Provide some valid research that says it is. I won't disprove something that has never been proven.


Again provide proof. There's no point disproving it if it's never been proven true.


Similar in what way? Similar in the way I look? Similar in experience? Similar in knowledge I have of the world? Do I think the same way as I did when I was one? In what way am I similar?


How does this define what a human is? You're defining a human as a homo sapien. That's one definition. This certainly doesn't define it, it's just making it unlawful for anyone to choose the fate of the unborn child, but the woman who is having the baby.

Point out what part of the wikipedia article is false and we shall then discuss it.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

You are the one making the claim that genetics has nothing to do with who you are. If you can't prove it, then it is clear that you are just talking. Fabricating, in fact, in an attempt to score a point in an argument that you are losing badly.

Again, you are the one making the claim so the onus is upon you to provide some proof and therby prove that you aren't just fabricating information in an attempt to score a point in an argument. If I am going to make a claim, I am going to be prepared to provide credible proof to support it. You are claiming that genetics has no effect on who you are. Prove it.

Not similar. Precisely the same. If your parents had stored your cord blood, a simple test could be done that would identify you today as exactly the same individual who the blood came from.

Again, the fact that you can't wrap your mind around the hard science is nothing but an indication of your own intellectual shortcomings. Your inability to look beyond the superficial to the heart of the matter is your own limitation and has nothing to do with the facts. You would speak differently and probably act and think differently had you been born in a different reigon of the country or in another country. As to who you are, however, you would still be the same individual.

That is THE definition. Do feel free to provide a credible and valid definition of human being that states that we are not homo sapiens. I invited you to provide the source for your definition and you didn't do it. Clearly because you just made it up.

The fact is ajg, that in this country, you can not be charged for any sort of criminal homicide unless you have killed a person.

I already did. See the accepted scientific definition of human being.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Unless a theory has been proven true it remains false. That being said I'm not going to prove something false if it already is false. And I never said it has nothing to do with who you are, but it doesn't make you who you are either. You have plenty of other influences that have a much larger impact in your life.

Prove that DNA has a direct impact on everything that has happend to you during the course of your life. Prove it is the reason behind everything you do or think. Source to please.

I listed a few things that made me not the same as I was when I was born. If you can prove the things I named to not be true then please do.

Try leaving the insults out. Your belief that your opinions are somehow more intelligent and superior to my own makes you look arrogent and silly. Unless you can prove that under different circumstances where I might have been exposed to an entirely different environment as a young child I would still have grown up exactly the same then I beg to differ.

Prove your definition is superior to mine. So far you've done nothing, but call my definition scientifically inacurate and your own definition both supported by science and law. Infact, your own definition is barely a definition at all. It is simply the scientific name of the human species. It doesn't actually define what a human actually is.


No, you didn't. You are again just pointing to your own definition and using that as "proof" that my definition is false by claiming your own is the only one supported by law and science.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Let me guess. Science isn't your strong point, is it? Do a bit of reading and perchance, learn something. You might begin with these.


Eysenck, H. J. (1990). Genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences: The three major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality, 58, 245-261.

Reiss, D. (1997). Mechanisms linking genetic and social influences in adolescent development: Beginning a collaborative search. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6, 100-105.

McGuffin, P., & Huckle, P. (1990). Simulation of Mendelism revisited: The recessive gene for attending medical school. American Journal of Human Genetics, 46, 994-999.

When you finish, then you might attempt to provide some credible material that suggests that your genetics have nothing to do with who you are. Or, you might act like a grownup and simply admit that you were wrong.

When you finish those, try these.

Genes, Environment, and Criminal Behavior

Twin, Adoption, and Family Studies

BGA - Home

Since You (with a capital Y) would not exist but for your particular DNA fingerprint, it is clear that it has had an impact on everything you have done for the course of your life. Do you really need a source to tell you that if you were someone else, you would be a different person?

Now that you are painted all snug in a corner of your own making, exactly how do you propose to get out?

I already did. If a 2nd year lab student had a sample of your cord blood and a sample of your blood today, they could prove without a doubt that the samples came from the same individual. Your "things", as I said, would be entirely different had your partents lived in a different state or country. They are external influences that simply can not make you into a different individual.

That is the thing AJG, unlike you, I am not operating from a position of opinion. As you have seen throughout my argument, when I make a claim, I am prepared to support it with credible materials. You are the one who is trying to pit your uneducated opinion against hard science.

And I already have proven it. If you had grown up anywhere, a lab could still look at your cord blood and a current blood sample and say without doubt that the samples came from the same individual. External factors can not make you into a different individual.

Again, I already have. The deifinition I use is the definition accepted by science while yours is your own fabrication. That in and of itself proves that mine is superion. You won't post a credible scource for your definition because you are the source and clearly you aren't credible.


Mine is the only one supported by law and science. Do feel free to provide credible scientific and legal sources for your definition.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Insults again. I won't take the bait.

