I Need Everyone's Help...

[alwaysRight]

I go to a woman's forum and we have been discussing abortion. Most of the women there are really uninformed and just plain stupid. (Sorry to be so blunt) There's one lady who loves to say that it's a woman's "Constitutional" right to choose what she does with her body.

My question is, I have read over the Constitution many times and I just can't seem to find where people think it says this in the Constitution. Do any of you guys know this?

[Wadi66]

AR, its not there, unless she's talking about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". In which case, her right ends when they infringe on the rights of another. Has she ever mentioned where she read it?

BTW... LL&H is in the Declaration of Independence.

[dixiegirl]

people use this argument more and more, "its my right" it comes from nothing, for example, when it comes to a smoking ban, apparently people have the "right" to smoke, abortion, people have the "right" to kill thier innocent baby. liberals must have a different constituion than us, one made of hemp i would assume, or something with drug paraphernalia

[Wadi66]

AR, people do have the right to smoke unless they are harming someone else, in which case someone has to move or put out the cigarate.

Abortion though is infringing on another persons right to life and in fact the Constitution is duty bound to protect it.

[Madcowhunter]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!
That's pretty funny... Constitutional right...

There's one lady who loves to say that it's a woman's "Constitutional" right to choose what she does with her body. The Constitution protects "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Of course, that would actually fall into the baby's favor.

Also, you should tell her that it isn't "her body". A fetus has genes like every human being, 50% from the father, and 50% from the mother. To suggest that the child is her body is asinine... Unless of course she reproduces asexually.

Rather than bring up that it isn't protected by the Constitution, enlighten her to her own ignorance by challenging her to prove it.

[alwaysRight]

I was going to ask her to show me where it states that. I have read the Constitution, the Declaration of Ind. and the Bill of Rights and I could not find where people would get that from... at all.

I'm going to ask that... "Where do you find the right to abortion in the Constitution?"

Those women over there are a bunch of feminazis... especially the one I mentioned earlier... She wants to go into politics "at an international level." God help us all!

[alwaysRight]

Okay so I thought I would share this with you all. I asked the woman where in the Constitution it protects a woman's right to abort her baby. I'll share her response to me... which I find.. well you can read for yourself.


You have thousands if not millions of rights guaranteed to you that aren't specifically declared in either the federal or a state level Constitution. Just because it is a law or a ruling decision, doesn't mean that it has to be specifcally spelled out. The Bill of Rights specifies certain civil liberties to Americans as written by the Founding Fathers because those happen to be the most important hot button topics back in the day. You remember, the Bill of Rights was written after just coming out of the Revolutionary War where American Colonists were being denied these rights specifically by the British Government. That is why these particular issues are so clearly spelled out.

Not ever idea that will ever come up in ever court case that the Supreme Court presides over will be specifically spelled out word for word in the Constitution. The Supreme Court also does not rule specifically on the Consitituion. If in fact there are no specifics in the Constituion the Supreme Court will reference cases on the state and federal levels to reach their rulings. In some cases they will even look to the courts of other nations and take from those rulings. That being said, the main argument for this and many other cases lies within the vagueness of the due process clause, particularly in the 14th Amendment (a due process clause is also found in the 5th Amendment.) The vaguness of these particular clauses allows for them to evolve as time and society evolves. The Constitution is a liquid document. That means that it flows with the time. Hence, why it has lasted over 200 years. If every law was specifically laid out in it, the document would be come rigid. Over time it would be antiquated and no longer pertain to society. The issues faced in the 1700's and in 2006 are vastly different. The Constituitno was purposefully left vague in areas so that it could flow to fit the times as interpreted by legal minds of the specific day.

In Roe v. Wade the Justices (7 sitting) took from the Fourteenth Amendment's due process in clause in ruling, "A STATE CRIMINAL ABORTION STATUTE OF THE CURRENT TEXAS TYPE, THAT EXCEPTS FROM CRIMINALITY ONLY A LIFESAVING PROCEDURE ON BEHALF OF THE MOTHER, WITHOUT REGARD TO PREGNANCY STAGE AND WITHOUT RECOGNITION OF THE
OTHER INTERESTS INVOLVED, IS VIOLATIVE OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT." (Roe v. Wade 1973)

[alwaysRight]

Um... okay Yuk... I mean... Anyway, I'll listen to the people who know something on this board... thanks anyway...

