You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies.
Quote:
|
I don't really feel like explaining the entire immune system, it is far to complex to do so in such a small amount of time. blah blah blah
|
Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells.
Quote:
|
But as the cloned human would not have full abilities to maintain life, it would die. And I simple explained this for no reason. Let me ask you a question. Tell me how the clone would have the potential to reproduce?
|
Oh, and the embryo
does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.
Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish.
Quote:
|
Making it a separate living human being.
|
Tsk tsk, Raven. You said that something would have to have a brain to react with environmental stimuli for it to count as a "living being." As I've already shown, there is no brain in a first trimester embryo.
Quote:
|
I am arguing this from the whole of humanity. Something I suggest you do. As what is determined to be law for the whole of humanity can not be based off mere belief. It has to be based off logic and science. For you can not enforce the beliefs of some upon the whole.
|
Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own
) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!
You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun.