Since your arguments added nothing, exactly what did you expect my response to your arguments to do?

If you really need an explanation for that, perhaps you should do a few years of study before you show up trying to argue that allowing one human being to kill another without legal consequence is a good idea. But in order to get you off to a good start, I will tell you the difference between a human being and a blade of grass. Since you didn't specify what sort of grass, I am going to tell you the difference between a human being and a blade of crabgrass.

crabgrass is Eukaryota -Plantae - Viridaeplantae - Magnoliophyta - Euphyllophytina - Radiatopses - Liliopsida - Commelinidae - Poanae - Poales - Poaceae - Panicoideae - Paniceae - Digitaria while a human being is Animalia - Metazoa - Chordata - Vertebrata - Tetrapoda - Mammalia - Theria - Eutheria - Primates - Anthropoidea - Catarrhini - Hominoidea - Hominidae - Homininae - Hominini - Homo - sapiens - sapiens.

The human being without a brain is Animalia - Metazoa - Chordata - Vertebrata - Tetrapoda - Mammalia - Theria - Eutheria - Primates - Anthropoidea - Catarrhini - Hominoidea - Hominidae - Homininae - Hominini - Homo - sapiens - sapiens and the blade of crabgrass is Eukaryota -Plantae - Viridaeplantae - Magnoliophyta - Euphyllophytina - Radiatopses - Liliopsida - Commelinidae - Poanae - Poales - Poaceae - Panicoideae - Paniceae - Digitaria.

Please excuse any spelling errors or slight errors in the order as taxonomy is a very long way in my past. This however, is as complete and thorough description of the difference between human beings and crabgrass as is possible. If this explanation doesn't mean anything to you, like an unborn in the early stages does not seem human to you, I would suggest that it is a failure in your education and the remedy would be to further your education and knowledge base to the point that it does mean something to you.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So basically the only difference between a human and a blade of grass is a bunch of different names.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

In the mundane language, I said a human being is a human being and a blade of crabgrass is a blade of crabgrass. The need of further explanation than that identifies you as an imbecile.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

You can't judge based on a name just like you can't judge based one a person's skin color or sex. They are meaningless when refering to the nature of a particular human. There is no law that defines what exactly a human is and so you can't claim the law supports your argument. Because it is neither logical nor true that anyone in a court must refer to a clump of cells as an individual, your argument is ridiculous.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

My, you're presuming much, aren't you?

I'm really trying to have a rational discussion with you. If you're willing to drop the hystrionics and discuss things rationally, I'm willing to continue. Otherwise, well, it's been nice chatting with 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

Who is "judging" anyone here other than you? It is you who is attempting to "judge" that unborns are not human beings even though you can provide no credible evidence that says otherwise.

I showed you the law that defines a child at any stage of development as a human being. I provided a link to the entire law and provided you with a clip of the section that defined unborns at any stage of development as human beings. Therefore, the law most certainly does support my argument.

Again, you display your ignorance with regard to science. If you cut a chunk of tissue out of your arm, you have a lump of cells. A lump is defined as a piece or mass of solid matter without regular shape or of no particular shape. Unborns, at any stage of development don't fit the definition of lump. You use words in an attempt to dehumanize unborns in the exact same way a racist uses the word nigger in an attempt to dehumanize a black person. The mental mechanism by which you use the words in an attempt to dehumanize is precisely the same. You must be so proud.

You use imprecise words in the manner that racists use imprecise words because if you use accurate words, you find that you are indeed talking about a human being and your slurs and epithets contract to insignifigance.

As to my argument, it is accurate and supported by science and the law while yours is disintegrating around you further with every post.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Say what you mean and there will be no misunderstanding. When I make an argument, I say exactly what I mean because I have no confidence in your ability to accurately read my mind and determine what I was getting at.

You said:

"I think that you're belaboring the "same individual" point a bit. Yeah, your genetic code remains (mostly) intact in most of your cells, but gene sequence does not make the individual. Even those who are genetically identical to each other have significant phenotypical expression, even when raised in the same household, and presumably a near-identical environment."

I asked you how that statement justifies allowing a woman to kill another human being without legal consequence for any or no reason because, frankly, I don't see where the line of thought is going. If it isn't moving towards justifying the pro choice position, then it is, indeed, a meaningless tangent just as I suggested.

As a sidenote, it seems that you are confusing, or attempting to interchange the word unique with the word individual. If it were possible to clone you, your exact copy would be an individual even though, it wouldn't necessarily be unique.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

To create laws a person must judge weather or not that law is fair. You can't judge on the basis of a name.

Show me again. Both times you've given me links that you say provide a definition, but there were none.

Dehumanize? Tell me. What exactly is wrong about my summary of a human without a brain? Isn't it true that the human is mindless? Isn't it true it can't feel? Isn't it true it contains no memory? Isn't that correct? Quit playing with emotions and start actually addressing my argument. Since you can no longer use your own transparent argument (as far as I'm currently concerned) against my own you have to actually refer to this argument. So far you've managed to side step almost everything I've said relating to a human at the where the baby has no developed brain.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

So tellme AJG. When the courts said that blacks weren't human beings and the law effectively denied them all human rights, was that fair? They were without a doubt, human beings, but someone judged that they weren't for very specific reasons.

