The only problem with that argument is that it fails miserably. His whole argument rest on the idea that human beings are property. We are not. You don't own your own body and there is ample legal precedent to prove it. If you can not own your own body, you certainly can't own someone elses.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

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.

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.

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.

Historically, infants and even children have not been considered human. Of course, many cultures didn't consider women to be fully human either.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Good post mulp.

__________________
Who would Jesus Bomb?

Of coarse it hurts. Your being screwed by an elephant.

Barak Obama - Half honkey - all donkey

"It doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts the votes"- Joseph Stalin

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Completely irrelavent. They are human beings. Do feel free to prove otherwise if you like.

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.

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.


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.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

Good post? Every point failed. That represents a good post in your world? Oh. Sorry, I guess it does.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

Ah, yes, you again use the ad hominem argument. Tell me, from which website did I cut and paste my comment? With the power of google, you should have no problem backing up your claim, if it is true.

In that case, removal of the fetus and freezing it in nitrogen preserves human life, even if it is never revived. It is no different than the millions of frozen embryos that have been discarded already in the US and the world.
You haven't provided any evidence that an embryo is an individual, and if it isn't an individual, then it can't be a human being.

If it is an individual, than it can be taken away from one person and handed over to another, if it can't fend for itself. If it is tied to another person and fully dependent on them for life, then they are not an individual.
I define a human being as an individual, and an individual is not dependent on a single individual for their very life. A disabled person, eg Stephen Hawking, is dependent on a community to sustain his life; any one of his caretakers can abandon him or die, and he is still able to survive with the help of others. He does not require that some be enslaved to support him.

Of course, Stephen Hawking was born, did draw his first breath, and did engage with others, and he still engages with others and remains independent of any single other human being, so while he does require constant care, he is distinct from a fetus because he is not dependent on one person alone, with his fate tied to the fate of that individual.

On the other hand, Terry Schivo died at some point long before her body breathed its last breath, and long before the Congress was passing laws to keep her alive. However, as a matter of science, we don't know quite where to draw the line between life and death, and lacked the technology to determine that her brain had rotted away eliminating any doubt she had no brain, but merely the reflexive brain stem.
Huh??? If chromosomes aren't genes (plural) what are they???

In any case, "genes" is broader in its common meaning, encompassing not only the chromosomes, but also the mtDNA, the RNA, as well as the epigenome, all of which are involved in defining a human being.

I find it ironic that you claim to know the science and yet you argue a point that a PBS fan would know is false.

Other than an ad hominem argument, what is your argument? Define the beginning and the END of a human being in a way that I can't easily twist your definition into meaningless crap.

If you are suggesting that the chromosomes define life, then as long as some of the chromosomes are extracted and frozen, then the person defined by the chromosome will be alive. In fact, if we record the complete set of base pairs making up the chromosomes, then the human being will be alive inside the data base that records them, and reproduction will be defined by having a sufficiently scaled up machine to assemble the chromosomes from the database. (Several viruses and bacteria have been created from scratch - existing gene sequences were taken from the database, edited to insert a marker so that the machine made versions can be identified. Being able to pull from a database the definition of a human being, editing it, and then making in a gene machine is just a matter of scale.

Next time you respond, state your definition of a human being instead of doing your vague handwave.

Under the law, embryos are not human beings.

In the eyes of scientists, guided by philosophers and ethicist, embryos are not human beings, and thus they can be used for experimentation without requiring their informed consent, nor is the consent of their guardian required. And as a matter of law, they have no guardian; embryos are considered property, and human beings can not be property.

So, in your response, quote your authority that embryos are human beings, and cite the law, or the scientific ruling that they are human beings.
If you want to ignore the law, then we have nothing in common to discuss, other than our personal views on matters of religion or philosophy, and those are merely matters of opinion, some more informed than others. I am at a loss to understand your claims that science defines an embryo or fetus as a human being - science depends on concensus and there is clearly no concensus on that matter. Absolutely none. That scientists after review of commitees that oversee the legal and ethical disect embryos, or that doctors perform abortions within the ethics of the medical community, or that fertility specialist create embryos with the clear expectation of destroying most, proves that science and medicine do not view embryos and fetuses as human beings.

So, you can't make anyone else believe an embryo or fetus is a human being, no matter how hard you believe it, and certainly not based on your lack of facts or logic to support your claim.

Ah, again with the ad hominem argument. For someone who keeps implying that you know a lot more than I do, you sure seem to lack a lot of knowledge that I have had for several decades and that I can use to inform my thinking and arguments on issues.

Anencephaly Information Page: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)

I'm only suggesting that the human being be taken from the person who doesn't want it. You are the one who is arguing that doing so kills it. So, how can taking a child from a person who is threatening to harm the child going to kill it? If its a human being then someone else can care for it.

But for the sake of argument, let's say that a woman who seeks an abortion is summarily executed. Certainly that will prevent the woman from harming the child, right?

That you resort to ad hominem arguments indicates you lack the facts and argument to make your case.

And you get your facts wrong, and ignore the inconvenient facts and arguments.

