Of course you do. You apparently lack the intellectual wattage required to even understand what has been presented to you.

Medical school textbooks are idiotic? The US code is idiotic? The actual text from the Roe v Wade case is idiotic? You are idiotic. Unlike you, I have not presented whatever I could find that sounded like it might support my case. I have built my case based upon credible information. As a result, I don't need to search around for something that might stick to the wall if I hurl it hard enough.

I see you were unable to find any credible source that suggests that it is a theory that unborns, at any stage of development are living human beings. I predicted that. Unlike you, I actually know what I am talking about and have thoroughly examined the information avaliable to both sides of the discussion. I knew what you would be able to find before I even suggested that you look.

I have already proven my points, and proven that you are completely unable to even begin to substantiate yours. I have provided credible science that states explicitly that unborns are living human beings while you have provided nothing to support your claim that they aren't. When you get some credible information, let me know. Your faith doesn't lend you any credibility at all.

[quote=AJG;1291259]After all the law supports my own theory at the moment. [/quote}

The "law" once said that native americans and blacks weren't human beings. Do you believe that they actually became something else because "the law" said that they weren't human beings?

[quote=AJG;1291259]It is you who has to prove your theory correct if you want to change the law.{/auote]

Again, do feel free to prove that it is a "theory". Any parrot on a stick can stand by and say "its legal, it's legal, it's legal." That does not constitute debate and it does not defend your positon. I could have predicted that in the end, after all your BS was expended that you would, indeed, become a parrot on a stick simply saying that it's legal.

All attempted defense of your postion have failed. At this point, you are a flat earther railing at credible science saying that your faith is more powerful. When you get an actual argument, or develop enough intellectual wattage to realize that the floor has been duely mopped with your argument, let me know.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

You mean garbage? Your argument sure does sound pretty until you try to back it up with proof. What's there to know about garbage?

No, your argument is idiotic. Your name calling won't change that. And the fact still remains that there is nothing credible about your sources. You've proved that time and time again. Perhaps you should adapt your argument once in awhile. Especially when it becomes clear it's transparent. You clearly can't prove anything you say and you STILL are trying to convince me otherwise. For your sake drop it and move on or provide evidence.

You mean you think you know what you're talking about. We all have our own opinions and you have every right to share them with me. It's just that everyone has the right to disagree with you even the law. Anyways, you've given no evidence you once even considered my side. I've seen you quoting me, but then went on and said the same thing over and over again. You never brought anything new to the conversation and I at sometimes thought your argument was pretty good. Then I realized you had no evidence to back it up. I requested you bring up sources, but all conveniently provided names, but out links. You claim these scientists know something, but you don't provide any valid information. If these scientists really do know things I don't, then for their sake I hope you either give me some data or drop the argument. You are embarrassing them and yourself.

I am simply using science we both know to prove a point. A point the courts have so kindly found good enough to keep abortion legal. As for your credible science there's nothing credible about it.

Are you saying native americans are clumps of cells without brains? How dare you?

Actually, you are the one who should be compared to a parrot. I've brought up plenty of points and you've brought up a single one you refuse to prove.

Good summary of your entire argument. "My point's right. Yours is wrong. You lack propper knowledge to pick a fight with me. I'm better than you. If only you were smart enough then you could see that my word alone is quite enough. I'm intellectually superior so my argument is better, case closed."

When you're ready to bring anything credible to the table at all let me know, k?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Medical school textbooks on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/Gyn are idiotic? Tell me ajg, what exactly constitutes credible information in that little mind of yours? Crap like the information you provided from the pro choice action network that you tried to pass off as credible when even the author referenced no credible science?

And the fact still remains that there is nothing credible about your sources. [/quote]

If mine aren't credible, where does that put yours? And I ask again, if medical school textbooks aren't credible in your mind, what exactly is?

[quote=AJG;1291722]Especially when it becomes clear it's transparent. You clearly can't prove anything you say and you STILL are trying to convince me otherwise. For your sake drop it and move on or provide evidence.

