Pro-Choice...give me a break

sooch90 · Dec 10, 2005

dude, steen, a fetus is nothing like a toe nail. A toe nail will never become a human being

Felicity · Dec 10, 2005

sooch90 said:
dude, steen, a fetus is nothing like a toe nail. A toe nail will never become a human being

A fetus IS a human being. As is every member of the human species that exists--from conception to death.

Felicity · Dec 10, 2005

steen said:
When you insist on speciation distinctions and the embryo or fetus, you need a type specimen, which means that you suddenly have to define the embryo or fetus as different species because the type specimen doesn’t match.
.

Aaaahhhh....now I know what you mean.....
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...ectionSpecimens/TypesofTypes/TypesofTypes.htm
Where—and who—is the type specimen for the human species, Homo sapiens? Even though Linnaeus first described our species in 1758, there was no type specimen selected until 1994, when the paleontologist Robert Bakker formally declared the skull of Edward Drinker Cope as the lectotype. When Cope, himself a great paleontologist, died in 1897, he willed his remains to science, and they are held by the University of Pennsylvania.

So...because the human "type specimen" is a dude named Ed Cope--I guess by your logic your wife isn't human since there's no species type for female homo sapiens.... (I won't take the OBVIOUS opportunity to be very nasty....I'm just not like that

)

Ed was a zygote once too....and an embryo...and a fetus...and an infant...etc....until he became a grown up scientist who died and is imortalized as our "type" from conception to death.

Gimme a break steen....your "logic" falls apart EVERY time...you make a good show, but it's all just a paper tiger. :nukeum:

sooch90 · Dec 10, 2005

Felicity said:
A fetus IS a human being. As is every member of the human species that exists--from conception to death.

my bad, I said that wrong. A toenail is not a human being. A fetus is a human being. It's not as developed as an infant, but that doesn't mean it's not a human being. A toenail, not matter how developed it becomes, it will never be a human being, just an incredibly long and disgusting toenail.

Felicity · Dec 10, 2005

sooch90 said:
my bad, I said that wrong. A toenail is not a human being. A fetus is a human being. It's not as developed as an infant, but that doesn't mean it's not a human being. A toenail, not matter how developed it becomes, it will never be a human being, just an incredibly long and disgusting toenail.

I just mentioned it because steen gloms on to whatever he can "scratch a nail" into and then sticks with it until the cows come home....I knew what you meant....

BTW....Eeeeewwww on the long toenail comment!:lol:

alphieb · Dec 10, 2005

Steen,

I posted that fetuses have brain waves. Your response was "no". What is the basis for that response? What is your basis for stating that is incorrect? How would you know if they had brain waves or not? Are you arguing with the experts?

steen · Dec 10, 2005

Felicity said:
If a fingernail is found...it can be sent to a lab and identified as a "human" fingernail. There is an ACTUAL human with unique genetic markers to whom the fingernail can be identified as having originated from.

but you can NOT use the species issue to compare, contrast or in any other way comparing developmental stages because you then run into the problems of how species are defined. It is an invalid use of the species concept. I already explained this to you.

steen · Dec 10, 2005

sooch90 said:
dude, steen, a fetus is nothing like a toe nail. A toe nail will never become a human being

Human toe-nail. Human fetus. these are species designations. Don't you get it? At least READ what is being discussed here when trying to make silly comments about it.

steen · Dec 10, 2005

Felicity said:
A fetus IS a human being. As is every member of the human species that exists--from conception to death.

Yes, yes this is your standard "just because I say so" unsubstantiated postulation you spew every time regardless of not having shown the fetus to qualify as a "being."

And it still is irrelevant to the issue of abortion, but that has never stopped prolifers to begin with.

steen · Dec 10, 2005

Felicity said:
Aaaahhhh....now I know what you mean.....
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes...ectionSpecimens/TypesofTypes/TypesofTypes.htm
Where—and who—is the type specimen for the human species, Homo sapiens? Even though Linnaeus first described our species in 1758, there was no type specimen selected until 1994, when the paleontologist Robert Bakker formally declared the skull of Edward Drinker Cope as the lectotype. When Cope, himself a great paleontologist, died in 1897, he willed his remains to science, and they are held by the University of Pennsylvania.
So...because the human "type specimen" is a dude named Ed Cope--I guess by your logic your wife isn't human since there's no species type for female homo sapiens....

