA, so they just cooperate like stem cells do in forming a single human being.
      - Mz 12y ago
        Yeah, I actually get that. I am not the one who called it murder. I was kind of mocking the idea that it was murder. Thx.

acqq 12y ago

No, it's not "a person murdering other person." Definitely and absolutely not "a woman murdering the twin." The small set of cells is still not a person. The cells just started to grow (multiply) together instead of separately. If you believe that the "person" starts as soon as the chromosomes of the two parents mix, you probably have some strong religious views, but then try to inform yourself how much such "persons" become destructed all the time and question who made the world to be so: http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm http://www.pregnancyloss.info/info-howcommon.htm During the first week: "It is estimated that 3 out of 4 eggs that are fertilized (..) either do not attempt to implant or fail at implantation." Do you call those "murders" too? If you do, by whom? If not, why do you call that other cell behavior, where the two sets continue to grow together (note: both sets continue to live!) a murder?

afarrell 12y ago
Well it seems to me that it would be an considered accidental death. Of course, if 75% of egg fertilizations result in the death of a person, then having unprotected sex shows a callous disregard for human life.
- acqq 12y ago
  Still in the article case, there's certainly no "death" of the genetic information of both "twins." They both still live inside of the same body: one in some organs, another in the rest of the organs of the same body. If the "person" exist as soon as the egg and sperm mix, both of the mixes exist and live in the same body, that is, both "persons" according to that (in my opinion, just constructed out of the suspicious religious premises) definition are alive. And under different definition of the person (which I prefer, as something that has to have "a personality" to be considered as a person) there was always only one person: the woman that has different DNA in different organs of her. The joining of the different cells happened before a functional organism existed, and since then, it's only one.