On 18 Jun 2004 09:03:02 -0700,

Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<i2b4d0h6v8enp3p3th0e8he0tc67i3fabk@4ax.com>...

On 17 Jun 2004 08:47:17 -0700,

Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<l1n1d0hu75jhvbo92kulhl44u5scie2md8@4ax.com>...

On 16 Jun 2004 07:03:26 -0700,

"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<aHIzc.27207$Hg2.26881@attbi_s04>...

"david" <

I wouldn't call hydatidiform moles human
beings unless I saw evidence that they were - my guess is that neither
wouldn't scientists - they seem to be genetic abnormalities where
something went wrong in the process of conception that prevents the
sperm and egg from correctly joining and becoming a zygote.

We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.

So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one single cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?

Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns are not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not having
chicken for dessert.

Two human beings according to me? Since when? You are again making
up a position for me and then arguing against it. It seems that in
the chimera case described above (an actual link or reference would be
nice) two human beings came together to form one human being. Those
are the facts of science. It happens. What's your point? Twinning
and chimeras are rare things that happen in the development of human
beings that most of society is unfamiliar with but how does that prove
that the unborn aren't human beings?

So your position is that 'human being' flit in and out of existance?
Or are you claiming that exceptions to your universal statement don't
matter if they are rare?

Its scientific fact- not my position. On rare occasions two human
beings/embryos join together and form another human being - at other
times one human being splits into two -

What scientific fact? I was asking about why you apparent reject the
relevence of twinning and chimeras because they are rare. And you are
the one who has a statement to 'prove'. You claim that zygotes are
'human beings', reject the traditional definition of 'human being',
won't supply one of your own, and claim other have to disprove your
claim.

Larry, why do you keep abandoning our arguments only to start new ones
that are basically the same? It seems that you like to leave a
post-line when you get proven wrong, say something ridiculous, or
can't refute my evidence and then jump into a new post and act like
I've never provided evidence. I've provided you with numerous
textbook quotes and quotes from experts in the field of biology yet
you act like I haven't. The "traditional definition?" I base my
arguments on science and logic and not on tradition? Guess why?
Tradition is often wrong - the tradition in the South before the
1960's was to legally discriminate against blacks - why has our nation
gone away from this - oh yeah, that's right - because the tradition
was wrong.

You seem to be the one who keeps opening up new lines. You think you
can set the rules (for example, you decide that what constitutes a
'human being' is a 'scientific' question), ignore all objections, rely
on a 'law' which you haven't been able to substantiate, declare
victory when people won't let you set the rules, and then accuse
others of 'abandoning' arguments when your statements are questioned.

What universal statement? If you're referring to the Law of
Biogenesis - that discusses how a species reproduces after their own
kind. So any organism produced by two human being would have to be a
human being - it doesn't really discuss twinning or chimeras.

Your statment that zygotes are human beings. That univeral statement.

Yeah, your point? Because two human beings can come together and form
one human being and one human being can twin and become two - that
somehow disproves that zygotes aren't human beings in your illogical
little world?

In case you haven't been paying attention, nobody is trying to
'disprove that zygotes aren't human beings' (whatever that means..
you have to watch those double negatives), people have been trying to
get you to support your contention that zygotes are human beings. You
seem to feel that 'prove they aren't' is a powerful argument.

You have been asked to explain how twins and chimeras fit into your
scheme, and you reject the question as irrelevant because they are
'rare'.

Fertilized eggs to make a cake, really? Do you not understand that
the eggs you use for baking haven't been fertilized? You're making
this too easy.

You demonstrate the limitations of your knowledge once again. You
can't buy fetilized eggs at your local Safeway, but some people do buy
them, and use them for baking. Before the industry improved their
quality control, one could occassionaly find a fertilized egg in a
dozen bought at the Safeway.

You insist on making dogmatic statements from your ignorance.

I thought you ran away - back for another whoppin' I see.

As I said in another post, you are a legand in your own mind.

For one, it seemed fairly obvious that Malapert was talking about eggs
you buy in a grocery store - anyone not locked in their fear of any
pro-choice being proven wrong would see that.

And just how was that 'fairly obvious'? Because it would make you
appear less of a fuckwit if it were true.

Too bad you cut out Malapert's post so that anyone reading has to go
back and see how fairly obvious it was. She hasn't even responded in
that line of posting because she knows how silly her argument was -
yet you're still trying to defend her argument. Why? Why do you feel
the need to argue about little innane things that you just keep losing
over and over again?

Hmm. but you can be bothered with copying it? Here it is:
---------------------------
We now know of several instances of medical chimeras - that is to say,
single individuals who are the product of two perfectly normal embryos
fusing by accident early in gestation. These individuals can develop
quite
normally - in fact one Brazilian woman wasn't discovered to be a
chimera
until she was going to have surgery and blood tests "proved" that she
couldn't be the mother of the children she had given birth to.

So here we have two human beings, according to you. No genetic
abnormalities in either of them. Neither of them died. Not one
single cell
of either ceased to exist. Where, then, did one of those human beings
go?
*Which* one went away? How do you know?