Nope. I am saying that such comparison is invalid for the very reasons you are bringing up. The species comparisons are ONLY valid when comparing between species. So when you try to apply it within a species, it is an invalid application, just like f.ex. division by zero is invalid.

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this. It is not my fault none of you ever paid attention in biology.

(I won't take the OBVIOUS opportunity to be very nasty....I'm just not like that )

Well, and it would only underscore how stupid your argument is, so I see the benefit to you restraining yourself.

Ed was a zygote once too....and an embryo...and a fetus...and an infant...etc....until he became a grown up scientist who died and is imortalized as our "type" from conception to death.

yes. he was a human zygote as compared to a zygote of another species. he was a human embryo as compared to an embryo of another species etc. That is the ONLY valid application of the species comparisons, the inter-species differentiation. The way YOU sought to use it, in comparing and contrasting developmental stages, that application is invalid. Now, I warned you AHEAD OF TIME that this is what would happen, and here it is because you insisted on making that invalid argument anyway. here you are showing that really this indicates nothing else than your serious ignorance in biological science.

Don't say I didn't warn you. I made it VERY clear that you would run this risk, and you moseyed on anyway.

Gimme a break steen....your "logic" falls apart EVERY time...you make a good show, but it's all just a paper tiger.

Rather, you are showing ignorance in multiple areas by persisting in your silly and invalid comparisons. When are you going to insist that we divide by zero? After all, that is no less invalid.

You don't get it yet, do you? With your limited grasp on even basic science, you simply can't "out-science" me. You need to go and learn what you are actually talking about first.

steen · Dec 10, 2005

sooch90 said:
my bad, I said that wrong. A toenail is not a human being. A fetus is a human being.

Please evidence this claim.

It's not as developed as an infant, but that doesn't mean it's not a human being.

It's lack of independent homeostasis and physical function precludes it qualifying as a "being."

steen · Dec 10, 2005

alphieb said:
Steen,

I posted that fetuses have brain waves. Your response was "no". What is the basis for that response? What is your basis for stating that is incorrect? How would you know if they had brain waves or not? Are you arguing with the experts?

And once again, we have %#@%$#@%^$#@^5 beenover this before. BRAINWAVES is an EEG pattern of interaction between cortical lobes and with the brainstem. until the brainstem and the cortex is connected, "brainwaves" are physically impossible. And that connection, the linkup of the thalamocortical trat to the cortex, that linkup happens at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Hence, barinwaves are a physical impossibility before that time. Likewise pain or any other sensation or ability to even register the body or its surroundings are impossible before then.

How @%#@$# many times do I have to post this?

tecoyah · Dec 10, 2005

alphieb said:
Steen,

I posted that fetuses have brain waves. Your response was "no". What is the basis for that response? What is your basis for stating that is incorrect? How would you know if they had brain waves or not? Are you arguing with the experts?

Because of information such as this:

The UCSF authors - including a neuroscientist, a pediatrician, and an anesthesiologist - conclude that the fetus cannot perceive pain until 29 or 30 weeks of pregnancy. That's when pain-signaling nerve pathways from the spinal cord to the brain are fully wired.

Other experts - many of them antiabortion activists - believe the fetus may feel pain as early as 13 weeks, when pain receptors are connected to a part of the brain that relays impulses, but not to the part responsible for processing sensory information.

Since no one can remember being a fetus or get into the mind of a fetus, any judgment about fetal pain "will have to be inferred from evidence other than subjective experience," Emory University bioethicist Michael Benetar wrote in a 2001 article that concluded fetuses could feel pain at about 28 weeks' gestation.

Circumstantial evidence - such as fetal stress hormone levels, or standard tests of brain-wave activity - is not conclusive. The UCSF authors point out that a fetus will reflexively pull away from a surgical instrument - but so will an infant born without a brain or a person in a persistent vegetative state.

