We are laughing back. There's nothing valid about your argument that your definition alone is the only possible valid definition. You can't argue based on a definition alone. That much is true.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Of course you do. That's because you have no idea how to construct a valid logical argument, and so you present personal insults as a substitute, hoping they will distract or anger your opponents to the point of being incoherent.

I present the above line merely to show, yet again, how pathetic you are. I will snip all other personal insults, which will, of course, leave this post rather short, as you presented almost nothing of substance to which I might respond.

I strongly suggest that you grow up and stop employing personal insults in your posts. It says a great deal more about you than it does about me -- and none of it good.

Not at all. I said already I'm perfectly fine with defining "human being" any way you want to. How you choose to define the term will determine whether or not I believe all "human beings" have human rights. However, I will not contest the definition itself. There's no point in that. Words mean what we say they mean; all we have to be is consistent about it.

Personally, I prefer a definition that does not have some "human beings" deprived of human rights, but whatever.

Are you or are you not claiming that an embryo at conception has human rights?

If you are not, then I will retract the statement.

And therefore -- what?

LOL. This is too good.

Let me give you an exactly comparable argument.

1) If you consult any good gardening guide, you will find that bushes need to be watered and fertilized, and planted to a certain depth, in order to provide for their good health.

2) If you go to Welcome to the White House, or just check a newspaper, you will quickly determine that the president is a Bush.

3) Therefore, we must conclude that for the president's good health, we need to plant him to a certain depth and water and fertilize him.

Works for me.

It is inappropriate, of course, to mix verbal contexts and apply a meaning from one context to another where it may not apply. The scientific definition of "human being" (which doesn't exist, but never mind) cannot be cross-referenced properly with the legal definition of "person." Law and science are two separate fields. The only definition of "human being" that suffices to explain the definition of "person" is a legal one, not a scientific one.

In any case, if you really believe that claptrap, I invite you to present this argument to an appropriate legal authority, say a judge or a law professor, and see whose face gets laughed in then. As I said earlier, you aren't making an argument about what the law IS (which would be a legal argument), but rather about what it SHOULD BE (which is a moral argument).

Well, all the rest being personal insults and ridiculous bombastic boasts that you've "torn me a new one," which is rather like a chihuahua barking at a wolf, I suppose I don't need to say any more. I believe there may be some discussions going on here with adults participating in them. Catch you later.

Still waiting for you to prove that medical school textbooks on the subject of embryology are not a credible source for information on embryology.

what an idiot.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

The thing is I am laughing at you because you are stupid and you are laughing because that is just what idiots do.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

"A" bush, or named bush. Again, you need to attempt to unilatarally redefine what is in order to make even your stupid analogy work.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

ajg, you are pathetic. You lose your ass in an argument, then tell one of the most bald faced lies I have ever been told here, and then you run blubbering to the mods because I called you on your lie? What a joke.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

PaleRider, the posts you've created recently reveals your lack of maturity. It is apparent you feel the need to resort to insults in order for you to to feel comfortable with your own argument. Please, at least show a bit more tact and respect.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

Blubbering to the mods? What are you talking about?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

YOu get respect so long as you deserve it. When it became clear that you had lost the discussion because you were unable to support any part of your argument and turned to calling medical school textbooks garbage and not credible sources for the very subject that they are teaching in an attempt to discredit my argument so as to salvage some small part of yours, you became unworthy of even the smallest modicum of respect.

Then to disregard the fact that I am the only one who has supported his argument and suggest that I simply made a statement and claimed that it was true crossed even that line. Not only are you a loser, you are a bad loser.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Obviously I don't agree making an unsupported statement is fact even if it is from a textbook. No, you haven't supported your own argument. Your whole argument is based around a single definition and you can't prove that your definition is of greater value than any other (no surpise there it isn't a fight possible to win).

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

And the wait continues for you to provide even some slight bit of credible evidence that suggests that medical textbooks aren't valid information sources for the subjects they teach. Your own uneducated opinion on the content, or credibility isn't sufficient to make such a claim worthy of consideration. Clearly, you don't know what peer review is, or what it means with regard to a source.


But hey, if you can support your claim, by all means do it. If you can't we are right back to my argument being supported and yours not being supported which is where we have been from the beginning. You can make any claim that you like but unless you can support it, it means nothing. Personally, I have made no claims that I have been unable to support.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Sure, take an unsupported statement from a book and claim it must be true just because you believe it to be true. Works for you, but not for me.