Clearly you can't be convinced. You aren't bright enough to be convinced. Anyone who even attempts to claim that med school textbooks aren't as credible as his own uneducated opinion isn't bright enough to be convinced of anything. You, ajg, are a dolt.

That's the thing, ajg, I am not arguing from a position of opinion. At one time, I was pro choice, or at least of the opinion that abortion didn't matter one way or another. I entered an argument with someone who, though not as educated as me, had taken the time to research the subject. He tore down my arguments as easily as I have torn down yours.

Unlike you, I didn't whine and cry and attempt to claim that perfectly credible sources were not credible in an impotent attempt to give my argument some weight. I set out to research the subject on my own. I hold an MS in biochemistry, ajg, so I understand what research is and am damned good at it. I spent more time than I care to admit to in various medical school libraries and in the end, had to admit that I could find no credible scientific scources with which to argue the pro choice position.

You may have noticed (or not) that your own pro choice source didn't reference a single bit of credible science. If there were any, don't you think they would have wielded it like a club to make their point?

So, as a thinking person, I was faced with two alternatives. I could cling to my personal opinion and continue to argue the pro choice position knowing that every argument I made was going to be dishonest at its foundation and knowing that every time I came up against someone who knew the science, that I was going to lose. Or, I could accept the facts, argue the facts and keep my own opinion out of it. Since then, my opinion has come in line with the facts, but the facts are what is important.

Why would I consider your side when it is wrong? You have done nothing but offer up the same old cliche'd argument that all pro choicers eventually get to. You did add a relatively unique twist at the end when you went so low as to suggest that medical school textbooks on the subject at hand aren't credible sources. That is one I haven't seen often. Usually pro choicers stop at simply claiming "it's legal".

I brought what was necessary to defeat your argument. You, apparently, aren't bright enough to even understand what I have given you so far, of what possible use would it have served to bring even more difficult to understand information to the table?

Unlike you, I don't depend on what I can find on the internet. I go to research libraries where anyone can't write anything and pass it off as credible as is the case with your pro choice action network spew. I gave you perfectly valid bibliographical references including page numbers. That, in case you have ever wondered, is how science works.

I gave you quotes from medical school textbooks that say explicitly that you are wrong. If you aren't bright enough to realize that the information being taught to med school students is factual, then perhaps you should stop reading long enough to grab a tissue and wipe the drool from your chin.

As someone who knows science, I can state with a straight face and a clear conscience that you are not using science of any sort. A grade schooler would laugh at your "science".

As to the courts, I provided you with the text of the roe v wade decision. The court said that unborns were "potential" life. Even you, in your very limited knowledge admitted that they are alive. The court said that a woman has the right to terminate a potential human life. The court did not even address unborns. They made an assumption that they simply can not justify.

It is good to know, however, that when roe is overturned, you will then come out firmly in support of banning abortion because the court said that it was wrong. Clearly, you have no actual argument, or defense of your position other than the court said so and if the court changes its mind, then you change your mind along with them.

I am saying that the court once said that native americans were not human beings and as a result, they, like unborns, could be killed without legal consequence for any or no reason.

You are the one who seems to beleive that because a court says a thing, that it must be true. So when the court said that blacks and native americans weren't human beings, do you believe that they were right?


Yes you have. And they have all been torn down even though you don't seem bright enough to realize it. Then, based on your own obviously limited knowledge of science, with no source to back you up, you make the claim that medical school textbooks are "garbage" and not credible in a last ditch attempt to stroke your bruised little ego.

You left out the part where I provided the law, the court decision, and actual, peer reviewed science to support my point while you brought a couple of articles from the pro choice action network which also referenced no science and a link to a reasonably credible scientific source which supported my argument.

Right. I am laughing in your face you flat earth idiot and at this point, anyone who had read our echange is laughing at you as well. Your word, in your own uneducated opinion, is better than the law, the US code, the US Constitution, the majority decison of the US Supreme Court, and medical school textbooks on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/Gyn.