Legislation proposed in Congress, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, would require physicians to tell women seeking abortions 20 or more weeks after fertilization that the fetus may feel pain, and that the women may opt for fetal pain treatment.

About 1.4 percent, or 18,000, of the 1.3 million U.S. abortions performed annually are done this late in pregnancy. (Most states ban abortion when the fetus can survive outside the womb, about 24 weeks' gestation.)

and this:

6 months/26 weeks: 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves can be detected. The fetus will be able to feel pain for the first time. It will be conscious of its surroundings.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_fetu.htm

I could go on, but....no one reads it anyway.

steen · Dec 10, 2005

tecoyah said:
I could go on, but....no one reads it anyway.[/B]

Of course not. To a prolifer a lie that sound good is worth more than facts. Why let reality clutter up the emotional make-belief?

doughgirl · Dec 10, 2005

steen.........You have me as saying this....

"Victims of incest typically want to be pregnant as it exposes the sin that lead to her pregnancy. -- Doughgirl "

Please post the thread where I said this...........

Felicity · Dec 10, 2005

steen said:
Nope. I am saying that such comparison is invalid for the very reasons you are bringing up. The species comparisons are ONLY valid when comparing between species. So when you try to apply it within a species, it is an invalid application, just like f.ex. division by zero is invalid.

I'm not making a comparison--I am saying that they are one and the same. Human beings. Mr. Cope wasn't the ONLY human to have ever existed--he is representative of the typical. He was once a zygote. He was Mr. Cope when he was a zygote...He was an embryo. He was Mr. Cope when he was an embryo. The unity of his being never changes throughout his existence--only his abilities. Mr. Cope is representative of the species human. The fact he was once a zygote is representative of the human species--the fact he was a teenager is representative of the human species...the fact he was conceived, lived a human life and then died a human death is representative of the species.

Did you read this part of the link I gave...When picking the type specimen, the paleontologist isn't choosing the ideal individual, or the biggest, or the most anything, just the most typical one. It has all the important features, with nothing that's unusual for the species. The type specimen might not be perfect or even complete. And what if the fossil is just a pollen grain, or a seed or an egg, or a caterpillar whose adult form is a moth? These are problems for later researchers to resolve.

See....the "type" negates nothing. It demonstrates the typical. Can you name a human that wasn't a zygote? So all the Mr. Copes of the world were zygotes? So the human species is typically a zygote at a particular stage...hence--if you are looking at a biologically human zygote you are looking at a biologically individual human being--just as when you are looking at Mr. Cope's skull you are looking at what once was a living human being.. when you are looking at the material sucked out of a woman's womb from an abortion--amid the blood and tissue is what once was a living human being. It’s not a “comparison” it is one and the same type of existence—human beings.

I am not sure how many times I have to explain this. It is not my fault none of you ever paid attention in biology.

Nice try steen--when have you ever attempted to explain anything? All you do is call names and tell people how stupid they are and make vague claims that you have explained it somewhere in the nebulous cyber-world before. See below.

Well, and it would only underscore how stupid your argument is, so I see the benefit to you restraining yourself.

yes. he was a human zygote as compared to a zygote of another species. he was a human embryo as compared to an embryo of another species etc. That is the ONLY valid application of the species comparisons, the inter-species differentiation. The way YOU sought to use it, in comparing and contrasting developmental stages, that application is invalid. Now, I warned you AHEAD OF TIME that this is what would happen, and here it is because you insisted on making that invalid argument anyway. here you are showing that really this indicates nothing else than your serious ignorance in biological science.

What it means to be human is not just a series of stages--and then you point to one individual (of course born according to your standards..) and that specimen becomes human because you are pointing him out—An individual is a human being in every stage that the typical human experiences.....he was a human, is a human, and will be a human from the moment he began to exist as an individual biological entity until he dies--this is what I meant when I asked if you understood the objective reality.

You don't get it yet, do you? With your limited grasp on even basic science, you simply can't "out-science" me. You need to go and learn what you are actually talking about first.

