Thank you Russ for your point of view.

Quote
I am merely pointing out that a heck of a lot of information needs to be present in order for a totipotent stem to do its work. There is no logic in comparing this scenario to a single celled organism evolving into a human over eons (as you did previously). Your statement is nonsensical.
...
Just more of the same garbage buddy.
Yes, the world contains all the elements necessary to build something complex. Now what?
So you say, however you have not provided any real evidence, certainly not anything that prevents this from happening. This would be an interesting topic to discuss, but it not the topic of this thread, which is the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions.

Feel free to start a thread on this issue and we can discuss it. Most of your post is simply the argument from incredulity as well as being off the topic of the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions.

Quote
Quote
Clearly 70% of the zygotes did not have the necessary equipment in their cells. That's a 2 to 1 failure rate that kind of blows your argument out of the water, eh Russ? Especially those that divided and formed sacs but no embryo.
What on earth does this have to do with my argument?
Well for one it shows that the cell is not all powerful in becoming a human being, that there is substantial natural failure in the process that demonstrate that zygotes do not always become humans.

http://patients.uptodate.com/topic.asp?file=pregnan/5386
Quote
As an example, in 1/3 of miscarriages occurring before 8 weeks, there is a pregnancy sac but no embryo inside. This means the egg was fertilized and the cells began to divide, but an embryo did not develop. In other cases, the embryo develops but it is abnormal. Chromosomal abnormalities, in particular, are common. One study found that of 8841 miscarriages, 41 percent had chromosomal abnormalities.
Your "totipotent stem cell" was somehow totally incapable of developing an embryo in 1/3 of miscarriages occurring before 8 weeks, even though it developed a pregnancy sac with the rudimentary placenta attached to the uterus wall. Where's the human eh?

It is also related to the topic: the definition of human life and it's application to ethical decisions. It shows that a zygote is not the same as a human life. It's the same as the "all A is B, B! therefore A" logical fallacy:

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wyjbammegu.jpg">
(relative size not to scale, sketch is to illustrate the fallacy)

Where "A" represents the zygotes that become human babies and "B" represents all the conception zygotes. Most of "B" does not contain any "A" and therefore you cannot say B=A.

The point being that if we are going to talk rationally about human life then we need a definition that does represent A. That is what this thread sets out to do.

Enjoy

[color:"green"]Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s), and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]