Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Can you imagine if SF really believes this??
Curious... did you groan me because you don't like me embarrassing string? Or did you do it because you think that comment was wrong?
Can you imagine if SF really believes this??
Can you imagine if SF really believes this??
The bolded above shows how intellectually dishonest you are.
Viability does not determine whether it is human or alive. Viability is an argument for legal purposes... it has nothing to do with genetics.
Curious... did you groan me because you don't like me embarrassing string? Or did you do it because you think that comment was wrong?
Sorry Superfreak not today. I have a headache.
lol... its ok... I know you cannot address it.
I have already discredited your argument. Your statement was clearly wrong and AGAIN mine is 100% accurate. I have again provided sources confirming that your skin cells "contains all the information needed to form an organism." It is basic genetics and you deny the science based on nothing but your stubborn and ignorant opinion.
Your argument is actually about viability. You seem to believe that once the zygote has formed it is sufficiently viable or likely to develop to constitute human life. You have provided no other ACCURATE distinction to separate the zygote from other cells.
It's not a completely untenable position. But science offers no conclusive proof to your position. It is quite premature to say it is sufficiently viable and logically flawed as the zygote is completely dependent on the mother. Not like a baby, but more like your skin cells are dependent on you.
LMAO... you have done no such thing. A skin cell is never going to be anything other than a skin cell. It is NOT a unique life. It shares the genetic code of the organism it is a part of. Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. You are talking about potentially CLONING using the DNA in skin cell? You actually think that is the same as a fertilized egg cell? Seriously, you should run away now. You have embarrassed yourself completely with that nonsense.
No moron. YOU are the one that is talking viability. Viability has NOTHING to do with my position. I have never stated a zygote is viable.
Yes moron, I have provided the distinction. A fertilized egg cell has genetic coding for a complete human being that is DIFFERENT from that of the parents.
Again, the above is complete nonsense. Genetics do offer conclusive proof. Again, I am not talking about viability AT ALL. It has nothing to do with my position. YOU are the one that pretends viability matters with regards to science. It does not. Viability is used to argue whether or not it is a 'person' (subjective) or whether or not the unborn deserves legal rights (subjective). It has nothing to do with the determination of the formation of a unique human life.
A skin cell does not contain the coding to form a complete unique human being.
Again, you practice intellectual dishonesty by dropping context and moving goalposts. You said...
You are wrong. There is no doubt or debate about it. I pointed that out and instead of acknowledging your error you vaguely claimed I was being intellectually dishonest.
Genetically unique has nothing to do with it. Both twins are human life. If we clone an individual the clone will be human life.
Viability, the ability to sustain existence and/or the ability to maintain homeostasis IS a requirement in all biological definitions of life. I have posted the definition several times and have referenced different sources. You have provided nothing accept your dogmatic denial of scientific sources and attacks on them.
Your argument is viability. You have offered no ACCURATE distinction between the zygote and another cell other than that. Your claim of viability is just premature and logically flawed as it demands quite a bit of inconsistency.
No moron, I am not wrong. The skin cells DNA is NOT unique. It is the same as that of every other cell in the body. A fertilized egg cell has a completely different code for a complete human being that again is DIFFERENT from that of the parent. So yes, you are absolutely unequivocally intellectually dishonest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html
Again moron... viability has nothing to do with HARD science... GENETICS. The zygote all the way through birth does indeed maintain homeostasis. It is the genetic coding within the unborn child that regulates it. It acts independently from the mother. You want to pretend that because it can sustain itself on its own without assistance that somehow negates its humanity. That is absurd. Again, it is no different than a coma patient living off of life support.
you running around stamping your feet insisting that my argument is viability will NEVER change the fact that my position has NOTHING TO DO WITH VIABILITY. NOTHING.
genetic distinction can be found between all types of cells. A liver cell is not the same as a skin cell etc...
A skin cell does not contain the coding to form a complete unique human being.
Funny, you argued that each cell was genetically unique before.
But stumbling into the truth had no impact on your dogmatic opinion.
Your statement IS factually incorrect.
A skin cell does contain the coding to form a unique human being. Each twin is a unique human being. A clone would be a unique human being. They would be genetically identical, but so what?
I am sorry you don't seem to understand the basic genetic facts and instead seem to be dogmatically stuck on some talking point about whether the zygote is an individual life or part of the mother's body but that has no relevance to this discussion. Are you sure you are not a bot?
Viability does have to do with the hard science which you reject.
A zygote is able to maintain homeostasis as a zygote not as a human, just as a sperm is able to maintain homeostasis as a sperm or a skin cell is able to maintain homeostasis as a skin cell, but they are not able to maintain homeostasis as a human. But you reject that this is based on "hard science" or is a defining characteristic of life.
You are again wrong. The zygote does not act independently of the mother. It relies on hormonal cues from the mother to guide its development and is completely dependent on the mother to maintain homeostasis. Outside of the mother it will die immediately.
It is nothing like a coma patient. A coma patient is temporarily impaired and may require life support until he/she recovers. It is not waiting to develop new abilities that will allow it to live as a human. A zygote on life support is dead.
My god you are an idiot. Each cell has the DNA of the person, but each cell is ALSO genetically coded to perform a specific function within the body.
Just more of your nonsense. What I stated was correct. You just deny science.
ROFLMAO... no moron, it does not. You obviously don't know how cloning works either. That skin cell does not grow into a unique human being. The DNA from the cell is EXTRACTED... the cell itself does not become a unique human being. You moron.
LMAO... what genetic facts have you stated? You have run from every fact presented. Where have I once argued whether the zygote was an individual life or part of the mothers body? I have stated time and again that it is a unique human life. Only a fucking moron would say that it is part of the mothers body.
No, it does not.
And here we go with the magic human fairy again. At NO point is the zygote anything other than human you moron. NO POINT.
LMAO... it does indeed act independently. Or do you think the mother tells it to move and kick etc...? Do you think the mother tells it when it is hungry or the other way around? Truly... you should shut your ass now.
A coma patient is on life support, just as the child is. While the reason for being on support is different, you are pretending one isn't human as a result. The mother via the umbilical cord is the life support you dolt.
Wow... here we have a NO SHIT moment from the science denier. Who knew that a fetus was not EQUAL to an adult and that it had a lot of growth and development needed to reach adulthood?
GROUND BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!
The above post from string AGAIN argues about LEGAL rights and ARBITRARY decisions of 'what attributes must exist for certain rights to be granted'... NONE of which has to do with GENETICS.
Amazing how many times the idiot String comes back to either LEGAL (subjective) definitions or PHILOSOPHICAL (subjective) definitions only to then pretend he is discussing the SCIENCE.
The above post from string AGAIN argues about LEGAL rights and ARBITRARY decisions of 'what attributes must exist for certain rights to be granted'... NONE of which has to do with GENETICS.
Amazing how many times the idiot String comes back to either LEGAL (subjective) definitions or PHILOSOPHICAL (subjective) definitions only to then pretend he is discussing the SCIENCE.
The point Myers clearly made and I have made repeatedly is that what separates a zygote from a fully formed human or adult is much more than growth. Did you not get that, dummy?
You don't understand the genetics and they do not support your argument. You still have not given us any reason that the genetic characteristics of a zygote make it any more human life than a skin cell. Your argument is not based on the genetics that you don't understand, which is made clear by the fact that you have argued that your accurate and inaccurate understanding of each cells uniqueness supports your conclusion. Your conclusion is reached by your equally ignorant grasp of philosophy.
I have now provided several developmental biologists that have quite clearly stated that science does not support your claims.