You sound like you feel threatened....why don't you make yourself comfortable on the couch here and tell me about your childhood...Let’s start with your relationship with your mother....(although I suspect you think your issues stem from your father...I don’t think so....there’s some serious Oedipal stuff goin’ on here as evidenced by your continual reference to “misogyny” and “oppression of women”....was Daddy overbearing and authoritarian? Or maybe he was naughty and distant and Mommy turned to her golden boy for comfort. hmmmmmmm...?).:smoking:

BTW....I noticed you didn't address the paragraph that death with identification of remains as they had to do with victims in the WTC....now why was that steen? Don't wanna insist those people that died never existed so that your argument can remain consistent in your warped thinking?

steen · Dec 10, 2005

doughgirl said:
steen.........You have me as saying this....

"Victims of incest typically want to be pregnant as it exposes the sin that lead to her pregnancy. -- Doughgirl "

Please post the thread where I said this...........

Right here.

Post #29 in the tread "Republicans LOVE Abortion," posted 12-04-2005, at 11:31 PM

It is at the end of the paragraph beginnng: "A Gallup Poll from June 26, 2005 showed that ..."

What? Didn't you know? Don't you know what you yourself post?

steen · Dec 10, 2005

Felicity said:
I'm not making a comparison--I am saying that they are one and the same. Human beings.

AND THAT IS A COMPARISON!!!!!!!:roll:

Mr. Cope wasn't the ONLY human to have ever existed--he is representative of the typical. He was once a zygote. He was Mr. Cope when he was a zygote...He was an embryo. He was Mr. Cope when he was an embryo.

But the type specimen description that is used as foundation for the species was NOT defined at the embryonic stage but rather at the adult stage.

get with it here, you are WAY to ignorant of any kind of science to have a chance here. The Science is clear, you are not. You were wrong. Suck it up and move forward. :roll:

The unity of his being never changes throughout his existence--only his abilities.

The biological, physiological description that went into the type specimen definition does change over the lifetime of an organism. That is why species comparisons at developmental stage differences within a species is not defined or allowed per the very process of how a species is defined. You are trying the biology equivalent of dividing by zero here. You can rant all you want against established science in your ignorance of what that science is, but that doesn't make the science wrong, it makes YOU wrong. Now, if you want the Biological Science community to change their definition of how we determine species, feel free to do so. Get a science degree and become enough of an expert in this field that you get to have a say.

No? Yup, you prefer to argue from a point of ignorance; why am I not surprised.

Mr. Cope is representative of the species human. The fact he was once a zygote is representative of the human species--

But the species Type Specimen was not defined at this stage. All your ranting and ignorant "but I want it to be different" pathetic postulations underscores how little you understand about this and how little your claims matter in the REAL world because of this. As I said even before you went down this road, I recommend you don't go there. My new recommendation is to cut your losses and withdraw from any discussion such as this one which involves serious science which you obviously know nothing about.

the fact he was a teenager is representative of the human species...the fact he was conceived, lived a human life and then died a human death is representative of the species.

yadda, yadda, yadda. Irrelevant to the FACT that Type Specimen of adults are used in the process of defining a species, and that using the species concept for any kind of comparing, contrasting or evaluating developmental stages of an individual is INVALID.

But no, I have no expectation of you getting this or learning anything about this, and as such, I foresee many more rounds of you making claims that are utterly and completely false while insisting that they are valid, just because you oh-so-much WANT them to be valid.

Yes, a waste of time, but on the other hand, I don't let anybody get away with making a false claims about science, so this won't stop until you stop your false claims.

Did you read this part of the link I gave...

Good HEAVENS. I have had CLASSDES in this. get a grip. You are WAY outside the area where your knowledge even marginally makes you make sense.

When picking the type specimen, the paleontologist isn't choosing the ideal individual, or the biggest, or the most anything, just the most typical one. It has all the important features, with nothing that's unusual for the species. The type specimen might not be perfect or even complete. And what if the fossil is just a pollen grain, or a seed or an egg, or a caterpillar whose adult form is a moth? These are problems for later researchers to resolve.

