human being'
In the references you quoted, I did not see the word zygote equated
to the term 'human being' It was only where you added it to a
passage in a summation by you which reads below in part: 'organism to
which it is referring -- a human being -- proceeds through' I am
visually impaired and apparently missed it if was actually there; but
I did try to find. Unless you're extrapolating from the bio
references, I just don't see a direct statement from those bio-
science quotes that says what you're saying: a zygote is a human
being. Just to be clear, I *DO* agree that the term 'human life'
does include any lifeform arising from human dna; such as zygote,
embryo, fetus, infant, adolecent, adult and so on.
I don't see that extending the term 'human being' to include a zygote
is either justified or helpful to communication; generates to much
heat and not enough light, imo. :(
-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48351
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Terry,
>
> > 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.