[Oi_Ve]

The woman is right when she says that people have rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

However, if a right is not mentioned in the Constitution, it cannot be a Constitutional right. It can be a natural right (like the right to one's body), but not a Constitutional right.

The "rights" argument presented by pro-choice advocates is that women have the (natural) right to their own body, and that a fetus is part of a woman's body, and thus can be done away with.

However, Biology 101 says that the fetus cannot be part of the woman, so the argument falls apart.

Women have a natural right to control their bodies, but fetuses (feti?) have a natural right to life. A fetus is not part of a woman, but the fetus is a human being (again, Biology 101), so the Constitutional right argument fails.

And remind the woman that the Supreme Court has also said it was ok and Constitutional to own slaves: the Supreme Court is NOT infalliable

[Oi_Ve]

abortion is legal, get over it. what women do with their bodies is their business not yours, not mine, not some religious fanatic's, and certainly not the state's.

So, by your logic, it's ok for me to own a slave?

After all, what I do with my property (slaves) is my business, and not anyone else's right?

Splendid!

I'll go find an illegal immigrant or a homeless person and ensalve them this very day!

[Oi_Ve]

your logic is comical to say the least but at least you own it. to equate slavery with abortion is the response of a person who really has no valid point to debate.

the next thing you'll tell me is that a miscarriage is not a bloody mass of tissue but in fact a human being and should therefor be afforded the dignity of a proper funeral. how ridiculous you people cab be for you'll say and do almost anything in support of your quest to control the reproductive organs of the female population.

My logic is sound:

Biologically, a fetus is a human being.
Biologically, a slave is a human being.

You do not care that a human being's right to life is being taken: that a gross infringement of natural rights is occuring.

Why, then, should you care if I choose to own a slave. It does not concern you, and you obviously don't care about human beings or the infringement of natural rights.

P.S. A miscarriage is a dead human being, and that's a biological fact. Not a philisophical point, but a fact. It isn't entitled to a funeral, because humans aren't, by default, entitled to funerals: that's at the discression of the family involved.

[short circut]

your logic is comical to say the least but at least you own it. to equate slavery with abortion is the response of a person who really has no valid point to debate.

the next thing you'll tell me is that a miscarriage is not a bloody mass of tissue but in fact a human being and should therefor be afforded the dignity of a proper funeral. how ridiculous you people cab be for you'll say and do almost anything in support of your quest to control the reproductive organs of the female population.

OI_Ve never equated slavery to abortion, but merely used it as an example of a case where the supreme court was wrong. For most of American history the Supreme court did hold slaves as people, but beleived that they were inferior, and could not function as a person. According to your view a fetus can not function as a human.. Oi ve has a lot to say that is valid.

using an argumen that Oi_Ve made at one point in time.

We must first ask the question what makes a person. An identity makes a human a person. every one is unique including identicle twin(you can try as much as you want, they are never going to be exactly the same, even if their dna is).
so the next question is when does this person gain their identity, and life. IN other words when does a life begin.

ANswer life begins almost instantaneoulsy from the time of conception. when a sperm cell reaches an embryo and attaches its self to the embryo they fuse together creating a unique individual life. some would say that this is when a soul is there, but we will shy away from the religous argument for now.

When the state determined abortion cases it asked itself 3 questions

is it in the states legitimate interest to protect the life of the woman?
yes, thats whjy abortions only take place in heavily regulated clinics.


IS it in the states interest to protect the life of the fetus.
this is where the lines come. WHen they try to actually define life. According to my previous argument life begins at conception. the state does have an interest in protecting life, but no one can decide when life begins.
Ginsburg completley redecided Roe V Wade, if you didnt know.

i dont remember what the third question was, but it involvved the regualtion of abortion clinics.
all that was done was the requlation of the procedure, not the controling of a womans reproductive organs. No matter what is decided abortion has nothing to do with regulating reproductive organs. THe government can not regulate that because it has nothing to do with protecting the "natural rights", or economic issues, unless of course the woman is a whore.

It is true that a fetus is not a part of a woman and therefore not and issue of my body, my right to do with it as i please. the only physical connection between an unborn child and its mother is through the placenta, which requlates blood exchange and nutrient exchange. it is essentially a life support system powered by the mother. It could be argued that the mother has a right to control this "life support". but cutting it off would be considered murder, starvation and asphyxiation essentially.