BINGO. The type specimen is an adult. Speciation is used to compare DIFFERENT species, not to compare or contrast developmental stages.

See....the "type" negates nothing. It demonstrates the typical. Can you name a human that wasn't a zygote? So all the Mr. Copes of the world were zygotes? So the human species is typically a zygote at a particular stage...

THAT IS NOT THE POINT. Nobody are denying that individuals of a species develop at a set pattern. The problem here is that you want to use the species concept to compare WITHIN a species, which is an invalid application of the concept. DON'T YOU GET IT????

Well, obviously you don't.

hence--if you are looking at a biologically human zygote you are looking at a biologically individual human being

Ah,.... NO! The species designation doesn’t confer individuality. Now you are in an entirely different discussion. Gosh, you really don't know much about ANY of this, do you?
[quote-just as when you are looking at Mr. Cope's skull you are looking at what once was a living human being.. [/quote]Sure. He met the requirements of being an individual of his species and hence was a "being."

when you are looking at the material sucked out of a woman's womb from an abortion--amid the blood and tissue is what once was a living human being.

No, it wasn't. It was not a being because it never obtained individuality.

It’s not a “comparison” it is one and the same type of existence—human beings.

GROAN #@%@$#%$@#:roll: :doh RIGHT THERE are you trying to do that intraspecies comparison that is not allowed in the application of the species concept.

This is utterly pointless as you refuse to deal with what a species is and how it is defined. Thus, meaningful discussion on this is impossible per your deliberate and willful ignorance. I will leave you in your dishonesty.

alphieb · Dec 11, 2005

steen said:
And once again, we have %#@%$#@%^$#@^5 beenover this before. BRAINWAVES is an EEG pattern of interaction between cortical lobes and with the brainstem. until the brainstem and the cortex is connected, "brainwaves" are physically impossible. And that connection, the linkup of the thalamocortical trat to the cortex, that linkup happens at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. Hence, barinwaves are a physical impossibility before that time. Likewise pain or any other sensation or ability to even register the body or its surroundings are impossible before then.

How @%#@$# many times do I have to post this?

Link please?

tecoyah · Dec 11, 2005

alphieb said:
Link please?

Allow Me:

The Foetal Stage of Development

The third through ninth month is known as the foetal stage of human development.

Brain functions are expressed through activity of neural circuits. These circuits are formed throughout the foetal period and throughout the life by the formation of synapses in a process which has been called synaptogenesis. Not all synapses formed in the foetal period will survive, and new synapses are formed shortly after birth.

During the third month the foetus will have grown to around 75mm and a growth rate of about 12 mm each week. The face now looks much more human, with the eyes having moved from the sides to a more frontal position. The ears are visible and some of the inner structures of the ears, the tympani (ear drums), and vestibular apparatus are now recognisable. At 9 weeks the spinal galant reflex emerges.

Ossification of cartilage continues throughout this stage of development, as does refinement of the organs and systems of the body. At 11 weeks, the palmar reflex emerges.

The communication lines between the brain and the periphery of the body (cortico-spinal tracts) develop very rapidly and are largely complete by the seventh month of gestation. The olfactory bulbs grow forward, and begin forming connections with smell receptors in the lining of the nose. The cerebral cortex continues to grow and fold in an effort to develop more surface area.

The commissures of the brain develop during this stage as well. Commissures are the nerve fibre tracts that cross over the midline to connect different parts of the brain. They are largely involved in integrating right and left side brain activities.

Myelination of the nerve fibres begins in the third month, with the first myelination occurring in the cranial nerves that arise from the midbrain and medulla oblongata. The ventricular system (which allows the flow of cerebrospinal fluid throughout the brain and spinal cord) is now largely complete.

just a snippet from here:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/rboon/StagesofBrainDevelopment.htm

vergiss · Dec 11, 2005

yummy_zoe7 said:
Some things I just don't understand....

I honestly think pro-choice really doesn't make much sense. You’re basically saying I should have a choice to kill the baby that is growing inside of my stomach...

Um, it's not your stomach, sweetie.

