Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[Fonz]

And infants do not achieve self awareness until they are between 12 and 18 months old. Are they also not human beings because they are not self aware yet?

Thats not provable. But even if it were, the born child, by law has rights as a person.

I told you. Embryonic research has found that until a certain age, embryo's can reproduce asexually.

So how can one human being become two? Your dodging the question.

In the case of absorption, one is absorbed by the other. The one that is absorbed dies. The two don't become one individual any more than you become part cow when you eat a burger.

So its a cannibal then?

This isn't a moral question for me, it is legal. Our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment.

Well if its a legal issue,then you are not a human being with rights, according to the law, until you are born. So whats your problem?

It is a human being. The number of cells is irrelavent. You have far more cells than a newborn but you are no more human than that newborn. The potential lies with the sperm and the egg. Once fertilizationis completed, that potential has been realized and a new human being begins his or her life.

Its not a human being, as much as you writhe around on the subject, that is just your opinion. An unjustified opinion in my opinion however.

I have provided you with credible science that states quite clearly that we are human beings from the time we are concieved. Can you, or can you not provide any sort of credible science that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

No you haven't.

I have substantiated my position, yours remains uncorroborated.

What exactly remains uncorroborated?

Completely irrelavent. They are human beings are you are advocating harvesting human beings for the benefit of others human beings.

They are not human beings, not according to the law anyways. And since you said this was a legal issue for you, I fail to see what your problem is.

Tell me, would you be ok with harvesting prisoners in jail who have been given life sentences with no chance of parole? They have been essentially thrown away. The fact remains that our right to live is protected by the 14th amendment. Ignorance is convincing yourself that it is perfectly fine to kill one human being to benefit another.

You simply can'not compare living adult human beings to cells in a Petree Dish.

Nice try though.

 

[Coyote]

How do you define a human being?

How do you define a "person"?

At what point does a "human being" become a "person"

 

[palerider]

Thats not provable. But even if it were, the born child, by law has rights as a person.

Of course it is provable. That you don't like it because it makes your argument seem silly is irrelavent.

So how can one human being become two? Your dodging the question.

Do you understand how asexual reproduction works?

So its a cannibal then?

Since there is no "eating", no. Absorption is not eating.

Well if its a legal issue,then you are not a human being with rights, according to the law, until you are born. So whats your problem?

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in order to have the right to live. It only says that you must be a person and if you look up the definition of person in any legal dictionary, you will find that a person is just a human being or one of a few types of corporate entities.

Its not a human being, as much as you writhe around on the subject, that is just your opinion. An unjustified opinion in my opinion however.

Once more, I have provide you with credible science that says that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved. I still await some credible science from you that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

No you haven't.

Of course I have. Can't you read?

What exactly remains uncorroborated?

unsupported by other evidence as opposed to my position which is supported by credible science.

They are not human beings, not according to the law anyways. And since you said this was a legal issue for you, I fail to see what your problem is.

Actually, you are losing that argument as well. There are people sitting in jail today having been sentenced for both murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child when they killed the child's mother. No such sentence (manslaughter or murder) can be handed out if the perpetrator did not, in fact, kill a human being. Legal precedent has been set.

You simply can'not compare living adult human beings to cells in a Petree Dish.

Petri dish.

Human beings are human beings. Attempting to dehumanize any human being based on age or level of development is no more than ageism which is no better than racism.

 

[palerider]

How do you define a human being?

How do you define a "person"?

At what point does a "human being" become a "person"

I have already done that.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. If you refer to any legal dictionary, the legal definition of person is "a human being". And a person and a human being are one in the same. Asking when one becomes the other is like asking when a male becomes a boy.

 

[Coyote]

I have already done that.

A human being is any member of species homo sapiens sapiens. If you refer to any legal dictionary, the legal definition of person is "a human being". And a person and a human being are one in the same. Asking when one becomes the other is like asking when a male becomes a boy.

Not really. There is a big difference. For example certain types of reproductive tumors could be defined as "human beings" - they are genetically a complete human.


The following are legal definitions of a "person":

A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.

Also, different states seem define a "person" differently. Arkansas defines it as a fetus beyond 12 weeks gestation.

Haven't found any defining a person earlier then that though.

 

[Fonz]

Of course it is provable. That you don't like it because it makes your argument seem silly is irrelavent.

No it is not provable conclusively. Because you think it does means you are delusional. And as I stated, according to the law, which you claim to be the basis of your argument here, a born child has rights and is considered a human being.

