Why abortion is wrong.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by da_nolo
huh?
similar, but not the same. that's what "pretty much" means.
despite scientific evidence that embryonic cells are from a human, hence the use and need of "human embryo" (to distinguish the child from another animal species), are therefore from human species, and therefore are indeed human.
if the human embryo was not a "human embryo", then the term would not be used and the embryo would not be human. however, this would imply that the embryo is not from the human species - which is impossible according to biology.
no, science has made this black and white, and it has made my argument easier as it is the truth.
the dna of an embryo is the exact same as the dna that would be found weeks later in the fetus which is the exact same dna found in the human after he/she dies. I never implied that the embryo will look the same as a fully formed human being, but that fact that the embryo looks different does not imply that the embryo is not human, nor a human being, nor a person.
a person's dna determines how their nervous system develops as well as the neural tube. neither of these things make you human, however. Instead these are characteristics that you have because you are human.
the cells in which embody you may be and are categorized into different classes as they have different purposes. skin cell is not a kidney cell after all, but all of this is determined by dna and developed when you were an embryo.
bellow are some quick links I found on embryology. you many find (as I did) phrases such as "human embryo", "human development", etc. etc. this follows my above statement in which - in order to be of or from a species, you must be that species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Embryology-What-is-Embryology.aspx
http://www.indiana.edu/~anat550/embryo_main/
http://www.sathembryoart.com/Embryology%20Update4/INTRO%20EMBRYOLOGY2.htm
now, lets consider this web site.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
lets take a few sentences from the page:
there is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
similar, but not the same. that's what "pretty much" means.
despite scientific evidence that embryonic cells are from a human, hence the use and need of "human embryo" (to distinguish the child from another animal species), are therefore from human species, and therefore are indeed human.
if the human embryo was not a "human embryo", then the term would not be used and the embryo would not be human. however, this would imply that the embryo is not from the human species - which is impossible according to biology.
no, science has made this black and white, and it has made my argument easier as it is the truth.
the dna of an embryo is the exact same as the dna that would be found weeks later in the fetus which is the exact same dna found in the human after he/she dies. I never implied that the embryo will look the same as a fully formed human being, but that fact that the embryo looks different does not imply that the embryo is not human, nor a human being, nor a person.
a person's dna determines how their nervous system develops as well as the neural tube. neither of these things make you human, however. Instead these are characteristics that you have because you are human.
the cells in which embody you may be and are categorized into different classes as they have different purposes. skin cell is not a kidney cell after all, but all of this is determined by dna and developed when you were an embryo.
bellow are some quick links I found on embryology. you many find (as I did) phrases such as "human embryo", "human development", etc. etc. this follows my above statement in which - in order to be of or from a species, you must be that species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Embryology-What-is-Embryology.aspx
http://www.indiana.edu/~anat550/embryo_main/
http://www.sathembryoart.com/Embryology%20Update4/INTRO%20EMBRYOLOGY2.htm
now, lets consider this web site.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
lets take a few sentences from the page:
there is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Similar not the same, it's semantics, when I said your cells are pretty much the same as any other persons but are easily distinguishable from an embryos thatis what I meant, playing words games, as you do again later when you say because the sources you cite use the phrase human embryo that makes it a human does nothing for your argument.
Science makes nothing black and white, that's pretty much the entire mentality behind the scientific method, that we don't know but will be constantly working to fill in the gaps, science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilised egg becomes human, science uses precise terminology to describe it at every stage, it doesn't have a cut off point for when it becomes a person. And yes if the egg is viable it has the potential to become a human being at the moment of fertilisation, the argument was never will the egg eventually become a human, it was is the potential to become a 'person' more valuable than the rights of an existing human being, and as I've said before I do not have a hard line stance on this, I believe it should be up to the individuals involved and their beliefs, I don't object to your viewpoint, I object to you forcing it down other people's throats. In a similar way that if a doctor has a conscientious objection to abortion he/she may refer the patient to another doctor but they are not allowed to start throwing their opinions at the patient or they will have a fitness to practice issue.
You are welcome to your opinion, while I find it somewhat silly that the foetus is a person. Just don't say hateful things to others because of it. Potential is not the same as reality. I have the potential to pick up a knife and stab everyone I can until I get taken out. I obviously am not going to it it is a potential e net that could feasibly happen. However I don't expect to be charged with multiple murders because I have the potential to kill multiple people.
