http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Classification-Homo-Sapien-cells.htm Which part did you disagree with ?
First things first, you agree that this is just an opinion piece right? "I do not believe .....in general....." The issue of whether or not human beings at that stage of development are worthy of recognition of their basic human rights is not a scientific one.
Not really. Part of it is opinion and in this respect there is a difference between the opinion of a subject matter expert and the opinion of one who is not. (such as embryologists) The claim following"I do not know any biologist" is opinion, but an opinion that carries a heck of alot more weight than anything you have cited. Other parts are not opinion. "but it is not an organism" is a statement of fact as defined by her expert knowledge in the field of biology. She does not just give opinions but gives an explanation of the subject matter consisting of facts and distinguishes between types of organisms. For example notice the term "Eumatazoan" This is the term for an organism, including humans, that exibit "true multicellularity" .. and then she goes on to tell you that A Human is a Eumatazoan organism. Fact Is a Zygote a Eumatazoan organism ? Even if a zygote was an organism it is not a eumatazoan organism. If a zygote is not the same type of organism as a human, then the zygote is not a human.
Everything you post is a semantic circle jerk. A zygote is the first stage of a human being's development. True and irrefutable.
If you really believe that there are no subject matter experts then there is no point in debating the abortion issue. If it can not be shown that a zygote is a homo sapien because there is no domain science for what is a homo sapien then you can not claim that killing a zygote is homicide. End of Debate
LOL We have been through this 10 times before. Being the first stage of the creation/development of a human does not make the zygote a human. Making the claim that it does is a true semantic circle jerk !
If there were there would be no point in debating the issue. The fact that there isn't makes it WORTH debating. WOW you are one confused individual.
Think harder .. You can not claim that killing a zygote is homicide because you can not show that a zygote is a homo sapien.
This is nonsense as laws have already specifically stated that the zygote,embryo, fetus is a homo sapien by definition. And rightly so! You cannot deny a being its assigned genus simply because it is too young. But how many zygotes are aborted anyway? Are you suggesting that a lot of them are?
No they do not, besides, that is an appeal to authority fallacy. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the federal statute, does not have a definition. Neither does Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. All in all, 27 of the states that have fatal homicide laws do not define a fetus as anything. It would be about time that you stopped posting the same lie over and over when you well now the truth. How is the number relevant?
You are such a liar. I have proven you wrong on this about a hundred times. "Ky. Rev. Stat. § 507A.010 et seq. (2004) define "unborn child" as a member of the species Homo sapiens in utero from conception onward, without regard to age, health or condition of dependency" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-3452 "Alexa's Law" defines "unborn child" as a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. "Ga. Code Ann. § 52-7-12.3 defines the term "unborn child" to mean a member of the species Homo sapien at any stage of development who is carried in the womb" "Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 21 § 691 (2006) defines unborn child as a human being" "Ala. Code § 13A-6-1 (2006) defines "person," for the purpose of criminal homicide or assaults, to include an unborn child in utero at any stage of development," "Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.07 relates to the death of or injury to an unborn child and provides penalties. The law defines an individual as a human being who is alive, including an unborn child at every stage of gestation from fertilization until birth." Just to name a few. You never get tired of lying apparently! http://www.ncsl.org/IssuesResearch/Health/FetalHomicideLaws/tabid/14386/Default.aspx By the way, when I point out inconsistencies and say they need to be reconciled, that isn't even close to an "appeal to authority". Before you cut and paste terms from your cohorts' posts, you should look up what they mean.
The law has nothing to do with it, folks make dumb laws all the time. It is the law that is being debated here so using "the law" as an example as why something should be "the law" is a logical fallacy. If you claim there are no subject matter experts then you have no basis for your claim that a zygote is a human such that killing a zygote is homicide.
There could be a lot of them IF you consider hormonal birth control causing the uterine lining to be unreceptive to implantation to be an abortion. Seems a lot of people do consider that hence the proliferation of "personhood amendments."
You don't consider it a homicide when a zygote, that which you claim is a person, doesn't implant to the uterine wall and is expelled from the uterus and dies due to the woman taking hormonal birth control to literally prevent implantation of fertilized ovums? It's suddenly not a homicide when she is intentionally preventing and expelling it from her uterus in this manner? It's only murder AFTER it's implanted? Maybe you should rethink your idea of when a zygote should be considered a person because it seems to me that you only think it's a person after it's implanted to the uterine wall and not before.
