real life wrote: A quick recap --
real life wrote: Jason put forth this comparison, alleging his own peculiar biological theory that a sperm had the DNA of the mother and the father.
Don't I have the DNA of my mother and my father? If that's true, my skin cells have the DNA of my mother and father; my blood cells have the DNA of my mother and my father; and my sperms have the DNA of my mother and my father; both mother Proudmoore's and father proudmoore's DNA iinformation were combined to give me my unique DNA.
Jason Proudmoore wrote:But the zygote has the DNA of the mother and the father, doesn't it? And it is alive
and the same thing applies to sperms, MA.
real life wrote:that a sperm cannot be considered a human being because it lacks the full number of chromosomes.
Is this what makes it a child
even when it is not?
real life wrote:But the unborn is a genetically unique individual from the moment of conception, and therefore NOT part of the mother's body.
I know that the individual being formed inside the mother's womb is unique
and so is my DNA
a combination of my mother's and father's.
Because of this, is it considered a child
while still growing inside the mother's womb?
You are violating the rule of definition here. Though you call it a fetus a "child," by definition it is not.
In what sense do you call a child "not part of the mother's body"? Is the placenta part of the mother's body? If this is so, then the child is attached to the placenta by the umbilical cord.
In what sense isn't the child not "part of the woman's body"? The child is not the mother's organ. I know that. In what sense?
Real Life wrote:The unborn has his own distinctive DNA. His DNA is not that of the father (they don't match) nor is it that of the mother (they don't match) .
What is your point here? Because the DNA of the mother and the father don't math, should we call it a "child"? What is your point?
real life wrote:Is a combination
real life wrote:A quick recap --
real life wrote:Jason put forth this comparison, alleging his own peculiar biological theory that a sperm had the DNA of the mother and the father.
The sperm has the DNA of my mother and my father, Einstein. Which one don't you understand?
real life wrote:that a sperm cannot be considered a human being because it lacks the full number of chromosomes.
I provided you with a specific question regarding this. If I were to be cloned, would my clone not be considered a child if the mother's DNA is not included in the process? If my clone is a child as soon as he comes to this world, then, this example doesn't apply.
real life wrote: But the unborn is a genetically unique individual from the moment of conception, and therefore NOT part of the mother's body.
Your argument is that we should consider a piece of protein to be a child, when by definition
it is not.
Real Life wrote:The unborn has his own distinctive DNA. His DNA is not that of the father (they don't match) nor is it that of the mother (they don't match) .
I know this. What's your point?
real life wrote:He has a little of each, and probably some that resembles grandma and grandpa , but he is a copy of NONE of them.
And so do I
and my skin cells, and my blood, and my sperms.
real life wrote:He is an individual from the moment of conception.
And so am I
and my skin cells, and my blood, and my sperms.
real life wrote:Neither the sperm or the egg are human beings because they lack the requisite number of chromosomes (46) to be a human being.
Go back to the clone example.
real life wrote:No matter how long the sperm or the egg is protected and nourished it will never be a human being.
You're just being ridiculous. "Never be a human being"?
real life wrote: The sperm and the egg both carry just 23 chromosomes and do not constitute a human being, get it?
real life wrote: With his own unique, but erroneous, biological theory that the chromosomes of the egg and those of the sperm somehow stay separate after fertilization, and that the unborn by implication therefore could not be considered a child.
it is not a child
by definition. Do I have to repeat this every time you come up with this nonsense?
Jason Proudmoore wrote:Be that as it may
the cells don't share the 23 and 23 pair of chromosomes right away. So, before this process is accomplished, the "child" is not a child
just a piece of protein growing and developing to soon become a "child"
real life wrote: That Jason's biology teacher is somewhere fainted on the floor is likely, or more probably laughing hysterically while muttering 'the boy never did listen.....never did.....never did.......'