Original post by da_nolo
huh?
similar, but not the same. that's what "pretty much" means.
despite scientific evidence that embryonic cells are from a human, hence the use and need of "human embryo" (to distinguish the child from another animal species), are therefore from human species, and therefore are indeed human.
if the human embryo was not a "human embryo", then the term would not be used and the embryo would not be human. however, this would imply that the embryo is not from the human species - which is impossible according to biology.
no, science has made this black and white, and it has made my argument easier as it is the truth.
the dna of an embryo is the exact same as the dna that would be found weeks later in the fetus which is the exact same dna found in the human after he/she dies. I never implied that the embryo will look the same as a fully formed human being, but that fact that the embryo looks different does not imply that the embryo is not human, nor a human being, nor a person.
a person's dna determines how their nervous system develops as well as the neural tube. neither of these things make you human, however. Instead these are characteristics that you have because you are human.
the cells in which embody you may be and are categorized into different classes as they have different purposes. skin cell is not a kidney cell after all, but all of this is determined by dna and developed when you were an embryo.
bellow are some quick links I found on embryology. you many find (as I did) phrases such as "human embryo", "human development", etc. etc. this follows my above statement in which - in order to be of or from a species, you must be that species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Embryology-What-is-Embryology.aspx
http://www.indiana.edu/~anat550/embryo_main/
http://www.sathembryoart.com/Embryology%20Update4/INTRO%20EMBRYOLOGY2.htm
now, lets consider this web site.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
lets take a few sentences from the page:
there is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
similar, but not the same. that's what "pretty much" means.
despite scientific evidence that embryonic cells are from a human, hence the use and need of "human embryo" (to distinguish the child from another animal species), are therefore from human species, and therefore are indeed human.
if the human embryo was not a "human embryo", then the term would not be used and the embryo would not be human. however, this would imply that the embryo is not from the human species - which is impossible according to biology.
no, science has made this black and white, and it has made my argument easier as it is the truth.
the dna of an embryo is the exact same as the dna that would be found weeks later in the fetus which is the exact same dna found in the human after he/she dies. I never implied that the embryo will look the same as a fully formed human being, but that fact that the embryo looks different does not imply that the embryo is not human, nor a human being, nor a person.
a person's dna determines how their nervous system develops as well as the neural tube. neither of these things make you human, however. Instead these are characteristics that you have because you are human.
the cells in which embody you may be and are categorized into different classes as they have different purposes. skin cell is not a kidney cell after all, but all of this is determined by dna and developed when you were an embryo.
bellow are some quick links I found on embryology. you many find (as I did) phrases such as "human embryo", "human development", etc. etc. this follows my above statement in which - in order to be of or from a species, you must be that species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryology
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Embryology-What-is-Embryology.aspx
http://www.indiana.edu/~anat550/embryo_main/
http://www.sathembryoart.com/Embryology%20Update4/INTRO%20EMBRYOLOGY2.htm
now, lets consider this web site.
http://www.all.org/abac/dni003.htm
lets take a few sentences from the page:
there is quite a difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess "human life" and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual "human being."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4857703
http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Oh and PS I just read some of that page you reference and it is the biggest load of bull**** I've read today, it uses some very basic knowledge of embryology, mixes them with some very subjective terminology and some bull**** about human parts vs human beings.
The website is painfully obviously written from a pro life viewpoint cherry picking bits of science they think support their case. It then uses its pseudoscience to assert the opinions of the authors. It is a terrible website and you citing it hurts your argument more than it helps it. It would be like me asking my little brother to write an essay about why its ok for veggies to eat chicken eggs but not chickens and then using that argument to argue that everyone should become vegetarian. Wikipedia was fine but if you think that page is any kind of scientific authority I think there isn't much point continuing this debate.
And the myths vs facts at the bottom is actually painful to read, "as stated above we have already proven the embryo is a human being" that isn't science! Embryology has no stance on the obviously philosophical issue of what constitutes a human being. All this page is doing is pretending to be science in order to try and appeal to scientific authority in the debate, it is biased and it uses the basic premise that on fertilisation the egg is now human to argue everything else, it is very much the kind of argument you encounter often when arguing against stubborn uninformed people and can be simplified as, "I'm right because I say I'm right, which means I'm right" or the so called circular logic.
It takes the unproven premise and uses that premise to argue everything else. Much like Christians often use the unproven premise that the bible is the word of god and go from there to argue whatever they feel like.
PPS having read more of the website it is pretty clear you googled something along the lines of 'why an embryo is a human being' it is a pro life website with a very specific and obvious agenda. It was no surprise to find similarly biased articles on euthanasia cloning genetics etc. these 'scientists' already have their conclusion and are only looking for evidence that proves them right, that is why they are not real scientists
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Sereni
Similar not the same, it's semantics, when I said your cells are pretty much the same as any other persons but are easily distinguishable from an embryos that, is what I meant, playing words games as you do again.....
no I did not play word games. if you do not know what a word means, don't use it. think before you type.
the sources you cite use the phrase human embryo that makes it a human does nothing for your argument.
