I gave you bibliographical references. The books are in most med school libraries. You are free to go and verify the support via the references in the books to materials that support the statements in the books.

Laziness on your part does not disqualify the materials that are there.

I gave you quotes from medical school textbooks written to teach the subject of discussion. There is no more credible source. If textbooks used to teach doctors the facts with regard to those subjects are not credible sources in your mind, tell me, what does constitute a credible source.

Personally, I don't believe even you know what you are asking for. You just know that you don't like what I have given you so far because it wrecks your argument.

The references are all there in the books. Do feel free to look them up if you like. I did and it changed my position from pro choice to pro life. The information is credible and the deeper you get into it, the more credible it becomes.

You can put my argument to rest by providing some credible science that states that unborns are something other than human beings. It is glariingly obvious by now that you can't do it because it is not a true statement and no credible scientist is going to say it.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So basically what you're saying is "it's for me to know and for you to find out"? Is this the kind of thing you will do in the face of a judge? In that case you will never win this argument. There are no references in the books to the material you pretend exists. If you can't prove it I'm not going to prove it for you.

A credible source is one supported by evidence. You've never proven it is supported by evidence, you just say if it is in a textbook it must be true. In yet you can't provide a shread of evidence. I can't find the evidence you say exists and I don't believe I ever will. Would you like to point some good ol' evidence because I can't seem to find any?

Ditto.

The references don't exist. If they do correct me by providing a few links to the references or some text from a book that was made a reference.

You can't validate your argument so there is no reason why I should put it to rest.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

ajg. you are full of crap. your argument lacks any merit at all. you discount medical textbooks written to teach the subject being discussed. only the most pitiful sort of fool discounts credible materials based on his own uneducated opinion.

further, I gave you complete bibliographical references so you could access the information that is destroying your argument. there is no "for me to know and you to find out" because I told you exactly (to the page number) where to find out. Your lack of education does not pose a problem for me. if you don't mind being ignorant, I don't mind leaving you ignorant.

your argument has lost as you have provided absolutely nothing with which to support your argument. you haven't provided any credible source suggesting that medical school textbooks aren't credible either.

sorry ajg. you lose. of course, I could have predicted that from the very beginning. I have to hand it to you though, you did manage to debase your intellect to a degree that most pro choicers aren't willing to go for the sake of their position.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

None of it is credible if there is no support provided. If there is anything hidden in these textbooks I have overlooked I guess it's up to you to provide support for your argument. No one will help you but you.

I'm not going to do further research into studies that I don't believe exist. It is up to you to support your own argument. It is NOT the job of the opposition.

Sorry, assuming it is credible doesn't make it so. You must prove it is.

Says you... and nobody else. Petty insults and unsupported claims do not validate your argument.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

ajg. following your foolish logic, a real idiot might argue that the definitions in the dictionary are worthless because there is no supporting documentation at the end of the dictionary for each and every word. There is a reason people use credible materials vs the crap you tried to use from pro choice action network, which indeed was not credible. Had they referenced actual medical texts and writing, they might have had some credibility.

You don't believe medical textbooks exist? Great. As I said, if you are happy in your ignorance, I am happy to leave you there. If you can ignore credible, peer reviewed science in favor of your faith, then you have said all that needs to be said about yourself.

Your argument has failed and you have lost. When you feel like you can begin to support some of the claims you have made, let me know and we can continue. Till you can support some small part of your argument, however, with something approaching credible material, revel in your loss.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

English is a language. Every definition in an english dictionary are the definitions most commonly applied to a word in english. I could easily point to an apple and call it an orange. It doesn't mean I don't understand what an apple is, I just call it something different than you do. No definition is worthless as long as there is meaning behind that definition. No definition requires support for it to be true just like a fire breathing giant lizard doesn't have to exist for me to call such a thing a dragon. Simply calling something a human doesn't make such a thing a human. You don't need science to prove a clump of cells is a human. A clump of cells is a clump of cells and you're simply replacing it with the word human.

Medical textbooks certainly exist. What makes you believe I said they didn't? I just say there is nothing credible about your claims. You can believe anything you choose to believe. Saying I must believe something doesn't make it believable. I'll tell you what. Why don't you tell me what you remember from the book like a big boy and we can discuss the supporting evidence.

What claim have I made do you not agree with? Why provide credible material if you don's disagree with my claims:

?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

First ajg, prove that prior to 7 weeks that the child is a clump. Then prove that the ability to live independently is what makes you a human being. Then prove that one must function in a certain way in order to be a human being. Be sure your proof doesn't exclude human beings who are already recognized as such by the law.

Your entire argument is a logical fallacy ajg. You beg the question and assume all sorts of things that you can't prove. Till you can prove them, your argument is meaningless.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

It doesn't make someone a human being just like both having the potential to form into what I call a human being and having the DNA of a human being doesn't make you human. Any definition is used to substitute meaning. If we understand what the word means then the word becomes useful. There is no right way to define a human being. I can't prove a human must be a certain way in order to qualify as a human being just like you can't.

Even if your argument were valid and a human embryo was a human it would not make much difference. An embryo does not feel and it does not think. You value the life of an embryo, but it does not value its own life. You believe it has a self, but to said embryo it has no self. So why must the law protect such a thing? Because it is human? What is so valuable about a human that has no value? Why give it rights when no possible justice can be served in a forced pregnancy?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

I see you can't "prove" any part of your argument. You make wild and unsupportable claims trying to make your argument and then make equally wild and unsupportable claims that valid and credible materials such as medical school textbooks are garbage when they disprove your argument.

It is exactly as I said. You are pitting your faith and your unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and uneducated opinion against hard science and the law. That being the case, you lose.

Let me know when you can prove any of your dogma.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

What about my argument do you disagree with? Why is it so hard to provide support for your argument if you say the support is in the book itself? Surely we can discuss these points civilly? Are you incapable of doing this? Just tell me what you remember from the supporting evidence and we can discuss it.

If everything here is unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and uneducated, then surely you can tell me why you disagree with the points I give here?:

Everything following "I claim a clump of cells is not a human being because:"
is not my opinion. My opinion is that a a 7 to 12 week old human fetus/embryo is not a human because of these supported statements. What of these claims do you disagree with?

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

What support? You claim that they are supported statements. Lets see the supporting documentation.

They constitute a logical fallacy. You are begging the question and simply assuming that independence, a particular level of function, and physical appearance are what makes a human being a human being. Can you provide any credible science that states explicitly that any of those things are requisites for being a human being?

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.

So, what of it do you disagree with?

No, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the huge differences between an embryo/1-11 week old fetus and a human being under my definition. By pointing out the differences I'm illustrating the reasons why they are not necessarily equal. If they're not equal then I don't have to call them the same thing. Science accepts your own definition above all because it is the most convenient. You can't judge based on convenience. That's ridiculous.

__________________
Remember the Turkey Genocide.

your definition is meaningless. it is the product of your own unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, uneducated opinion.

It is clear by now that you can provide nothing to support your argument and are simply mewling in an effort to keep the discussion going. If you can not support your argument with credible materials, we are through and you have lost.

__________________
Rem tene, verba sequentur.