The thing about a legal property interest in one's person being generated by virtue of accepting something synthetic into your body is just plainly wrong. She seems to be misconstruing genetic patents, at least insofar as it applies to the United States.

The Supreme Court has expressly declared that a third party may not have property interest in products of nature, like one's DNA. See Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (noting, however, that cDNA is patentable because it is the result of artificial synthesis). Likewise, a limited number of states even provide an actionable interest in one's own DNA, to be used against direct-to-consumer genetic laboratories (e.g., AncestryDNA) that remarket an individual's DNA. See Jessica L. Roberts, Progressive Genetic Ownership, 93 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1105, 1128 (2018) (discussing five states that recognize such a property interest: Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana).