🚀 go-pugleaf

Rob Hocker  <rah@teleport.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
[etc.]
>> >Sperm do not contain the full set of human DNA.
>> 
>> So what?
>
>The DNA of an organism scientifically *defines* (and settles)
>what the being is: i.e., the fetus is fully a human being;

Factually incorrect.  Absurdly so, at that.

You don't get to ignore environmental factors.

>> >  Sperm do not
>> >multiply their cell count as does a growing organism.
>> 
>> Sure they do.  Give them a suitable egg and away they go.
>
>i.e., once they join with the egg to form a human being,
>the fully human cells start multiplying.

Wrong again.  A human being is born.  A zygote is not.  In fact,
between the time of conception and the time of birth, that egg will
most likely be flushed without the mother ever knowing it existed, but
it may also become one, two, three, or sometimes for or five
individual newborn infants.

>> >  Sperm are
>> >therefore not human beings.
>> 
>> And neither are embryos.
>
>If the embryo has human DNA, then it is scientifically a
>human being.

Don't use the word "scientifically".  YOu obviously don't know what
you're talking about and it just makes you look foolish.  There is no
scientific definition of "human being".

>  Denying the scientific facts won't make
>them go away.

Fabricating so-called "facts" and calling them "scientific"
doesn't make them true.

>BTW, if you believe that the human embryo (fetus) is
>not a human, why, in your post dated Sun, 3 Nov 1996
>20:45:33 GMT, did you state otherwise:

Gad.  What IS it with you anti-abortion types that you cannot tell the
difference between human as an adjective and human as a noun?  A human
fetus is a HUMAN fetus, just as my finger is a human finger.  Neither
is A human (being).

>> TJ \"Spark\" Miller jr. <tjmiller@nwark.com> wrote:
>>> (BTW, you never
>>> told me what species you think a fetus should belong to, since you think
>>> that it's not human)
>
>> Stop lying.  I have never said that a human fetus is not human.

-- 
Ray Fischer
ray@netcom.com