This touches on another issue. Mechanical life support, and i will use terry schiavo as my example. Mrs schiavo was on life suuport for many years. The only reason it was legal to remove her from it was because there was zero chance of her recovering with it. She was essentially dead.
Now we bring this to the fetus. A fetus does have a chance to survive into the real world if it remains attached to this "life support device." Therefore removing it is murder.

Yes still bornes should get a proper funeral, but that is getting too much on a religous point and not a legal point, and therefore is invalid for this conversation. that debate is for another day and another topic

Now on to the 14th ammendment. This is called the equal protection clause, and it only garuntees that the law applies equally to everyone. There is no actual connection between this clause and the right to chose.

NO one is trying to requlate a womans reproductive organs. Its immpossible and illogical. Only a woman has the ability to control them. IT takes a woman to reproduce. If this woman doesnt want a child then there are plenty of good methods for prevention. It just takes the initiative to implement them.

now i assume you want to talk about the case of rape. while the woman did not choose to be impregnated, you really need to look at the solution. The murder of an innocent party is not the way to make things right.


I think i have sufficietly ===== for now

[Wadi66]

AR heed the wisdom behind Oi’s remarks. Therein lies the understanding so few grasp.

When the abortion issue first went before the Supreme Court it was from the standpoint of a woman’s right. And yes it is a woman’s “natural” right to do with her body as she sees fit. However had the issue come before the Court as infanticide, the Court would have reached a different conclusion.

At the time however the issue of whether the baby/fetus was its own person seemed ludicrous. To every sane person the answer was obvious. As a benchmark of just how morally bankrupt we have become, that question needed a legal answer, but the answer wouldn’t come until after the Court had to reach a verdict.

Now however, much to the relief of sane individuals and much to the dismay of abortionist, the lower courts and legislatures are stepping forward and declaring that if a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer will be guilty of two murders.

This sets the stage for the baby/fetus being legally its own person. Now abortion can go before the Supreme Court as an issue of infanticide, where it will be ruled that abortion is illegal. The woman still retains the “natural” right to her own body, but that will no longer be the issue in this case. Lawyers can not argue that claim in a case revolving around infanticide.

This is why abortionist with any savvy at all are upset.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to determine the Constitutionality of laws passed. That is its purpose. That woman is the typical judicial activist who wants to use the Constitution and the Supreme Court to ramrod their twisted ideology.

For any court in this country to render a ruling based on laws from other countries is traitorous at the very least. We are not yet a one world government and God willing we never will be.

And lastly AR, the Constitution is not a liquid document. Liquidity evolves into mobocracy which is exactly opposite of the purpose of the Constitution.

[alwaysRight]

Thank you Wadi... You and Oi are so smart.

I was really suprised when she said it was a liquid document, "meant to bend with the times."

I guess it just goes to show how uniformed people really are.

[Oi_Ve]

OI_Ve never equated slavery to abortion, but merely used it as an example of a case where the supreme court was wrong.

That AND I'm using it to counter the statement "if you don't like it, don't do it but let the option exist".

Back before the War Between the States, Stephen Douglas made the argument that slavery in new territories should have been decided by popular vote. If people wanted slavery, they could have it. If they didn't want it, they didn't have to have it. Supposedly everyone would win.

However, slavery stands as a direct contrast to the founding principles of this nation: that all men are equal and guarenteed life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc.
To say that such a practice should not only exist in this nation, but spread as well, is to stand directly against the founding principles of this nation.

To say that Susy Creamcheese can take a human life at will just because it does not effect myself is equivolent to saying that it's ok to take another human as property so long as it isn't, say, an American citizen.

The "different strokes for different blokes" argument is meaningless when basic human rights are being infringed. Such actions should never be deemed acceptable, and should be done away with (abliet slowly: we should not do away completely with abortion before we restructure our abotion system in this nation, just as slavery should have been phased out slowly to avoid economic problems).

Wrong is wrong, regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Infrigment of rights is infrigement no matter how Dogsbody or anyone else tries to spin it.

The government does not exist to enforce morality: that much is true. But it does exist to protect the rights of people.

And it's scientific fact that fetuses (feti?) are human beings.

[Oi_Ve]

I was really suprised when she said it was a liquid document, "meant to bend with the times."


Remind her also that liquids don't bend.

[Dr. Madd]

Oi didn't compare abortion to slavery, but I will.

Slaves were considered property; So are fetuses.

Slaves were considered somehow not human; So are fetuses.

Slavery was upheld by people who didn't want the rights of others to cramp their style; Abortion is upheld by people who don't want a person's rights to be alive to cramp their style.

I could also compare it to the holocaust, the Soviet Gulags. Care to see?

[Wadi66]

"it isn't entitled to a funeral' is even better.......

If you think people aren't required to be disposed of with dignity than I suggest you try take a dead body and burn it in your backyard.Your righteous indignation is misplaced. Do you always take remarks out of context and build your case with misleading information?

Here, let me show you what you either have chosen to ignore, or didn't read.
It isn't entitled to a funeral, because humans aren't, by default, entitled to funerals: that's at the discression of the family involved.Now when I learned to read, I was taught to read every word, I suggest you try it. It tends to shed a different light on things.

[Oi_Ve]

Oi_Ve

"A miscarriage is a dead human being" that's a good one, and "it isn't entitled to a funeral' is even better.

If you think people aren't required to be disposed of with dignity than I suggest you try take a dead body and burn it in your backyard. After you get arrested, jailed, and brought into court tell the judge that a human can be treated the same as aborted fetal tissue. Try it and see what happens.

1. A miscarriage is a human being: that's scientific fact. Biology 101.
A unique genetic code is created at conception.

That genetic code is human.

That is a living human being.

All the philosophical arguments in the world cannot change that.

2. You obviously don't understand "funeral" laws: laws such as those exist for sanitation reasons, not because of dignity. I could go out into my garage right now and start crafting a pyre altar so that when, say, my cousin, dies I can burn him on it. I could show him all the dignity and respect in the world during the process, but I would still be arrested because it's violation of sanitation laws.
Funerals are not mandatory by law: most people choose to have them, but they are not required. Proper disposal of a human body is however.
You're confusing the two.

3. If you'd like to refute my claims with evidence to the contrary then try and do so. However, if your only responses are going to be "oh that's a good one" and other quips such as that, then I'm afraid you aren't going to present much of a case for your belief and only demonstrate your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

[alwaysRight]

Why are #1 and #2 wrong? #2 as far as I've read up on the laws, is correct. Well maybe not for you Canadians... but here in America.. that's how it goes.

[alwaysRight]

Has anyone noticed that the people who are pro-choice/pro-abortion are the ones already born? It was so nice of your mom to give you life, you would think that you would appreciate that and want others to have life as well.

Selfish, selfish liberals.

You know, most women find out they're pregnant between 6-8 weeks. This is what a baby looks like when it is 6 weeks old

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/fetus-human-6week.jpg

Now I don't know what a "clump" of tissue looks like, but I'm not sure it has eyes, and clearly forming hands. This is a life, a human being at the earliest stages of growth.

From the moment of conception, your life begins. You have all your traits, whether you will be a boy or girl, whether your hair will be blond, brown, or red, etc.

[Oi_Ve]

Oi_Ve,

Both 1 and 2 are wrong.

Gather around everyone: it's time for a biology lesson!

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html


To begin with, scientifically something very radical occurs between the processes of gametogenesis and fertilization — the change from a simple part of one human being (i.e., a sperm) and a simple part of another human being (i.e., an oocyte — usually referred to as an "ovum" or "egg"), which simply possess "human life", to a new, genetically unique, newly existing, individual, whole living human being (an embryonic single-cell human zygote). That is, upon fertilization, parts of human beings have actually been transformed into something very different from what they were before; they have been changed into a single, whole human being. During the process of fertilization, the sperm and the oocyte cease to exist as such, and a new human being is produced.

To understand this, it should be remembered that each kind of living organism has a specific number and quality of chromosomes that are characteristic for each member of a species. (The number can vary only slightly if the organism is to survive.) For example, the characteristic number of chromosomes for a member of the human species is 46 (plus or minus, e.g., in human beings with Down's or Turner's syndromes). Every somatic (or, body) cell in a human being has this characteristic number of chromosomes. Even the early germ cells contain 46 chromosomes; it is only their most mature forms — the sex gametes, or sperms and oocytes — which will later contain only 23 chromosomes.1 Sperms and oocytes are derived from primitive germ cells in the developing fetus by means of the process known as "gametogenesis." Because each germ cell normally has 46 chromosomes, the process of "fertilization" can not take place until the total number of chromosomes in each germ are cut in half. This is necessary so that after their fusion at fertilization the characteristic number of chromosomes in a single individual member of the human species (46) can be maintained — otherwise we would end up with a monster of some sort.