If you respond again, please state that you consider fertility doctors and their lab technicians to be criminals of the worst kind, using eugenics to select and kill the weak and inferior, just like Hitler and Josef Mengele, and they must be tried for crimes against humanity and executed. Only when you make your position on the handling of human embryos completely consistent with your other statements will I believe you are a true believer in embryos being human beings.

Maybe you shoud learn what an ad hominem attack is. In case you are wondering, an ad hominem attack is one in which the opponent is attacked in lieu of any actual argument. I tore down your argument and then pointed out your foolishness.

And your point is?

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

Do feel free to provide credible evidence to the contrary.


Being inside of a thing, or dependent upon a thing does not make you part of that thing. You may be inside of a thing or dependent upon a thing or even inside of and dependent upon a thing and retain your individuality.

Your definitions are meaningless flat earther. Provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything other than a human being.

Breath, or breathing is an uneducated person's word for respriation. Respiration is the sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which oxygen is conveyed to tissues and cells, and the oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water, are given off. Unborns are respiring from the time fertilization is complete.

Another old saw dragged out by desperate pro choicers. The fact that you find that you must attempt to compare a perfectly healthy human being to one who is so sick or injured that he or she can't reasonably be expected to recover is clear evidence of the weakness of your argument.


That is like saying if a word isn't a book, what is it? Learn something.

Again, point out a time when I attacked you in lieu of any actual argument. You are making the claim that unborns are not living human beings at any stage of their development. I have provided ample credible evidence that proves you wrong. Can you or can't you provide some credible science to the contrary?

I never made any such claim.

Under the law, blacks weren't human beings. Were they actually not human beings during that time or was there a gross miscarriage of the law?

If that is true, then you should have no problem providing some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point not a human being. So far, you haven't corroborated that contention with anything even resembling credible science.

Scientists aren't claiming that they aren't human beings but are saying that the law allows them to perform their experiments.

As we have seen, it isn't me who is operating from a position of belief. I have provided credible science to substantiate my position. It is you who is just talking and talking and not providing any credible science to support your position.

It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman because the child can't be killed for the crime of its mother. By the same token, if the woman sought an abortion but didn't actually do it, then she would not be guilty of actually killing a child would she. Your arguments have a very childlike illogic.

Do feel free to learn what an ad hominem attack is and then point out one by me.

I have made my position clear before. In the case of fertility clinics, I don't believe that they should be allowed to fertilize more than one egg at a time for implantation. This would certainly drive up the cost of the proceedure, but there is no right to procreate and those who couldn't afford the expense could certainly consider adoption.

I have asked for you to provide some credible evidence that unborns are not living human beings. To date, you haven't and by now you know that you aren't going to be able to. Kindly explain why mengele's experiments on human beings are different than modern researcher's human experimentation.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

[



"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, )

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology” T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597.

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

" A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.(Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.



In addition to the consistent testimony found in medical textbooks, there is some equally conclusive evidence that exists on the public record. In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):


Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."


Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

__________________
"Oh great and powerful funk!"-OkhamsRazor
"One would be insane to debate with you. You are another great debator."- somtfs

Everyone who supported slavery was free.
Everyone who supports abortion was born.
And that my friend is how oppression works.

HUCK PAC

http://www.huckpac.com/?FuseAction=Home.Home

Give me one child born from a petri dish. If an embryo is human life and will live unless something is done to end its life, then an embryo in a petri dish should grow into a child than can be removed from the petri dish, slapped on the ass, and given a birth certificate.

Sure, it is probably necessary to feed and water it, but that is no big deal and people do it all the time with plant embryos, more commonly known as seeds.

Seeds grow into plants, so they must be alive. Embryos don't grow into anything no matter how much you feed and water them, so they aren't living human beings.

I might change my mind when you show me evidence of a machine that can take an embryo and deliver an infant nine months later.

You accused me of cut and paste. Yet I don't see you providing any evidence of my having cut and pasting my comments.

If that isn't an ad hominen attack, I don't know what one is.

So, provide the evidence that I am cutting and pasting my responses to you.

I do see that you are plagerizing the copyrighted work here
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Fetal Development which has this claim: "Copyright © 2002–2007 Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform. All Rights Reserved."

When I cut and paste, I cite the source, as one does when quoting the work of others under fair se standards.

However, not that I'm looking at the writings you are cut and pasting, I see you consider the use of the pill, uid, etc to be murder, and as the statistics I find suggest that 400 million women are using, and thus commiting murder, you consider 400 million women in any year to be criminals.
source: http://www.prb.org/pdf/FamPlanWorldwide_Eng.pdf

Given the stages of life that women go through, with the use of these methods replaced by sterilization or menopause, I'm guessing you consider one billion women to be murders.

Clearly most people do not consider an embryo to be a human being, or else a billion women have no problem repeatedly killing their unborn children. And billions more are happy to cooperate in this mass slaughter, happily pating for the agents of death their wives use to kill the unborn.

Why are you bothering with abortion, when billions of unborn are murdered each year by 400 million women around the world?