Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Ah, but because I know science, and know how to research facts and theory, I find your claims to be nonsense when it comes to law, which is what defines a human life.
|
So far, you have done nothing but prove that you don't know the science. You have proved that you might be capable of cutting and pasting material that you really don't understand, but knowing science. Not you pal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
We can play all sorts of games in defining life based on genetics, cell biology, and such. As it turns out, single cell organisms constitute the majority of the body mass for a person. And the multicell portion of the body is composed of about a hundred unique types. All can be cultured in a laboratory. Collecting all these cell cultures in a room doesn't mean human life exists in the room, no more than a vial of frozen embryos in a tank of liquid nitrogen is a group of children.
|
Each frozen embryo is a human being. Feel free to provide some credible science that says otherwise. I have been waiting for years for someone to step up and do it. No one has and I have every confidence that you won't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Human life is the emergent product of a collection of a hundred trillion cells of all types. But what distinguishes a human life for non-human life is the ability to engage in some sort of meaningful conversation with it.
|
And I continue to wait for you to provide some sort of credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are something other than living human beings. We both know that you aren't going to be able to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Historically, infants and even children have not been considered human. Of course, many cultures didn't consider women to be fully human either.
|
Do you believe that a human being stops being a human being simply because someone or a group of someone's believe that they are not a human being?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
And one might consider the incomplete mess of women - they lack 86 critical human genes. Only men have everything it takes to be fully human.
|
It isn't your genes that make you human, it is your chromosomes. But do feel free to provide some credible science that states that women are not human beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
In the end, arguing history, or arguing science, one can have no clear definitive definition of human life. The law takes a pragmatic view that, for the most part, defines life as being that time between the first breath of air and the last breath of air. Everything else is projection, and quite often even within that time between first and last breath, the existence of human life is projection of wishful thinking that bears no relation to reality.
|
Well of course you would suggest such a thing. Of course, you can't prove it and your credibility is a bit lacking. Lets see some credible science that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are something other than living human beings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
You might take the position held by others that 400,000 human lives are frozen in liquid nitrogen in the US, but even if all could be implanted, its doubtfully even 50,000 would go to term because they are frozen because they were the least likely to succeed in the eye of the lab tech who sorted them for implantation. And even of the best, by the eye of the lab tech, only one of three or four become live births. So, to claim embryos are humans is to argue millions of tax deductions are being denied for the mere fact that humans who live and die without being born aren't recognized by the law.
|
Completely irrelavent. They are human beings. Do feel free to prove otherwise if you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
But hey, the law is what determines the common rules that we all live among each other under. Science merely observes and predicts - it never tells right from wrong, and the only law of science is the absolute law of nature. Religion and philosophy can only provide a means for an individual who is fully emergent to decide for that one individual what is right or wrong for that one individual.
|
The law can't make a human being into something other than a human being. The law can ignore the fact that they are human beings, but it can't actually change what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
I will never believe that if you have a child born that has no brain, that such a child represents a human life. And if something that looks like an infant isn't in my view a human life, I'm certainly not going to view a fetus as a human life, much less an embryo. But I don't define the law, and the law uses a rule that defines human life as between first breath and last.
|
What you believe is irrelavent. What you can prove is what matters. Care to prove that no child can be born without a brain? And your view is irrelavent if the facts prove you wrong. When your view doesn't match the facts, and you continue to hold that view, it only suggests that you are lacking a certain amount of intellectual wattage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mulp
Speaking of the law, the law says that any time a child is threatened by its caretaker, the child shall be removed from the care of that person. So, you should instead be arguing for the removal of those children from the care of the caretaker that threatens them harm. But instead you are demanding that the law mandate the child be maintained in the care of a person that only wants to kill it. That defies all common sense.
|
If mom hurts the child, then mom should be made to pay. If you are suggesting that it is better for the child to kill it than to take the chance that mom might hurt it, then your logic fails.
Get yourself a real argument or bring some credible science here to substantiate your position that unborns are not living human beings.