To accurately see why a sperm or an oocyte are considered as only possessing human life, and not as living human beings themselves, one needs to look at the basic scientific facts involved in the processes of gametogenesis and of fertilization. It may help to keep in mind that the products of gametogenesis and fertilization are very different. The products of gametogenesis are mature sex gametes with only 23 instead of 46 chromosomes. The product of fertilization is a living human being with 46 chromosomes. Gametogenesis refers to the maturation of germ cells resulting in gametes. Fertilization refers to the initiation of a new human being.

1) Gametogenesis
As the human embryologist Larsen2 states it, gametogenesis is the process that converts primordial germ cells (primitive sex cells) into mature sex gametes — in the male (spermatozoa, or sperms), and in the female (definitive oocytes). The timing of gametogenesis is different in males and in females. The later stages of spermatogenesis in males occur at puberty, and continue throughout adult life. The process involves the production of spermatogonia from the primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary spermatocytes, and finally spermatids — or mature spermatozoa (sperms). These mature sperms will have only half of the number of their original chromosomes — i.e., the number of chromosomes has been cut from 46 to 23, and therefore they are ready to take part in fertilization.3

Oogenesis begins in the female during fetal life. The total number of primary oocytes — about 7 million — is produced in the female fetus' ovaries by 5 months of gestation in the mother's uterus. By birth, only about 700,000 - 2 million remain. By puberty, only about 400,000 remain. The process includes several stages of maturation — the production of oogonia from primitive germ cells, which in turn become primary oocytes, which become definitive oocytes only at puberty. This definitive oocyte is what is released each month during the female's menstrual period, but it still has 46 chromosomes. In fact, it does not reduce its number of chromosomes until and unless it is fertilized by the sperm, during which process the definitive oocyte becomes a secondary oocyte with only 23 chromosomes.4

This halving of the number of chromosomes in the oocytes takes place by the process known as meiosis. Many people confuse meiosis with a different process known as mitosis, but there is an important difference. Mitosis refers to the normal division of a somatic, or germ cell in order to increase the number of those cells during growth and development. The resulting cells contain the same number of chromosomes as the previous cells — in human beings, 46. Meiosis refers to the halving of the number of chromosomes that are normally present in a germ cell — the precursors of a sperm or a definitive oocyte — in order for fertilization to take place. The resulting cells have only half of the number of chromosomes as the previous cells — in human beings, 23.

One of the best and most technically accurate explanations for this critical process of gametogenesis is by Ronan O'Rahilly,5 the human embryologist who developed the classic Carnegie stages of human embryological development. He also sits on the international board of Nomina Embryologica (which determines the correct terminology to be used in human embryology textbooks internationally):

"Gametogenesis is the production of [gametes], i.e., spermatozoa and oocytes. These cells are produced in the gonads, i.e., the testes and ovaries respectively. ... During the differentiation of gametes, diploid cells (those with a double set of chromosomes, as found in somatic cells [46 chromosomes]) are termed primary, and haploid cells (those with a single set of chromosomes [23 chromosomes]) are called secondary. The reduction of chromosomal number ... from 46 (the diploid number or 2n) to 23 (the haploid number or n) is accomplished by a cellular division termed meiosis. ... Spermatogenesis, the production of spermatozoa, continues from immediately after puberty until old age. It takes place in the testis, which is also an endocrine gland, the interstitial cells of which secrete testosterone. Previous to puberty, spermatogonia in the simiferous tubules of the testis remain relatively inactive. After puberty, under stimulation from the interstitial cells, spermatogonia proliferate ... and some become primary spermatocytes. When these undergo their first maturation division (meiosis 1), they become secondary spermatocytes. The second maturation division (meiosis 2) results in spermatids, which become converted into spermatozoa."6