Do you understand how asexual reproduction works?

Yes, why are you avoiding your own statement that a group of cells is a human being?

Since there is no "eating", no. Absorption is not eating.

So then the human being is murdering another human being? Isn't that illegal?

Perhaps we should send the Murdering Stem Cell to Jail.

Nothing in the constitution says that you must be born in order to have the right to live. It only says that you must be a person and if you look up the definition of person in any legal dictionary, you will find that a person is just a human being or one of a few types of corporate entities.

The Definition of a Human:

Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus;homo human being -- more at [SIZE=-1]HOMAGE[/SIZE]
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun
​

The definiton of a being:

be·ing 1. The state or quality of having existence. See Synonyms at existence.
2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing.
b. The totality of all things that exist.

3. a. A person: "The artist after all is a solitary being" Virginia Woolf.
b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence.
c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

​

The definiton of a Human being:

human beingn. A human.


​

the definition of a person:

per·son n.1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.
2. An individual of specified character: a person of importance.
3. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality; the self.
4. The living body of a human: searched the prisoner's person.
5. Physique and general appearance.
6. Law A human or organization with legal rights and duties.
7. Christianity Any of the three separate individualities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the essence of the Godhead that unites them.
8. Grammar a. Any of three groups of pronoun forms with corresponding verb inflections that distinguish the speaker (first person), the individual addressed (second person), and the individual or thing spoken of (third person).
b. Any of the different forms or inflections expressing these distinctions.

9. A character or role, as in a play; a guise: "Well, in her person, I say I will not have you" Shakespeare.

​

Once more, I have provide you with credible science that says that unborns are human beings from the time they are concieved. I still await some credible science from you that says that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

No you have not. You've provided Pseudo Science. Haha i love tossing that back in your face, actually I havent seen you provide anything but your usual sophistry and ignorant baseless opinions.

I think your problem is that your trying to oversimplify what a Human Being is. For instance heres your definition: Any member of species homo sapiens.

It sounds simple enough I suppose, though it doesnt really explain anything. So I look up the definition for Homo Sapiens and this is what it gives me:

the Dictionary says:

Homo sa·pi·ens
n. The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.
​

the Thesauras says:

1. The human race: earth, flesh, humanity, humankind, man, mankind, universe, world.

ok, so I look up the word Human:

Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Anglo-French, from Latin humanus;homo human being -- more at [SIZE=-1]HOMAGE[/SIZE]
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature <such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
- hu·man·ness /-m&n-n&s/ noun
​

then I look up Homindae:

The exact criteria for membership in the Homininae are not clear, but the subfamily generally includes those species which share more than 97% of their DNA with the modern human genome, and exhibit a capacity for language or for simple cultures beyond the family or band. The theory of mind including such faculties as mental state attribution, empathy and even empathetic deception is a controversial criterion distinguishing the adult human alone among the hominids. Humans acquire this capacity at about four and a half years of age, whereas it has neither been proven nor disproven that gorillas and chimpanzees develop a theory of mind.[3] This is also the case for some new world monkeys outside the family of great apes, as, for example, the capuchin monkeys.
​

Of course I have. Can't you read?

Yes I can. Can you?

unsupported by other evidence as opposed to my position which is supported by credible science.

Sorry, but you haven't supported anything. Claiming to do something when you haven't is pretty lame.

Actually, you are losing that argument as well. There are people sitting in jail today having been sentenced for both murder and manslaughter for killing an unborn child when they killed the child's mother. No such sentence (manslaughter or murder) can be handed out if the perpetrator did not, in fact, kill a human being. Legal precedent has been set.

Well you are at least partially right, finally. Its funny how that law works, the unborn fetus is only a legal victim if its killed in the act of certain crimes. Prior to that it has no rights. Furthermore, Stem Cell Research isn't considered a crime, neither is Abortion. Therefore, neither the cells in a Petri Dish, nor the unborn Fetus have any rights.

Human beings are human beings. Attempting to dehumanize any human being based on age or level of development is no more than ageism which is no better than racism.

and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings.

 

[palerider]

Not really. There is a big difference. For example certain types of reproductive tumors could be defined as "human beings" - they are genetically a complete human.

No. A tumor can only be defined as a tumor. An unborn, at any stage of development is not a tumor, but a living human being.

The following are legal definitions of a "person":

A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation. Different rules and protections apply to natural persons and corporations, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, which applies only to natural persons.