Probably my biology teacher has fainted after reading this. But I doubt it, since she might be kicking and screaming on the floor from hysterical laughter, from reading that a piece of protein is considered a "child."
real life wrote: Jason, the union of the sperm and the egg forms a being with the correct number of chromosomes to qualify as human -- 46. Each time the cell divides and the baby grows from 1 cell to 2 cells, to 3 cells , to 4 cells etc each new cell has 46 chromosomes. The unborn is fully genetically human from conception.
at this point
is it a person?
real life wrote: His unique genetic identity means he is NOT and never will be just a piece of protein, or a part of the mother's body. He does not have the same DNA. He has his own, part mom's and part dad's.
Do you know what protein is, Einstein?
real life wrote: I am under no illusion that this dose of reality and medical fact will change your mind. You have made it obvious that medical facts mean nothing to you. But for those of us who look at issues from a factual basis, the science of fetalogy completely undermines the arguments of abortion supporters.
Medical facts mean a lot to me. I'm just debunking your stupid, incoherent argument that a child is a child at the moment the sperms meet the eggs.
(By the way, how come that you, all of a sudden, rely on science so much
since when it comes to proving evidence about the inexistence of your god, you totally ignore it. Don't you think this is strange?)
real life wrote: He has a little of each, and probably some that resembles grandma and grandpa , but he is a copy of NONE of them. He is an individual from the moment of conception.
I know. What's your point?
real life wrote: Neither the sperm or the egg are human beings because they lack the requisite number of chromosomes (46) to be a human being.
real life wrote: No matter how long the sperm or the egg is protected and nourished it will never be a human being.
"Never"?
real life wrote: The sperm and the egg both carry just 23 chromosomes and do not constitute a human being, get it?
if they don't constitute to a human being
do they constitute to a child?
real life wrote: with his own unique, but erroneous, biological theory that the chromosomes of the egg and those of the sperm somehow stay separate after fertilization, and that the unborn by implication therefore could not be considered a child.
When it is inside the mother's womb, is it considered a child by definition?
Jason Proudmoore wrote: Be that as it may
the cells don't share the 23 and 23 pair of chromosomes right away. So, before this process is accomplished, the "child" is not a child
just a piece of protein growing and developing to soon become a "child"
real life wrote: That Jason's biology teacher is somewhere fainted on the floor is likely, or more probably laughing hysterically while muttering 'the boy never did listen.....never did.....never did.......'
We probably got this one right
just on the laughing part.
real life wrote: Jason, the union of the sperm and the egg forms a being with the correct number of chromosomes to qualify as human -- 46. Each time the cell divides and the baby grows from 1 cell to 2 cells, to 3 cells , to 4 cells etc each new cell has 46 chromosomes. The unborn is fully genetically human from conception.
So? What's your point? Is this what makes a piece of growing protein a child
while inside the womb of the mother?
real life wrote: I am under no illusion that this dose of reality and medical fact will change your mind. You have made it obvious that medical facts mean nothing to you. But for those of us who look at issues from a factual basis, the science of fetalogy completely undermines the arguments of abortion supporters.
Don't get me wrong, Curly. I understand everything pretty well. I don't know why you think that a piece of protein should be called a "child," when the definition clearly states that it shouldn't be.
A lot of people call it a "child." But in actuality, it isn't...not yet. Get it?
Can an undergraduate be considered a graduate without going to graduate school? Eh, Curly? If so
how can it be?
Can a bachelor be considered a bachelor if he's married?
There is a analogy that takes place in a particular episode of "Seinfeld" called "The Abortion."
Poppy (the restaurant owner and cook) decides to indulge Kramer's dream by establishing a unique pizza service in his restaurant called "Make Your Own Pizza." There are preparing the ingredients to make their own pizzas. And while Kramer wants cucumber in his pizza, Poppy refuses. Poppy says that a person "can't put anything he wants on their pizza". And Kramer opposes this by saying that a pizza is a pizza the moment you put your hands in the dough. And Poppy responds by saying that a pizza is a pizza the moment it comes out of the oven.
When do you think a pizza is a pizza?
And what makes a definition a good definition?
This is the error that you, Momma and others make
violating the meaning of words to fit your own purpose.
See how this stupid argument can be ridiculed?
Not again!!!! Another keg party!!! 