Unborns at any stage of development are without a doubt human beings. Do you believe a law that "judges" them to be non humans for the explicit purpose of denying them even their most basic human rights is fair in any way?

And the name human being, which is the basis upon which you claim any right that you have describes unborns at any stage of development as accurately as it describes you.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/human+being

human being - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Do feel free to reference any dictionary. Human beings are what they are. As to the law, the link I provided works fine.

At this point, I am finding you to be a bit mindless but I am not suggesting that it is OK to kill you because of it. Suggesting that it is OK to kill unborns because they haven't developed to a certain point makes as much sense as suggesting that it is fine to kill children who haven't yet cut their 6 year molars or children whose sutures haven't completely fused in their skulls. Suggesting that it is fine to kill anyone before a particular stage of developent does nothing to deny that they are living human beings.

You are the one playing emotions here. My argument is derived from hard, emotionless science. I am not trying to pretend that until you have achieved a certain level of development that you are not what you are. Your argument has been completely destroyed. You have no argument. What you have at this point is emotional handwringing.

What you have done is attempt to make some sort of exclusive, ageist, country club out of being a human being and like all racists and ageists, have attempted to complicate the rules and requirements for membership so that you may exclude those who you wish to keep out for your own neferaious reasons.

I have provided credible science that says that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved. Until you provide some equally credible science (and wikipedia is not credible science) you have failed to make your point.

Once more for fun:

"the proposition that 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.)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"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, vii.

Refute these with some equally credible sources that state that unborns are something other than living human beings and you have an argument. Fail that and you are just bloviating.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Like I said, it is wrong to judge a person based on names, titles, etc. "Black" is a meaningless reference to the skin color of a person. You can't judge simply because you belong to a certain group (race, sex, etc.). Simply belonging to the human race doesn't make you capable of anything that can be recognized as human. We must judge based on character alone.

The court doesn't judge based on being under the species homo sapien.

Unless I'm a mindless human being, incapable of making any decisions for myself, without any feelings, without any self, and without the ability to feel loss or pain, then I can't say unborns at any stage of development accurately describes me at all.

Those both aren't legal definitions, so there should be no reason to bring them up based on your own argument. Bring up the link again. I never saw it. If I have I doubt there are any legal definitions when refering to what a human being actually is.

I'm judging based on fact. Human beings before they develop a brain are mindless. I'm not mindess as you say, I simply just disagree with you.

You are making a ridiculous comparison. Based on this argument I could say every egg in the woman's body deserves life because they can develop into a person. Well, it is up to the woman to make the decision weather to have a child or not, and until the baby is developed enough to have any self at all, then the child's death would as painless, emotionless and thoughtless, as that of a plant's death. Calling it a human doesn't change that fact.

No, you are playing on emotions. You seem aparently frustrated or angry because for the last 10 posts or so from you, you've done your best at shooting down the messenger. You feel my argument has been completely destroyed just as I feel your argument has been completely destroyed. Your opinion is based on nothing but your opinion.

Like before, you refuse to discuss what I've actually said. I've made claims that are both relevant and true, but you ignore them. Saying that a black is unequal to a white person has no basis on fact at all.

Because your argument is based on a legal definiton (and there is none) then simple definitions don't matter. You refuse to argue the actual differences against mindless beings and people with thoughts and feelings.

A clump of cells may be a human that is living, but it is as lifeless as a person in a permanent coma (if you get my meaning). That is why it is up to other people to make the decision when to pull the plug. There would be no loss, pain, or consequence on the part of the person who will die.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Your inability to recognize unborns as human beings speaks to your own intellectual limitations just as those who claimed that blacks weren't human beings exposed their own ignorance. Unborns are exactly as human as you. Being a human being isn't something that we devlop into. We mature and grow, but we do not change from something else into a human being and any suggestion on your part that we do indicats that you lack a basic knowledge of human developmental biology.

Newborns have no character. In fact, children don't even become self aware until sometime between 12 and 18 months old so the idea of any sort of character is off the table for them. Do you advocate allowing them to be killed without legal consequence for any or no reason?

This is what happens when you try to fabricate a rational argument from a logical fallacy.

As I have suggested, you need to learn something about this topic before you attempt to debate it. The court that decided roe reached its decision by assuming that unborns were not human beings. Further, they admitted that should it ever become clear that they are human beings, that roe would collapse as unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

Once more, your argument fails because there are people who are so severely mentally retarded that they will never make a decision for themselves, never express any feeling, never feel loss, or even express pain and yet, they are considered by the law, and by science to be human beings and their right to live is protected by the 14th amendment.

This is why your fabricated definition isn't worth the time it took you to make it up. A definiton of a thing that excludes the very thing it attempts to define is worthless.

Geez man, do you have to have every single thing explained to you? There is no "legal" definition of human being. Human being is a scientific term defined as any member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Person is the legal term and if you refer to Black's Legal Dictionary, the legal dictionary used by courts in this country including the supreme court, you will find that the word