Since you refuse to even discuss my argument I'll tackle yours in a different way. I'll now call into question the theory that an embryo or a fetus is an actual human being. Since you would like me to give an argument from another individual other than myself, I'll quote something from a source I found on google, and it will be your job to deconstruct it and name anything particularly false about it. I'll then give the source. If you refuse to discuss the actual points listed, then you refuse to call into question the actual source.

Discuss those four points above. Tell me what about it is factually wrong. Call in to question the actual argument.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

What's the matter AJG. Are your sources so far from anything that could be considered credible science that even you are embarassed to list them. I laid out my legal and scientific arguments and corroborated them with credible science and the law. Are you going to rebutt them with anything credible or simply continue throwing various handsfull of crap against the wall hoping to get something to stick.

Do you believe that the information you have posted above is sufficient to convince the court that unborns are not living human beings in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence and legal precedent to the contrary?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I took a minute to research your sources. I can't say that I blame you for not providing a link. The pro choice action network? You are kidding right? There isn't a shred of credible science to be found on the entire site. Did you bother to look at the references they list as justification for their argument? This statement is about as close to science as anything there:

Stages of embryonic development: A zygote is a single-celled fertilized egg. A blastocyst is the fertilized egg after cell division. At implantation, it becomes an embryo through to the eighth week of development, and a fetus from eight weeks to birth.

And it is biologically incorrect. There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists. A new human being replaces it.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 6th ed., (p. 43)

And a piece of work by Joyce Arthur? Really. She is an activist, with no education to speak of and you present her arguments which, by the way, also do not reference any credible science for support as an actual rebuttal?

I didn't expect that you would be able to provide any credible rebuttal to the materials that I provided, but really, the crap you are using at this point is laughable. Can you. or can you not provide ANY credible materials to rebutt my argument? Frankly AJG, I am laughing in your face.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

No, because I know if I gave a source no matter how factually correct the information given by the author is, you would claim the source is not reliable and dismiss the argument without ever discussing it. Claiming it is crap doesn't dismiss it as false.

I can't answer your question, becaue it is deceptive and partisan at best.

Discuss what I've given, or it obvious to me you are simply in denial and you have nothing to really say against scienctific evidence that may contradict your claims.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Again you refuse to discuss the actual points given. This further clarifies my point that you simply just have nothing to say against the argument.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

You honestly didn't notice that none of the arguments you provided referenced any science at all by way of support? Take a guess as to why?

You can't answer the question because you know as well as I that such tripe would be laughed out of a court after the evidence presented by the pro life side of the argument. Hard science vs the opinions of various uneducated pro choice activists.

What scientific evidence have you given AJG? You aren't claiming any science from your sources are you? What they attempted to pass off as science was factually incorrect. How about you reiterate the science that you believe that you have presented.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

I have indeed given scientific evidence. Now, go read up and make a case against it.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

There were no valid points given AJG. Not one single reference to actual science in the lot. What valid points do you believe were made?

This:

"Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. "

Historically? You mean before modern science addressed the issue? The AMA identified unborns as human beings as far back as the 1800's. Historically, the earth was considered flat as well. Science has a way of proving historical beliefs completely wrong and this one is no exception.

Or this?

Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings.

I looked but didn't see where she provided any credible science to back up that claim. Did you? Doubt over whether or not they can be classified as human beings? There seems to be no doubt in the actual scientific community.

"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.

Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others.

Maybe she should take a look at conjoined twins. Very often one of the twins is entirely dependent upon the other when they share a vital organ. Can you give an example of such a dependent twin being separated and left to die when the lives of both are not in danger if they are left conjoined? The answer is no because to do so would be murder and no doctor would perform the operation.

Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

I didn't notice any science to support this outlandish claim either. Did you? Actual science certainly expresses no doubt as to the unborn's individuality.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill,)43.

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

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development." Essentials of Human Embryology William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone), 1-17.

The normal meaning of human being implies a physical body of a certain size and shape with common attributes (excepting disabilities).

I didn't see any science supporting this little nugget either. Maybe you could provide some. Science doesn't accept a defintion of human being that excludes human beings as it is not valid.

They absorb nourishment and expel waste via an umbilical cord and placenta, not via a mouth and anus as do all other human beings.

Actually, they are just like all other human beings at that stage of development. Just ask any scientist. She only exposes her own intelectual limitiations.

Considering that the early fetus does not even look recognizably human, cannot engage in normal human perception or thought, and does not have the most basic human body functions, can we call it a human being?

Science certainly has no reservations to calling them human beings. She was unable to refrence any science to support her claim. Maybe you can provide it for her. Lets see it.

Anti-choicers would not be convinced by the evidence in this article, because it doesn't refute their emotional conviction that a fertilized egg represents a real and unique human being, just like themselves.

In truth, us "anti choicers" aren't convinced by the evidence in the article because there is no evidence in the article. Not a bit of credible science to refute the literal mountain of credible science that says explicitly that she is wrong. What "evidence" do you believe she has presented? Name the source.

Moreover, the difference between a fertilized egg, and a sperm and an unfertilized egg, is relatively minor.

Once more, abject ignorance of the facts of human developmental biology presented as an argument.


Despite the potential that a fetus has for becoming a human being, and its similarities to a human being, we cannot say that a fetus is a human being.

Who can't say that a fetus is a human being? Of course "she" can't because to acknowledge the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that states explicitly that unborns at any stage of development are human beings would destroy her argument.

