What is wrong with abortion in the early stages of pregnancy?

I think you missed it but he never said it was.

 

Well I think he did, when he claimed a zygote is not a human being. All members of the species homo sapien are human beings, period.

 

That is because it is not, but you are welcome to believe it anyway.

 

Well I do, because the scientific data supports it.

 

You have not presented any scientific data.

Science I presented in post 349... and to this science you are yet to respond.

 

You apparently haven't read my posts.

 

You have presented no science in relation to the classification "homo sapien"

I have presented science in relation to taxonomical classification and according to that science a zygote is not a "homo sapien"

If you have some taxonomical classification science to the contrary I would welcome it .. but you do not.

 

As has been pointed out to you multiple times, a human zygote does not change species during its growth into the adult human being. your little theory is garbage.

Additionally:

"The only living species generally considered to belong to the family Hominidae is H. sapiens. "

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/course/zo150/mozley/humans.html

SO you say a zygote is a Eukarote, and therefore cannot be a human. Well that is pure BS.

"Humans are a eukaryotic species. Each diploid cell has two sets of 23 chromosomes, each set received from one parent"

ALL HUMANS ARE EUKAROTIC!!!

http://paleontology.wikia.com/wiki/Human

 

You are correct .. humans are members of the eukaryote club. Good that you are finally learning some biology .. keep up the good work.

This does not make all eukaryotes humans. In fact most members of the eukaryote club are not homo sapiens.

To be a homo sapien you need to have membership(traits) in the club eukaryote but you also need membership in other clubs such as "mammalia" "chordata" and so on.

I have never claimed the zygote changes species LOL (that is your claim so it is your claim that is garbage and you are correct again .. the claim that a zygote grows into another species is garbage indeed !)

The zygote does not change species, it lives and dies as a single celled eukaryote.

The single celled zygote will never be a mammal. It does not grow ( as your links point out) into another species.

 

Well it seems I have known more than you all along.

This is completely irrelevant!

As the zygote does, he/she is merely in the earliest stage of development.

You essentially allege this every time you claim that a zygote is not a homo sapien.

No, anyone with any basic biology knowledge knows that is garbage. Teh zygote divides, or grows, into the initial embryonic stage.

This is nonsense. The zygote OBVIOUSLY grows into the adult human being (through a variety of growth proccesses). The zygote is merely the earliest stage of the life of the mammalian human being!

 

LOL Please provide support for this hilarious claim.

To the contrary .. I alledge that the zygote can not change species.

Anyone with based biology knowledge knows that reproduction and growth are not the same.

Cell division of the zygote is not growth.

If this is so basic then how come you have not found any support for this silly claim ?

 

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100/2k4ch39repronotes.html

No support here for your silly claim that the zygote simply dies after mitosis. Mitosis is a growth process of the human being. The zygote is the same organism as the adult human he/she grows into. Yuk it up Junior, you are wrong!!!!

Then why are you so confused as to what species a human zygote is?

Anyone with any biological knowledge knows that cell reproduction within an organism, and the reproduction that creates an organism are not the same thing!!!!

This is false.

 

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocour...epronotes.html

Mitosis is a growth process of a human being .. a zygote however is not a human being.

After the first motisis in the above link .. please tell me which of the two cells after division is "the parent zygote" having the exact same DNA.

I am glad you have actually posted some science .. This should be fun !

Bonus marks if you can show how the organism after the first mitotic division has traits of a homo sapien such as those required to get into the club "chordata" or "mammalia"

 

It actually is a mammal, that is all it needs to "get into the club".

There is no "parent zygote" , as the zygote merely grows into the multi celled organism, as the link shows.

 

A zygote is a mammal ? LOL This just gets better and better.

Please provide the source for this information or at least some rational.

If the zygote is not a parent .. then why are its offspring called "daughter cells" ?

 

Not sure why you think your own idiocy is so funny, but whatever.

A zygote is a human being in his/her earliest stage of development. Can you show me where the definition of mammal contains an age component?

I am not interested in semantical arguments. It is clear that the zygote and embryo are the same organism.

 

I made no claims in reference to age.

You claimed a zygote is a mammal. Source please.

You claimed the zygote was not the parent cell.

From biology 100 lecture notes:

http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/classes/bio100/Lectures/Lect05/lect05.html

1. Asexual reproduction -- only one parent and offspring are genetically identical ("clones") of the parent -- offspring receive exactly the same DNA instructions as parent has.

 

You actually did. A zygote is just a very young human being, so if a human being is a mammal, but a zygote is not, you are claiming that age is a requirement!

 

I tell you what, instead of chasing this rabbit around with you any further, can we just agree that seldom, if ever, is a zygote the victim of an abortion? The abortion kills an embryo or fetus in nearly all cases, wouldn't you agree?

So, to get this thread back on topic, wouldn't you agree that an embryo and a fetus are human beings?

 

Bottom line is that you have no proof that a zygote is a mammal, and you have no valid proof that a zygote is a human being.

 

Unless you're one of those who claim that hormonal birth control and IUDs are causing abortions because they alter the lining of the uterus making implantation unlikely. In which case, considering the popularity of hormonal birth control and IUDs, an awful lot of zygotes are aborted.

 

And you have no proof that a zygote isn't a human being.

 

First off Whaler you have to have a starting point. If we can not agree on that then there is no point in discussing anything further on in the process.

If a zygote is a person .. then everything after is a person .. case closed, no need to move further down the chain.

The second problem is that you are completely disingenuous. It does not take a rocket scientist to grasp that an explanation of a concept in biological textbook trumps a definition of common language usage in a general dictionary. This is simple stuff ....God forbid something complex comes up.

By not granting the obvious and/or asking one to disprove a negative (a logical fallacy that you seem to have stopped doing of late which is a sign of hope) I can easily debate someone claiming "the sky is blue"

A: The sky is Blue
B: not its not,

A: of course it is it defined here in this textbook as an emmission of light in this area of the spectra
B: Science is not infallable and changes over time

and so on....

 

LOL .. I cant believe I was just giving you kudos for not doing the (disprove a negative logical fallacy) .. and you just did it again..

Funny stuff.

A human is a homo sapien, a homo sapien has a spine (belongs to the club phylum chordata), a zygote does not belong to this club, a zygote is not a homo sapien.

 

:blah: :blah:

Well I understand that you have some deep seeded need to feel smarter than other people, but that doesn't place any obligation on me to think so.

So can you set aside this chest beating brovado and agree that an embryo and a fetus are both human beings, or are you just interested in trying to impress yourself?