The legal definition of a person remains "human being" and unborns fit the definition. The law doesn't change the biological fact that unborns are human beings and the lives of human beings in this country are protected by the 14th amendment.

 

[palerider]

No it is not provable conclusively. Because you think it does means you are delusional. And as I stated, according to the law, which you claim to be the basis of your argument here, a born child has rights and is considered a human being.

So in your opinion, when you don't believe that a thing can be proven, you prefer to simply blunder ahead rather than err on the side of caution? If I examine your posts on other topics, will I find that you routinely prefer not to err on the side of caution? Or do you disregard your usual mode of thought on this topic?

Yes, why are you avoiding your own statement that a group of cells is a human being?

You are a group of cells. Are you not a human being. I am still waiting for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

So then the human being is murdering another human being? Isn't that illegal?

Murder requires intent. Manslaughter reqires neglegence. Prove either.

Perhaps we should send the Murdering Stem Cell to Jail.

Again, absolute inaccuracy in your terminology. You are no better than a racist.

[/INDENT]No you have not. You've provided Pseudo Science. Haha i love tossing that back in your face, actually I havent seen you provide anything but your usual sophistry and ignorant baseless opinions.

You are calling medical textbooks pseudoscience? Provide some credible support for that position.

I think your problem is that your trying to oversimplify what a Human Being is. For instance heres your definition: Any member of species homo sapiens.

I believe for your argument to work, it reqires a generous portion of sophistry and therefore you must attempt to needlessly complicate the issue. If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being, please do so. But we both know that you can't. By now, you have had time to google everywhere possible and you have found that no credible scientist will suggest that the offspring of humans is something other than a human at any time.

It sounds simple enough I suppose, though it doesnt really explain anything. So I look up the definition for Homo Sapiens and this is what it gives me:

And unborns don't fit into the definiton how?

Sorry, but you haven't supported anything. Claiming to do something when you haven't is pretty lame.[/qipte]

It would be if I hadn't already done it. Mewling that your opponent hasn't supported his position when he in fact has, is lame and the content of your last couple of posts has been mostly mewling. Can you, or can you not provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER something other than a human being?

Well you are at least partially right, finally. Its funny how that law works, the unborn fetus is only a legal victim if its killed in the act of certain crimes. Prior to that it has no rights. Furthermore, Stem Cell Research isn't considered a crime, neither is Abortion. Therefore, neither the cells in a Petri Dish, nor the unborn Fetus have any rights.

Thus far, I have been completely right and will continue to be completely right. The fact remains that one can not be charged for murder or manslaughter if one does not kill a human being. Precedent has been established and precedent is one means by which bad law changes.

and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings.

Of course they aren't, but embryonic stem cells may only be obtained by killing a living human being. Perhaps you should do a bit of research. There would be no debate if a living embryo (which is a human being) were not required to collect them.

There is no coherent and supportable argument to suggest that unborns are not human beings. Try as much as you like, I have heard them all and every single one of them is easily slapped down by basic embryology and human development. The best you can possibly do is argue that it is legal now, but then, slavery was once legal. Were blacks not in fact, human beings because the law said that they weren't, or was the law simply wrong?

 

[9sublime]

Specisim

An unborn foetus is less intelligent, physically able and capable of living than a lot of monkeys with far more emotion and feeling that the child. However, you don't kick up such a fuss when someone kills one of them.

 

[palerider]

An unborn foetus is less intelligent, physically able and capable of living than a lot of monkeys with far more emotion and feeling that the child. However, you don't kick up such a fuss when someone kills one of them.

They are not protected by the 14th amendment of the constitution. If an appeal to emotion is the best argument that you can put forward at this point, you have already lost.

 

[Fonz]

So in your opinion, when you don't believe that a thing can be proven, you prefer to simply blunder ahead rather than err on the side of caution? If I examine your posts on other topics, will I find that you routinely prefer not to err on the side of caution? Or do you disregard your usual mode of thought on this topic?

Are you trying to argue that a human baby is not a human being?

You are a group of cells. Are you not a human being. I am still waiting for you to provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anyting but a human being.

I am not just a 'group of cells'.

I just pulled a booger out of my nose, thats a group of cells, is that a human being? Do I need to post the defintion of a human being again? You seemd to have missed it the first time.

Im still waiting for you to prove that a blastocyst is a human being.

Murder requires intent. Manslaughter reqires neglegence. Prove either.

Thats for the courts to decide. Now we have to provide a lawyer for that blastocyst in the petri dish. Since its a human being, its also got the right to a speedy trial...etc. Maybe we can use the insanity defense for it.