Plus, there are many significant differences between a born human being and a fetus, which creates reasonable doubt as to its status. Because there can be no consensus on the matter, the value accorded to a fetus is a subjective, personal matter.

Reasonable doubt to who? Certainly not science who happens to be the only ones qualified to determine what is and what isn't a human being.

And if there is no "consensus" neither you nor she should have any problem providing credible science from the pro choice persepective that states that unborns are something other than human beings. I suppose by now you have looked. Have you noticed that even pro choice scientists don't deny that unborns at any stage of development are human beings? They freely admit it. They argue that it is OK to experiment on them, but do not deny that they are human beings because it would destroy them professionaly to make such a claim.

As I said, the arguments your so called experts presented are of no value at all. They are based on lies, ignorance, logical fallacy, and deliberate distortion. Like you, and all other pro choicers, they are unable to offer up even a shred of credible science to support their outrageous claims.

Now I ask again. Can you, or can you not provide any credible evidence at all to rebutt either the science or the law that I have presented to support my postion?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Categorizing hardly qualifies as science. The only reason why we categorize species is so we can clearly see how species relate to each other, understanding evolution, etc. Tell me how that qualifies as a study of some sort which proves your theory correct. I would like a source. Tell me. How are species categorized? Based on what? Aren't species categorized based on their physical bodies? How does a clump of cells qualify as a human if they don't share physical characteristics? It is clear to me these scientists have opinions, but none of it is based on any study of some sort. It is fact, however, that without a brain we wouldn't be what makes us so different from other species of life. So far you've been so good as to provide names, but no studies. Your whole argument is about names. Provide a source with proof.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

If that is true, then, as I said, you should have no problem at all providing some credible science suggesting that unborns at any stage of devlopment are something other than human beings.

When there is genuine disagreement between various factions of science on an issue, it is possible to get credible information from either side contradicting the other. For example, if we were arguing anthropogenic global warming. You could provide all manner of credible science that says that anthropogenic global warming is real and I coudl provide all manner of credible science saying that it wasn't. In this case, I can provide all manner that says that unborns are living human beings, and you can provide none because there is no disagreement among scientists.

Your unsupported arguments are meaningless in the face of hard science that says you are wrong. You are arguing that the earth is flat.

I am not operating on a theory. I am saying that unborns are living human beings and providing credible science to prove it.

More evidence of your own intellectual limitations. An unborn at any stage of development has a physical body. And the primary characteristic of homo sapiens sapiens is 46 chromosomes and unborns certainly fit the bill.

It is based on centuries of study. If you are going to claim that the information taught to medical students is opinion, I am afraid that I am going to have to ask for some substantiation for that claim.

I have. Your inability to understand what you have been presented is not my problem. Scientific study, and medical textbooks aren't written in crayon and it is expected that the reader will contribute some intellectual wattage to the collaboration.

I have provided you with plenty of credible materials to support my position and you have none to support yours and yet, you cling to your original premise. If you are so mired in your faith and dogma that you are unable to accept credible information that contradicts what you believe even when you have no credible information to support your belief, there is noting that I can do to help you. I can present you with facts but I can't make you accept them. Denying hard science in favor of your faith speaks only to your own intellectual limitations. There are still people in the world who believe that the earth is flat. Count yourself among the number.

We stand now at a position where I have substantiated every claim I have made with either hard, peer reviewed science, or the law and you have substantiated nothing and attempted to pass of someone else's uneducated, unsupported opinion as credible evidence for your position.

Can you or can you not offer up any credible science to refute my position? If not, I believe we are finished.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Let's look at another source:

ADW: Homo sapiens: Information

What physical characteristics does a clump of cells share with the description? Humans are classified and given names according to their characteristics. A clump of cells doesn't share those things common amoungst humans. What reasons then are scientistcs claiming they are humans? Yes, you can name names, but just being a respected scientists doesn't garantee your opinions hold any truth. Give a reason why scientists believe they are humans. Name a source as well.

You say you provide proof, but you never really have. Clumps of cells don't share the same characteristics as humans do. Tell me why they should be called humans. Tell me why these scientists believe they should be called human.

My argument is supported by the fact that humans are much different from clumps of cells. It's not meaningless. Your own argument is meaningless unless you provide proof these scientists ever have given any proof clumps of cells are humans.

From the imformation given, all you have proven is that it's a theory worth considering, but unsupported by any hard science. Explain why the scientists believe this.

That's one characteristic. Doesn't a single human cell contain 46 chromosomes? Why should a cell be considered a human? Am I myself billions and trillions of individual humans? And what physical characteristics do they share besides the DNA and number of chromosomes? Those two things can't prove a clump of cells is human. If that were true, simply scratching my hand and tearing off skin cells would mean I'm killing hundreds and hundreds of humans. Doesn't make sence.

Claiming the information taught to medical students is not opinion is bogus. New research everyday refutes existing "truths". Always there are new studies providing evidence that practices once believed to help a pacient is either harming them, not doing the desired effect, or is barely doing anything at all. New studies show that diets once believed to be very healthy are actually not enough to keep you going. They usually either lack something or there is too much of something. Yes, medical students learn the most up to date practices in medicine and health, but that doesn't mean they are true. That's why school textbooks are updated frequently.

You've provided me with sources listing scientists who support your theory, but not the evidence behind the theory. Provide those sources, and I'll be satistfied.

Denying you yourself provide evidence supporting your theory speaks only to