Isn't it far more reasonable to recognize that embryos are nature's
attempts
at making a human being but not human beings yet? Just like acorns
are not
oak trees, and when I use fertilized eggs to make a cake, I'm not
having
chicken for dessert.
--------------------------------
Now, the part you were adressing is the last sentence. Care to
explain how it is 'obvious'? There was no mention made of where the
eggs were obtained.

Second, I don't think you read the entire part of the second site I
posted - it discusses how eggs that might be fertilized would never
grow into a chick because of the environment needed to sustain the
chicken embryo/fetuses life - so if an egg happened to be fertilized -
the early chicken embryo would die before it developed very much.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that you can't
buy fertilized eggs.

My assertion - I never said you can't buy fertilized eggs, Larry. One
of the below sites that I provided even talks about buying fertilized
eggs - Malapert was clearly discussing what most of think about when
we think about eggs as a common term - eggs we buy at the grocery and
use regularly - if she wanted to discuss the other kind of rare
fertilized egg she should have actually said that.

And you should have told us all up front that you are a fuckwit. I
don't know what 'clearly' means in your particular dialect of
loonie-speak, but it seems to be something along the lines of 'the
only way I can dig myself out of this whole is to claim the statement
says something it doesn't'.

www.anekant.org/eggs.htm

Hmm. You do have a penchant for semi-whacko websites, don't you.

It is crazy but it does talk about how store bought chicken eggs
aren't fertilized.

As I mentioned above. Your local Safeway doesn't sell them. Some
health food stores do.

http://gworrell.freeyellow.com/chickenfaq.html

And now you use still another of your petards. This web site mentions
health food stores selling fertilized eggs.

See above - the chicken zygote/embryo would die early on in its life -

Don't you get tired tap dancing away from your original assertions?

What original assertion, Larry? When did I ever assert that you can't
buy fertilized eggs? I said that the eggs you use for baking haven't
been fertilized because most people that use eggs for baking buy eggs
at the grocery store where they haven't been fertilized. If Malapert
was talking about rare health food store eggs she should have been
specific.

And anybody with a grain of sense would have assumed that the
fertilized eggs were purchased somewhere fertilized eggs are sold.

An acorn isn't an oak tree but it is an oak. All your statement
proves is that a human embryo isn't a human adult. An oak seedling
isn't an oak tree either but its still an oak just like an infant is a
human being.

When was the last time you looked at an acorn, and said 'oh, look, an
oak'?

Is that supposed to be an argument?

Well, if you don't say that, you wouldn't be regarding an acorn as an
oak, would you?

How would my regard for something change what it actually is? If I
think that a Jew isn't a human being does that somehow make Jews into
non-human beings? If I was a crazy person and thought that children
playing in the park were leprechauns trying to control my body- would
those children actually be leprechauns or would they still be children
- how I regard something doesn't change what something is factually.
This argument is old and weak.

You didn't answer the question. Do you commonly look at an acorn and
say 'look, an oak'?

Your sad attempts to prove that the unborn aren't human beings have
failed. One day you'll get around to recognizing the scientific fact
that the unborn are human beings.

I haven't attempted to prove that the 'unborn aren't human beings'. I
have challenged your lame arguments that they are.

For one, I think you have- remember that "millenia" argument?

No, I have pointed out the traditional definition. You have never
provided any other definition.

Second, Why not Larry? You clearly believe that the unborn aren't
human beings yet supposedly haven't attempted to prove it.
Interesting. Is it because you don't have any evidence? Hmmm....

The evidence being that they have not been born, hence do not fit the
definition. Feel free to suggest a new definition, and then convince
others that it is better, for all purposes (not just for anti-abortion
screeds) that the existing one.

One day you'll get around to acknowledging that the question of what
constitutes a 'human being' is NOT a 'scientific' question. Well,
make that a maybe. You have consistently refused to address the issue
when it has been raised.

One day I pray, you might actually heal from your probable personal
experience with abortion and not be so locked in your attempts to
justify your previous actions by having me prove over and over that
the unborn are human beings.

Ah, projecting? Hmm? I have invited you over and over to provide
evidence for your assertion. You just keep failing to do so.

What assertion this time haven't I provided evidence for? Please try
to be more specific - I can't read your mind.

Have you forgotten already? You assertion that zygotes are 'human
beings'.

How is it not a scientific question? Is the question of whether
something is or isn't an elephant not a scientific question? It makes
absolutely no sense unless you are someone desperately trying to
justify legal abortion.

Actually, when I go to a zoo, I don't ask for 'scientific evidence'
the the big gray thing I am looking at is an elephant. If it looks
like an elephant, it is an elephant.

Why didn't you answer my questions? Is the question of whether
something is or isn't an elephant not a scientific question?

Not usually.

What about mannequins? They look like human beings - does that mean
they are human beings? How something appears is not necessarily
indicative of what something is?

But they aren't human, or born, or alive, so they don't fulfill any of
the criteria.

Plus, once fetuses reach a certain stage of development they "look"
like what everyone would call a human being - even though through all
stages of development they look like human beings are supposed to at
that stage of development.

One thing I will say for you, though--- you are not as illiterate as
the usual breed of fuckwit that show