Your situation reminds me of a badge I saw recently: "I chose to have a baby, but at least I had a choice."

Felicity · Dec 11, 2005

get with it here, you are WAY to ignorant of any kind of science to have a chance here. The Science is clear, you are not. You were wrong. Suck it up and move forward.

Well...I have found that Mr. Cope may not be the type specimen for humans and that Carl Linnaeus is probably the better candidate...but that’s neither here nor there to the issue....The issue is to what extent “type specimens" can be used to determine classification in a species. You say that determining that a specimen is OF the species or rather an example/specimen of the unified whole of the species cannot be done via type specimens....here are a few sources that contradict your learned self....

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu:8050/course/zo150/mozley/nomencla.html
The meaning of the name must also be documented by one or more type specimens of the species that are given to a recognized museum for curation. The type specimens must be made available to any credentialed scientist who wishes to verify or enhance the original description, or compare the original type specimens with other specimens of the same or related species.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/insite/specimens-knowledge/C61.html
Ordering: naming and renaming
Every known species has been described, named and a type specimen appointed. To determine whether you have found an example of a new species, you need many others to compare it to.

http://www.museums.org.za/bio/animal_nomenclature.htm
Each family group name has a type genus, each genus group name has a type species, and each species group name has a type specimen or type series. Types are important because they are the reference points for each taxon. By comparing the types you can make a decision about whether two taxa are the same or not.

And this one makes the point that I am trying to make—that the “type” designation runs smack into the issues of the “metaphysical” or as I have expressed it—the objective reality.

http://www.uchicago.edu/research/jnl-crit-inq/features/artsstatements/arts.daston.htm
The title by which a type specimen represents but does not exemplify its species ultimately rests upon the scientific practices by which it does so, just as the claim of members of a legislature to represent their constituency stands or falls by their political practices. The type specimen is not just the bearer of the species name; it is in principle the original of the species description (and botanists go to considerable pains to make sure this is so, so that long, tortuous bibliographic chains sometimes connect species and type 85 ). This is why botanists must know not only that a type specimen exists, but also where it exists, in case it must be consulted. ......... [and this is what you are saying, steen] It is by comparison of particulars with particulars, not of particulars with universals, nor of the concrete exemplum with the abstract idea, that botanists ascertain species boundaries and species membership. To describe such methods as polythetic and to liken them to the detection of Wittgensteinian family resemblances is correct, but somewhat misleading. Instead of surveying a group portrait for family resemblances, botanists focus on one individual member, the holotype, side-by-side with its description, as the standard against which other specimens are measured. What botanists thereby perform is not so much an induction over particulars as one between particulars. [and this is the point I am making in response] If the species is a kind of generalization, a kind of plant Leviathan, it is not one composed by the enumeration of interchangeable individuals, as a census counts up residents of a country. It is more like a wheel of comparisons, each a point along the hub representing an individual specimen connected along a spoke to the type specimen at the center, as well as connected to one another by relationships of resemblance. It is the trained eye and judgment of the botanist that discerns these connections, shuttling back and forth between holotype, description, and other specimens.
These are the practices that chain names to species via type specimens. An act of baptism in which the species is given a name does not suffice. Nor does simple ostension, a pointed finger at that designated specimen as a synecdoche for its species. It is the calibration of species--always incorporated in particular specimens--with the holotype and description that forge the chain of transmission. This is neither realism--botanical species as essences--nor nominalism--species as random agglomerations of individuals. It is equally difficult to locate along the axis running from concrete to abstract. The holotype and its practices of induction between particulars have created a new way of representing the many by the one, a particular that stands in for the species, a type incarnate in the individual: metaphysics in action.

Quote:
The unity of his being never changes throughout his existence--only his abilities.

Click to expand...

The biological, physiological description that went into the type specimen definition does change over the lifetime of an organism. That is why species comparisons at developmental stage differences within a species is not defined or allowed per the very process of how a species is defined. You are trying the biology equivalent of dividing by zero here. You can rant all you want against established science in your ignorance of what that science is, but that doesn't make the science wrong, it makes YOU wrong. Now, if you want the Biological Science community to change their definition of how we determine species, feel free to do so. Get a science degree and become enough of an expert in this field that you get to have a say

No? Yup, you prefer to argue from a point of ignorance; why am I not surprised..