I've already supported my claims. I claim a clump of cells does not equal human because of these differences:

Human: Can live independently
Clump of cells: Depends on the mother for survival

Human: Does not live inside a person's body.
Clump of cells: Lives inside a person's body.

Human: Can feel and think.
Clump of cells: Can not.

Human: Body functions like a human being
Clump of cells: Body doesn't function like a developed person.

Human: Has the physical characteristics which makes up the human body.
Clump of cells: Does not share those characteristics.


You claim a clump of cells is a human being because:

Human: Has a human DNA
Clump of cells: Has a human DNA

Clump of cells: Can develop into a walking, talking, thinking human being.


Now comparing the points provided which side is more factually correct? Well, we both are just as factually correct. Since like any other the tag human is used for meaning or significance. Both of our definitions have meaning and significance because the facts behind the arguments are true. Because both of our definitions are true the only way we can judge if a human is a human is by weighing in all sides of the argument that bear meaning and decide which one is more comprehensive.

Of course I consider mine more comprehensive in law than your own. Reasons why?

1. I believe my points gives a better understanding of what human actually is.
Let's just say if I were an alien from another planet and I had to choose a definition of what a human was, I would probably pick my own since your definition would be meaningless to me. It doesn't actually describe the significance of being human.

2. All of our cells contain the same DNA. If you take away that point then the other becomes meaningless. It would mean you can't define any characteristics of a human being. Your argument is like a string. Because one point hangs on to other to be significant at all if I cut the string from the top your whole argument falls apart. Since I pointed out simply having a human DNA doesn't make you human. That would mean you yourself are made up of billions of living humans. Since you agree a cell is not a human then your argument becomes meaningless. You are left with: A clump of cells can develop into something that shares the same characteristics of a human as I describe it, meaning it must be human. But since there are no longer any relevant comparisons you have left in your argument, and since an egg can develop into a human (which you say is not a human) means you are contradicting yourself.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

If you knew the first thing about science and scientific publication, you would know that your claim that the material from those books was "unsupported" is just plain stupid.

Publications like medical school textbooks, and medical journals are peer reviewed. That means that experts who both agree and disagree with them pour through the writing and check to make sure that no inaccurate, or unsupported claims get published. Do you believe that pro choice reviewers would allow the statement that unborns are living human beings from conception to get through if it weren't true? By the same token, pro choice scientists would be unable to get their writings through the peer review process if they made the claim that unborns are something other than human beings because like you, they would be completely unable to support their statement.

The statement that unborns are living human beings from conception is found in most textbooks on the subject because it is true and can be supported.

Again, your claim that it is an unsupported statement is a logical fallacy. You beg the question and simply assume that it is an unsupported statement in a book. Do feel free to prove that it is unsupported if you wish to advance that line of thinking any further.

Sorry guy, but you haven't. Clearly you don't have the slightest idea of how to form a rational argument. The claim that you have supported your argument represents yet another logical fallacy on your part. It is circular reasoning. You claim that you have supported your claims because you have argued them.

A large number of post natal human beings can't live independently. Invalid claim.

Unborn humans do. Invalid claim.

Some post natal humans can't. Invalid claim.

Bodies of unborns function like unborn human beings. Invalid claim.

Unborn human beings have the physical characteristics of unborn human beings. Invalid claim.

Lie. I state that unborns are human beings because that is the determination of the whole of biological science. Do feel free to provide some credible science that says otherwise. Hell, I would like to see a credible source that describes an unborn at any stage of development as a "clump" of anything. Your very words reveal your lack of education as no scientist of any sort would describe them as "clumps". You are completely uneducated in the subject and yet, you attempt to argue against some of the greatest minds in the fields with no corroboration for any of your claims.

You are laughable. Your argument is that of a child. You can't provide a whit of credible information that suggests that any of the criteria that you list are what makes you a human being and your uneducated opinion doesn't carry much weight.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

Ok, then prove it's supported.

Then if everything is true than why is it so difficult for you to provide one bit of evidence that their statement is fact? If it's hard science then it shouldn't be difficult for you to cook up the logic behind the facts.

So, provide what scientists use to support this theory.