> It is you that repeatedly asserted bio-science consensus for zygote
> as human being (if I've understood you correctly). While I see, in
> your citations below, biological descriptions of zygotes, I don't see
> citations below to concisely support zygote as 'human being'
Then you're not reading them.
> > "Zygote 1. The cell resulting from the union of an ovum and a
> > spermatozoon (including the organism that develops from that cell)"
> >
> > WordWeb Online
> > http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ZYGOTE
This is a generic description for ALL zygotes of ALL species -- which
means that it is a description for any zygote of any species,
including homo sapiens sapiens. If the zygote is not a human being,
then neither is anything it develops into.
> > "zygote -- The product of gamete fusion. In organisms with a haploid
> > life cycle, the zygote immediately undergoes meiosis, but in
> organisms
> > with a multicellular diploid stage, the zygote is merely the first
> > stage in the diploid portion of the life cycle."
> >
> > University of California-Berkeley College of Paleontology, Glossary:
> > Life History
> > http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/glossary_6.html
Once again, a generic definition of "zygote," applicable to all
species, albeit with specific qualifiers. Human beings are "organisms
with a multicellular diploid stage" as described in the definition. In
human beings, that stage ENDS at death. The definition says where it
BEGINS.
> > "What are the stages of human development?
> > The National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) provided a simple
> > outline of human development:
> > 1. the developing organism is a zygote during the first week after
> > fertilization,
> > 2. the organism is an embryo during the 2nd 8th weeks of
> development
> > 3. the organism is a fetus from the 9th week of development until
> the
> > time of birth."
> >
> > University of California-Los Angeles Institute for Cell Biology and
> > Medicine FAQ
> > http://www.iscbm.ucla.edu/faq.htm
You'll note that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission and UCLA
aren't offering an outline of paramecium development or an outline of
rhododendron development. They are offering an outline of human
development, and that the outline plainly states that "the organism"
to which it is referring -- a human being -- proceeds through stages
of development, not that it becomes different organisms between stages.
I started by making a general statement which is scientifically
non-controversial (that zygotes are human beings).
When that statement was contested, I cited textbook statements on
embryology to that exact effect.
When I was asked for concise definitions that supported my assertion,
I went and found them.
Now that's not good enough either -- even though no one contesting my
assertion has provided any references whatsoever to rebut my own. Do I
need to stand on one leg under an immature maple tree on Tuesday in
the rain and repeat a magic phrase or something? What level of proof
for the scientifically non-controversial -- nay, the fucking OBVIOUS
-- do I have to meet?
Tom Knapp
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