Your arrogance does not impress me steen...have ya’ noticed? Make your point and back it up with evidence rather than relying on other’s deference to your claimed expertise. Talk about a “because you say so” argument. Whoopee.....

But the species Type Specimen was not defined at this stage. All your ranting and ignorant "but I want it to be different" pathetic postulations underscores how little you understand about this and how little your claims matter in the REAL world because of this. As I said even before you went down this road, I recommend you don't go there. My new recommendation is to cut your losses and withdraw from any discussion such as this one which involves serious science which you obviously know nothing about.

Same as above—not impressed by your rants, steen. Give the evidence of the point you are trying to make rather than simply characterizing me as ignorant because I lack some "secret knowledge" you supposedly have but don't produce.

Quote:
the fact he was a teenager is representative of the human species...the fact he was conceived, lived a human life and then died a human death is representative of the species.

Click to expand...

yadda, yadda, yadda. Irrelevant to the FACT that Type Specimen of adults are used in the process of defining a species, and that using the species concept for any kind of comparing, contrasting or evaluating developmental stages of an individual is INVALID.

I guess that is suspect. What is the purpose of “typing” if it is not to offer a specimen for consideration? Furthermore—there are human TYPES all around you...EVERY HUMAN IS A TYPE....and EVERY HUMAN starts out as a zygote....what species is a ZYGOTE that is taken from a human beings womb??? It’s a “no Duh” moment, steen.

Can you offer an explanation of when the material BECOMES an individual member of the human species—where it was not the moment before? No you can’t—and you’ll skip over this point as you always do when you don’t have an answer that doesn’t demonstrate OBVIOUS subjective perspective. I’ve seen you draw the line at the connection of the nervous system—around 27 weeks or so...but what was it before the subjective determination that the brainwaves matter for the living thing in its designation as a specimine of the human species? It wasn't the mother...it wasn't a tumor....it has biologically identifiable unique human chromosomes resulting from two seperate haploid cells contributed from two seperate human beings that unite and form a new unique entity.....what is it? Just answer that.

Yes, a waste of time, but on the other hand, I don't let anybody get away with making a false claims about science, so this won't stop until you stop your false claims.

Back it up, steen, with something other than the golden claims you give below....”I’ve had classes.....” whoohoo...I’m not impressed.

Quote:
Did you read this part of the link I gave...

Click to expand...

Good HEAVENS. I have had CLASSDES in this. get a grip. You are WAY outside the area where your knowledge even marginally makes you make sense.

Like you’d accept that statement as anything but the drivel you know it is....practice what you preach and live by your own standards. Offer evidence (that can be referenced) other than your own self aggrandizing claim of expertise.

Felicity · Dec 11, 2005

tecoyah said:
I could go on, but....no one reads it anyway.[/B]

It's all ultimately irrelevant...that's why I don't usually bother with the "pain" or "brainwaves" issue.

Felicity · Dec 11, 2005

vergiss said:
Um, it's not your stomach, sweetie.

Your situation reminds me of a badge I saw recently: "I chose to have a baby, but at least I had a choice."

One could take that badge as saying "isn't it nice that the mother has a choice....but unfortunate that the child in the womb doesn't."

vergiss · Dec 11, 2005

Felicity said:
One could take that badge as saying "isn't it nice that the mother has a choice....but unfortunate that the child in the womb doesn't."

So what'd you prefer? "A cluster of cells should ALWAYS take priority over the wishes of the living, senient woman being forced to carry it!"

Pro-Choice...give me a break

sooch90

New member

Felicity

Felicity

sooch90

New member

Felicity

alphieb

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

tecoyah

Illusionary

steen

Lie Detector

doughgirl

Felicity

steen

Lie Detector

steen

Lie Detector

alphieb

tecoyah

Illusionary

vergiss

Felicity

Felicity

Felicity

vergiss