Again, absolute inaccuracy in your terminology. You are no better than a racist.

And you are a blatant liar.

You are calling medical textbooks pseudoscience? Provide some credible support for that position.

I've seen no medical textbooks that state that a blastocyst is a human being.

I believe for your argument to work, it reqires a generous portion of sophistry and therefore you must attempt to needlessly complicate the issue. If you can provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being, please do so. But we both know that you can't. By now, you have had time to google everywhere possible and you have found that no credible scientist will suggest that the offspring of humans is something other than a human at any time.

Actually for my argument to work, I only have to provide facts, and definitions of the terms being used. Something that you haven't done.

You have to prove somehow that a blastocyst is a human being. You have not done that.

It would be if I hadn't already done it. Mewling that your opponent hasn't supported his position when he in fact has, is lame and the content of your last couple of posts has been mostly mewling. Can you, or can you not provide some credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER something other than a human being?

Im sorry but you haven't proven anything.

Were talking about a blastocyst. You need to provide proof that a blastocyst is a human being. Which you haven't done.

Thus far, I have been completely right and will continue to be completely right. The fact remains that one can not be charged for murder or manslaughter if one does not kill a human being. Precedent has been established and precedent is one means by which bad law changes.

How many people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for 'killing' a blastocyst?

IN fact, hundreds if not thousands of blastocyst are destroyed every day, why arent the cops rounding up researchers?

Of course they aren't, but embryonic stem cells may only be obtained by killing a living human being. Perhaps you should do a bit of research. There would be no debate if a living embryo (which is a human being) were not required to collect them.

Wait. Are you changing your story now? So stem cells ARE NOT human beings anymore, but they can only be obtained by killing a human being now. make up your mind. Perhaps you should get informed on this subject.

There is no coherent and supportable argument to suggest that unborns are not human beings. Try as much as you like, I have heard them all and every single one of them is easily slapped down by basic embryology and human development. The best you can possibly do is argue that it is legal now, but then, slavery was once legal. Were blacks not in fact, human beings because the law said that they weren't, or was the law simply wrong?

Your attempt to change the terminology is insidious at best. We arent talking about unborns, we are talking about embryonic stem cells, we are talking about a blastocyst.

Nowhere in the law does it say that a blastocyst is a human being. Nowhere in science does it say that a blastocyst is a human being.

So far PaleRider, you've only writhed around and squirmed, lied, changed the terminology and refused to address any of the points made.

You are a funny little man.

 

[Coyote]

No. A tumor can only be defined as a tumor. An unborn, at any stage of development is not a tumor, but a living human being.

The legal definition of a person remains "human being" and unborns fit the definition. The law doesn't change the biological fact that unborns are human beings and the lives of human beings in this country are protected by the 14th amendment.

The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.

There also is no legal definition of "human" . The law does not generally refer to a "human being" but to a "person." That's the definition that is required. Whether or not a fertilized ovum, a fetus, an anacephalic baby, or a brain-dead accident victim is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is an important legal issue and that is different from "human being".

 

[USMC the Almighty]

The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.

It, like the 15th Amendment explicity refers to males.

 

[palerider]

The 14th ammendment refers to "persons" not "human beings". Perhaps there is a difference.

From the law.com dictionary:

person - n. 1) a human being.

From the findlaw.com legal dictionary:

person - 1: "natural person"

I can continue, but wherever one looks, one finds the definition of person is a human being so person and human being are one in the same in the eyes of the law. In the Roe decision itself, Justice Blackmund stated that if a case for personhood were ever established for unborns, the case for Roe would collapse as unborns would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Precedent has already been established that unborns are human beings and in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being in order to be a person.

There also is no legal definition of "human" . The law does not generally refer to a "human being" but to a "person." That's the definition that is required. Whether or not a fertilized ovum, a fetus, an anacephalic baby, or a brain-dead accident victim is a human being is biological hair-splitting. But whether or not it is a person and therefore has the rights of a person, that is an important legal issue and that is different from "human being".

There need not be a "legal" definition for human being any more than there need be a "legal" definition for elephant. They are what they are. There certainly is some hair splitting going on here, but it is not me who is doing the splitting.

All of the examples you gave are indeed persons and all are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. I find it somewhat interesting that pro choicers always get around to comparing perfectly healthy unborns to people who are so badly damaged or diseased that they will never recover. Talk about splitting hairs in an attempt to make a case.