Again, I am laughing in your stupid face.

"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.

"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.

Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Justice Blackmun, majority decision, roe v wade

person - n - a human being Black's Legal Dictionary (pp 1152)


TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 51--HOMICIDE

Sec. 1111. Murder

(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

"...You lack propper knowledge to pick a fight with me. I'm better than you. If only you were smart enough then you could see that my word alone is quite enough. I'm intellectually superior so my argument is better, case closed."

That was part of my summary of your whole argument. Pretty much all you've said this whole time.

The fact that you can't support your argument with facts and you have to insult me in order for you to become comfortable with your own argument means you know your own argument is weak.

Simply quoting textbooks with opinions doesn't support your theory. Where does it follow up on those theories? It simply makes a statement you consider fact. It doesn't follow up and say why their theories are true, it just states a theory and you tell me it must be true. So tell me, if I brought in 10 text books to you that said clumps of mindless cells does not make a human, would you believe it? Certainly you would since it just states it as fact without any shread of evidence.

Say it as much as you like, you are arguing from a position of opinion. I'm not. I've stated a couple things that are very true.

1. Clumps of cells are physically much different from fully formed humans.
2. Clumps of cells do not have brains. They can't think, feel, experience, etc. To them they never actually lived just like to the thousands of eggs never actually lived.

So based on those two things why should they be called human? Look, what ever way you look at it deciding weather a clump of cells is a human is based only on opinion. You think that simply because they have human DNA, 46 chromosomes, and can form fully into a a human being that means they are human. I don't. The courts don't. I don't think having what every cell has (human DNA, 46 chromosomes) makes you a human being and I certainly don't think having the potential of forming into a fully formed human makes them a human. Remind me, how do we clone animals? Just curious.

Oh, and just because you consider my argument wrong doesn't mean you can't consider it. I considered yours and now I'm dismissing it as horseshit.

Hey, keep up the endless stream of insults and bad sources. Won't help your argument.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

ajg you poor schlub. I didn't insult you until it became clear that you either weren't bright enough to understand what you are being told, or are to obtuse to accept what you were being told.

Further, unlike you, I never expected that my word alone was good enough. That is why I made no argument or claim that was not supported by hard, credible, peer reviewed science or the law itself.

And this is further reason that you deserve nothing more than insult at this point. Simply making the claim that it is a theory isn't sufficient, just like making the claim that the information in medical textbooks is garbage. If you are going to make such a claim, then you need to provide some information that substantiates it. Your lack sufficient credibility, or knowledge to make such a claim on your word alone.

By all means, bring in some medical school textbooks that state that unborns are simply clumps of mindless cells and are not human beings and you will have an argument. A medical school textbook is a valid and credible source of information and I would not even think of making the claim that it is not. Unlike you, I understand what "peer review" means. Should I explain it to you?

When material is peer reviewed, it means that other experts in the field have examined the text, and reviewed the source material that substantiates and corroborates the text and have determined that things are not being said in the text that are invalid or not authenticated via other credible sources.

A medical textbook doesn't make claims without evidence. If you brought in a claim from a medical textbook that stated that unborns are no more than mindless clumps of cells, I would visit either the UNC or the Duke medical school library and review the book and take a look at the bibliography in the back to see what research and or credible sources the author uses to substantiate his claim that unborns are mindless clumps of cells.

We both know, however, that no such textbook exists and no such claim has been made by a credible scientist.

You clearly don't know the first thing about science, or scientific writing, or peer review. You simply don't like that the facts tear down your argument so you, in true idiotic form, make the claim that credible material is garbage.

You have made some claims that you are unable to substantiate. But then that has been the nature of your whole argument.

First, my argument is not simply my opinion. Any opinion that I held, has been replaced with hard, credible fact. There is a difference between opinion and fact.

opinion = a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

fact = a truth known by actual experience or observation

Now, if you can prove that the information I gave you is fact by presenting fact to support your claim, then you have an argument but your opinion that facts are not true isn't credible enough. As to your list:

1. First, unborns are not clumps and your characterization of them as such is inaccurate. Secondly, unborns are different from adults in that they are less mature, not in a sense of them being something else. If you believe otherwise, do feel free to provide some credible materials to support your claim.