"Oogenesis is the production and maturation of oocytes, i.e., the female gametes derived from oogonia. Oogonia (derived from primordial germ cells) multiply by mitosis and become primary oocytes. The number of oogonia increases to nearly seven million by the middle of prenatal life, after which it diminishes to about two million at birth. From these, several thousand oocytes are derived, several hundred of which mature and are liberated (ovulated) during a reproductive period of some thirty years. Prophase of meiosis 1 begins during fetal life but ceases at the diplotene state, which persists during childhood. ... After puberty, meiosis 1 is resumed and a secondary oocyte ... is formed, together with polar body 1, which can be regarded as an oocyte having a reduced share of cytoplasm. The secondary oocyte is a female gamete in which the first meiotic division is completed and the second has begun. From oogonium to secondary oocyte takes from about 12 to 50 years to be completed. Meiosis 2 is terminated after rupture of the follicle (ovulation) but only if a spermatozoon penetrates. ... The term 'ovum' implies that polar body 2 has been given off, which event is usually delayed until the oocyte has been penetrated by a spermatozoon (i.e., has been fertilized). Hence a human ovum does not [really] exist. Moreover the term has been used for such disparate structures as an oocyte and a three-week embryo, and therefore should be discarded, as a fortiori should 'egg'."7 (Emphasis added.)

Thus, for fertilization to be accomplished, a mature sperm and a mature human oocyte are needed. Before fertilization,8 each has only 23 chromosomes. They each possess "human life," since they are parts of a living human being; but they are not each whole living human beings themselves. They each have only 23 chromosomes, not 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes necessary and characteristic for a single individual member of the human species. Furthermore, a sperm can produce only "sperm" proteins and enzymes; an oocyte can produce only "oocyte" proteins and enzymes; neither alone is or can produce a human being with 46 chromosomes.

Also, note O'Rahilly's statement that the use of terms such as "ovum" and "egg" — which would include the term "fertilized egg" — is scientifically incorrect, has no objective correlate in reality, and is therefore very misleading — especially in these present discussions. Thus these terms themselves would qualify as "scientific" myths. The commonly used term, "fertilized egg," is especially very misleading, since there is really no longer an egg (or oocyte) once fertilization has begun. What is being called a "fertilized egg" is not an egg of any sort; it is a human being.

2) Fertilization

Now that we have looked at the formation of the mature haploid sex gametes, the next important process to consider is fertilization. O'Rahilly defines fertilization as:

"... the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments, and ends with the intermingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes at metaphase of the first mitotic division of the zygote. The zygote is characteristic of the last phase of fertilization and is identified by the first cleavage spindle. It is a unicellular embryo."9 (Emphasis added.)

The fusion of the sperm (with 23 chromosomes) and the oocyte (with 23 chromosomes) at fertilization results in a live human being, a single-cell human zygote, with 46 chromosomes — the number of chromosomes characteristic of an individual member of the human species. Quoting Moore:

"Zygote: This cell results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo). The expression fertilized ovum refers to a secondary oocyte that is impregnated by a sperm; when fertilization is complete, the oocyte becomes a zygote."10 (Emphasis added.)

This new single-cell human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes11 (not carrot or frog enzymes and proteins), and genetically directs his/her own growth and development. (In fact, this genetic growth and development has been proven not to be directed by the mother.)12 Finally, this new human being — the single-cell human zygote — is biologically an individual, a living organism — an individual member of the human species. Quoting Larsen:

"... [W]e begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual."13 (Emphasis added.)

In sum, a human sperm and a human oocyte are products of gametogenesis — each has only 23 chromosomes. They each have only half of the required number of chromosomes for a human being. They cannot singly develop further into human beings. They produce only "gamete" proteins and enzymes. They do not direct their own growth and development. And they are not individuals, i.e., members of the human species. They are only parts — each one a part of a human being. On the other hand, a human being is the immediate product of fertilization. As such he/she is a single-cell embryonic zygote, an organism with 46 chromosomes, the number required of a member of the human species. This human being immediately produces specifically human proteins and enzymes, directs his/her own further growth and development as human, and is a new, genetically unique, newly existing, live human individual.

After fertilization the single-cell human embryo doesn't become another kind of thing. It simply divides and grows bigger and bigger, developing through several stages as an embryo over an 8-week period. Several of these developmental stages of the growing embryo are given special names, e.g., a morula (about 4 days), a blastocyst (5-7 days), a bilaminar (two layer) embryo (during the second week), and a trilaminar (3-layer) embryo (during the third week).14

P.S. I'm waiting for that evidence Dogsbody.

[alwaysRight]

Pretty interesting, Oi. Thanks for posting that.

You'll probably be waiting a while for that evidence.

[alwaysRight]

Wow... way to dodge everyone's questions... I will look around for your award... Best Question Dodger 2006!

[Bumblebee]

That's what I was thinking too AR. :confused: Like where did that answer come from ?:confused: :confused:?