Again personal insults only make you look foolish and your argument weak. It gives the impression that you feel the only way to attack my argument is by attacking me. DNA does have a role in everything I do. Sure. If it weren't for DNA I wouldn't exist. All though this is true I see no reason to believe the thoughts that are running through my head right now as I type are directly because of my DNA. It may have an effect on me, but it definately doesn't have control over me as you say it does.


As I've said before my DNA has had an impact on everything I've done, but it doesn't control me. I make my own decision, not my DNA. My DNA makes me who I am physically, but memories are not physical and those memories are what make me who I am today. If I had a completely different memory I would think different things and know different things. Our interests would be different and our view on the world would be different.

You're right. You are the owner of everything you had when you were born. That doesn't make you who you are though. You are indeed different when you were 1 year old and when you are 20 years old.

As I've said before your "definition" which is your entire argument is IMO flawed. It isn't really even a definition. A homo sapien is just a scientific name for a human. It is simply a title. If a title made you who you were then by definition wouldn't "black" make you who you were? Maybe "woman" would as well? What about "rich"? You can claim anything of course if you paint everyone and everything is one and the same if it belongs in that category. Your definition is meaningless though. This is exactly what it means. Definition of human: human. Meaningless.

As I've said before you are in the same body, but you're not the same as you were 20 years ago.

Like I said before yours isn't really a definition. You're just telling me a human is a human, which I already know.

I'm sure everyone can agree with your "definition". It's true and it doesn't need to be supported by either law or science to make it true. Unfortunately mine can also be true. I've used a source called wikipedia. If you can take something from the wikipedia article itself and tell me what part of it is incorrect then you may attack my source. You can always just keep claiming I don't have any sources and whatever definition I provided is incorrect. Keep saying it to yourself, but you aren't convincing me.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

PaleRider, are you trying to suggest that genetics is somehow destiny? Surely you're not discounting the impact of environment on development.

Are you?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

I don't think so. I think he's trying to argue that only genetics define what you are and not what you do, think, or feel.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

No insult. It is clear that you have very little scientific knowledge.



Again, no insult. It is obvious that you are lacking a scientific background of any sort.

In case you haven't noticed (clearly you haven't) I never substitute insult for argument and pointing out your deficit with regard to scientific knowledge is no insult, it is merely a statement of the obvious. Whining and mewling over your deficit is no substitute for a rational rebuttal on your part.

Again, your inability to wrap your mind around the science does not change the science.

Again, you can't say that for any certainty. The presence or absence of various enzymes have been proven beyond a doubt to have a controlling effect in behavior and thought patterns.

Aside from that, what exactly does any of it have to do with your effort to justify killing unborns for reasons other than self defense?

I am the same individual I was on the day I was concieved. So are you. Arguing that you weren't only serves to bring your inability to understand the science into hard relief.

First and foremost, it is not "my" definition. It is the accepted scientific definition where your definition is your definition as it is your own fabrication. It represents a logical fallacy on your part. You beg the question and assume that one must be this or that in order to be a human being even though you can not bring a shred of credible material here to corroborate your claim. And once again, your opinion is meaningless in the face of credible science that says you are wrong. To hold an opinion that flies in the face of hard science is flat earth thinking. I wouldn't boast about it if I were you.

We are what we are and we have been what we are since the time of our conception. Do feel free to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point, something other than a human being. By now, we both know that you can't and an attempt on your part to redefine what human beings are to support your argument is laughable.

What is meaningless is your attempt to redefine what human beings are in an attempt to defend your indefensible position. Either you can substantiate your claims or you can't. Can you?

I have learned more, I have matured more. I am now 61 years old. If I am older than you, do you believe that my greater maturity, and obvious knowledge of science makes me more of a human being than you? Is my right to live greater than yours because I am more mature?

Clearly you don't know. You believe that somehow your experience makes you who you are rather than your DNA even though, the obvious fact that if you need to be identified it is your DNA that identifies you says without reservation that you are wrong.

Again, not my definition. Science's definition.

First and foremost, it is not a definition. It is an encyclopedic sort of article but lets go through it. Initially, it nods to the correct scientific definition which is the only definition there. Beyond that, it lists characteristics of some humans, but certainly not characteristics of all humans.

For example, if I accept your "definiton" of human which says that humans are social by nature, then I must believe that anyone who is antisocial must not be a human being. Those who prefer to live alone and not create "complex" social structures must also not be human beings. Allowing your "definition" to be correct, those who have no appreciation for art or beauty must not be human beings and those who don't want to influence the world around them also can not be human beings.

If you believe that is a "definition" of human beings, then you are engaging in a logical fallacy. All human beings don't exhibit all of the attributes your "definition" lists. A definiton of human being must apply to all human beings or those who don't fit within the definition would not be human beings. Human beings are any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. That definition applies to every single one of us without regard to our age, intelligence, race, mental status, or level of maturity.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Of course not. But genetics plays a part in how you percieve your environment and how it impacts your development. Without regard to that, you are the same individual you were on the day you were concieved. No amount of development can change that fact.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.