2. The ability to think, feel, etc., is not what makes you or me a human being. If you don't believe this, do feel free to provide some credible science that states as much.

3. An egg is nothing more and nothing less than a cell from a woman's body. It is only alive in the sense that your skin cells are alive. They are not an individual human being. Upon the completion of fertilization, however, the egg no longer exists. An individual human being exists in its place.

Because they are ajg. Because science says they are. If there were no credible science to support the claim, then it would be opinion. Remember, opinion = a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. That doesn't describe science. That describes your claim.

Again, your stupiditiy is brought to sharp relief. Unlike you, I don't argue from what I think. I argue from the hard, unemotional fact of science. You don't believe the science but are unable to provide any credible material that supports your claims. What do you think that says about your argument?

The courts have no more scientific knowledge than you and are no more qualified to determine what is and isn't a human being than you.

I considered your argument ajg. I held it up, side by side against the hard facts from credible science and saw that your entire argument is either deliberately false, or a misrepresentation of the facts. That makes it wrong.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Lets try something a little different here ajg. I will ask a question and you give an answer to that question. Do you beleive you can handle that? Its really easy. My grandkids find that they can do it. OK. Here goes.

Do you believe that the court could rightly decide that illegal aliens in this country are not human beings and as such may be enslaved, or killed on sight as a citizen of this country decides?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Glad you gave me something to respond to since none of the shit from your other post was worth even reading. As for your question:

If I were to create my own constitution and set of laws I would not base them based on so called inalienable rights which I don't believe exists. I would base it on a hierarchy of wants and beliefs to calculate what people most need. Obviously almost everyone wants life and believes they deserve to live. All other wants and beliefs we can't assume can exist without being alive. It is therefore the most fundamental right. The second most obvious want is to live free. If certain freedoms conflict with the most fundamental right then that freedom can't be granted. The third most obvious want is to be able to persue what ever you want. That must be granted unless it conflicts with the first and second rights. All laws must be based around those three fundamental rights.

Now this is assuming a person has the ability to want or believe (think). A person who doesn't have the capacity to think the simplest thoughts is brain dead. A person who has never wanted or thought anything does not need anything. Therefore I believe the law has no say in the matter of live and death with an innocent illegal alien. They niether can enslave an illegal alien because it goes against the second most fundamental right. A mindless clump of cells illegal alien or not do not follow these any set of needs and so they can't have the same rights as people do. Because the clump of cells lives inside the woman's body, it belongs to that woman. It is then her decision based on her own set of needs what must be done with the "person" living inside of her.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Gads. I should have predicted it. I knew that you weren't going to be able to handle it, but I didn't want to say it.

It was a simple question and a yes or no would have been sufficeint and you were not able to do it. You are a genuine idiot.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

My answer was no, obviously. I guess you can't hande the truth

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

As the phrase "human being" is used in conversation, it is not a technical scientific term. As such, it does not have a technical scientific definition. As such, we cannot employ references from biology or medicine to answer the question for us as to whether an embryo is or is not a human being. The problem isn't one of fact, but one of will: we must choose and precisely define what we MEAN by the term. After doing this, we can refer to medicine or biology for facts to determine whether an embryo, an illegal alien, etc. are or are not human beings as we have decided to use the term.

It will also depend on the purpose for which we are using the word. If we are talking about abortion rights, then we are talking about whether someone should have the rights of a human being. So a "human being" is an entity that has whatever characteristics make him or her worthy of having human rights.

For me, the necessary characteristics are human feelings and human intelligence. These, in turn, depend on having a functioning human cerebral cortex. I believe this, because I see human rights as coming down to two: the right to be protected from certain miseries and suffering, and the right to a chance at happiness and fulfillment.

If we accept this definition -- that a human being is an entity with hu