 

[palerider]

Are you trying to argue that a human baby is not a human being?

Not even a good dodge. Do you always favor not erring on the side of caution or do you simply disregard your usual thinking for this topic?

I am not just a 'group of cells'.

Of course you are. Do you believe you are more because you say you are more?

I just pulled a booger out of my nose, thats a group of cells, is that a human being? Do I need to post the defintion of a human being again? You seemd to have missed it the first time.

Actually, that is not a group of cells. That is some cells, and some dust, dirt, or other inanimate matter. If you cut your finger off, that would be a group of cells, but not a human being. Unborns are human beings. The fact that you don't seem to have a grasp of even basic embryology and human development doesn't change the facts, it just demonstrates that your position on this topic is emotional rather than being founded on any actual truth.

Im still waiting for you to prove that a blastocyst is a human being.

I already did.

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."


The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

I am still waiting for you to provide any credible evidence at all that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Thats for the courts to decide. Now we have to provide a lawyer for that blastocyst in the petri dish. Since its a human being, its also got the right to a speedy trial...etc. Maybe we can use the insanity defense for it.

Once again, not even a good dodge.

And you are a blatant liar.

Name calling in lieu of effective argument. Not unexpected.

I've seen no medical textbooks that state that a blastocyst is a human being.

My instinct is that you have never seen medical texts period, but I have provided a few for you to look up if you are motivated. You will note that the texts that I provide indicate that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. Since days pass from the time of fertilization until one has matured to the level of blastocyst, it stands to reason that one has already been a human being for days.

Actually for my argument to work, I only have to provide facts, and definitions of the terms being used. Something that you haven't done.

Of course I have. And have provided credible medical texts as well.

You have to prove somehow that a blastocyst is a human being. You have not done that.

Of course I have unless of course, you can prove that medical fact is not being taught in medical school.

Were talking about a blastocyst. You need to provide proof that a blastocyst is a human being. Which you haven't done.

Once again, I have. If a zygote is a human being, a blastocyst is a more mature human being.

How many people have been charged with murder or manslaughter for 'killing' a blastocyst?

I couldn't say. Since precedent has been established that one can be convicted for additional counts of murder or manslaughter for killing an unborn, there could very well be cases in the courts now where an autopsy has revealed that a woman was in the early stages of pregnancy.

IN fact, hundreds if not thousands of blastocyst are destroyed every day, why arent the cops rounding up researchers?

Using technical names in an attempt to dehumanize a human being is no different than using racial slurs to dehumanize a human being.

Wait. Are you changing your story now? So stem cells ARE NOT human beings anymore, but they can only be obtained by killing a human being now. make up your mind. Perhaps you should get informed on this subject.

Maybe you should simply learn the subject. Are you trying to say that you believe that it is possible to obtain embryonic stem cells without killing an embryo? If you don't understand how the process works, just ask, and I will be happy to explain it to you.

Your attempt to change the terminology is insidious at best. We arent talking about unborns, we are talking about embryonic stem cells, we are talking about a blastocyst.

Are you arguing that a human being at the blastocyst stage is born? Zygote, blastosphere, blastocyst, fetus, embryo, infant, toddler, teenager, adult, old geezer...all are no more than terms we use to describe a human being at some stage of his or her development and I have not changed the terminology at all.

Nowhere in the law does it say that a blastocyst is a human being. Nowhere in science does it say that a blastocyst is a human being.

The law defines a human being as a person, and unborns, at any stage, are human beings. I await some credible science from you that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

So far PaleRider, you've only writhed around and squirmed, lied, changed the terminology and refused to address any of the points made.

Show me where I have attempted to change any terminology and to date, you have not made a valid point. You clearly don't understand the science of embryology or developmental biology. When medical texts say explicitly that zygotes are human beings, it stands to reason that blastocysts (is that the only word you know?) are human beings also. Suggesting that a zygote is a human but a blastocyst is not is like saying that an infant is a human but a toddler is not.

You are a funny little man.

I would rather be funny that tragically sad which is what ignorance of a subject that you are trying to argue amounts to. It is clear that you don't grasp the science when you make statements like this:

"and Stem Cells are not human beings. How many times do I have to explain that to you? Don't you know how to read? Even using your own definition, we can conclude that Stem Cells are not Human Beings."

And then suggest that I am "changing the terminology" when I explain to you that embryonic stem cells can not be obtained without killing an embryo. Do you believe it is possible to obtain embryonic stem cells without killing an embryo?