(June 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: I defined human being in the OP and no, Boru, I do not believe that at all. In fertilization the genetic information from both the man and woman meet and the formation of a new, living human being is formed. Sperm and oocytes do not meet this requirement but a unicellular zygote that genetically directs its own development does.
Your definition is arbitrary, your own opinion, equivocates "human being" with "person" (and conflates it with the legal definition of same), and is very much a matter open to debate. That you chose to ignore those objections in no way lends legitimacy to your opinion.
(June 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm)Arthur123 Wrote: Cthulhu, I have been kind and charitable in my responses what have I done to deserve such snark? Or perhaps I have read you all wrong in that case....
You thought that reply was snarky? Stick around. Snark is just one more free service I offer. Some of us get a little cranky when people gloss over perfectly valid points of debate only to reassert an original assertion - to wit, the definition of "human being" and how that applies to zygotes.
Seriously, you ignored both of my replies in your wall-of-text reply (seriously, paragraphs and whitespace are a thing [snark!]).
Ignoring such valid points is the opposite of kind and charitable.