Science makes nothing black and white, that's pretty much the entire mentality behind the scientific method, that we don't know but will be constantly working to fill in the gaps, science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilised egg becomes human, science uses precise terminology to describe it at every stage, it doesn't have a cut off point for when it becomes a person.
lets cover the most concerning aspect your comments. you state "science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilized egg becomes human"
yet, previously you stated:
"My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology"
philosophy does not cover humanity on the cellular level, only science can. so it is quite possible, as it already has occurred, to determine who is human. the word itself is based on the species homo sapiens - of which we all are apart of from conception to death. this is not philosophy nor theology. just science.
And yes if the egg is viable it has the potential to become a human being at the moment of fertilization,
is the potential to become a 'person' more valuable than the rights of an existing human being
the embryo is an existing human being. you have yet to supply any information as to why or how the embryo is not. care to try again?
I believe it should be up to the individuals involved and their beliefs, I don't object to your viewpoint, I object to you forcing it down other people's throats.
In a similar way that if a doctor has a conscientious objection to abortion he/she may refer the patient to another doctor but they are not allowed to start throwing their opinions at the patient or they will have a fitness to practice issue.
while I find it somewhat silly that the fetus is a person.
Just don't say hateful things to others because of it
Potential is not the same as reality.
IF I am wrong, then anyone one here could describe just what, how, and why we are human. so far, no one has done it.
I tell you what. convince me, and I'll be pro choice. no b.s. provide some viable evidence on how, why, what is human - and I'll change my position.
your other post is a waist of time. instead of attacking the claim you attack the people and their morality. incredibly illogical. I will not follow your fallacies.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Oh my! you sure told me. despite your dribble, not once did you explain how or why an embryo is not human! you just stated I was wrong. big deal.
no I did not play word games. if you do not know what a word means, don't use it. think before you type.
I did not say the simple use of a word makes the embryo child human. I am pointing out that people (some biologists, some embryologists, some whomever) identify and can only identify the offspring of a human as being part of the human race/species. This supports the claim that humans can only procreate another human from conception. otherwise a different term would be used since (w/ present technology) biologists/embryologist would declare the embryo as such, since science uses precise terminology.
It's black and white because the scientific method allows any person the ability to copy each and every experiment (if 'scientist' or whomever followed the method). therefore nothing is withheld.
lets cover the most concerning aspect your comments. you state "science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilized egg becomes human"
yet, previously you stated:
"My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology"
philosophy does not cover humanity on the cellular level, only science can. so it is quite possible, as it already has occurred, to determine who is human. the word itself is based on the species homo sapiens - of which we all are apart of from conception to death. this is not philosophy nor theology. just science.
correction. at fertilization, you have a new human being. no potential about it, that's what the new organism is. human.
the embryo is an existing human being. you have yet to supply any information as to why or how the embryo is not. care to try again?
Then I guess the allies were wrong to interrupt nazi Germany's tyrant oppression and slaughter over the Jews. that's what you are saying yes? it is only up to those who are directly involved. clearly in certain acts of immorality in violation of another human's life, interruption is good. perhaps that is only some peoples thoughts as it was not the way nazis saw it.
what?
fits all the requirements in order to be considered one, therefore none should take that away. can a dead person be a person? oh well I guess I gave it away. YES.
I have not once said anything hateful.
what a person has the potential to do is reality, but being a human is not dependent on potential. you can only be a human because of your dna. why? how? because it describes exactly how you will develop. your arms, legs....your ability to walk, ability to see, ability to survive. it is all based on your dna. the lack of such things do not distinguish you as not human, only the absence of human dna.
IF I am wrong, then anyone one here could describe just what, how, and why we are human. so far, no one has done it.
I tell you what. convince me, and I'll be pro choice. no b.s. provide some viable evidence on how, why, what is human - and I'll change my position.
your other post is a waist of time. instead of attacking the claim you attack the people and their morality. incredibly illogical. I will not follow your fallacies.
no I did not play word games. if you do not know what a word means, don't use it. think before you type.
I did not say the simple use of a word makes the embryo child human. I am pointing out that people (some biologists, some embryologists, some whomever) identify and can only identify the offspring of a human as being part of the human race/species. This supports the claim that humans can only procreate another human from conception. otherwise a different term would be used since (w/ present technology) biologists/embryologist would declare the embryo as such, since science uses precise terminology.
It's black and white because the scientific method allows any person the ability to copy each and every experiment (if 'scientist' or whomever followed the method). therefore nothing is withheld.
lets cover the most concerning aspect your comments. you state "science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilized egg becomes human"
yet, previously you stated:
"My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology"
philosophy does not cover humanity on the cellular level, only science can. so it is quite possible, as it already has occurred, to determine who is human. the word itself is based on the species homo sapiens - of which we all are apart of from conception to death. this is not philosophy nor theology. just science.
correction. at fertilization, you have a new human being. no potential about it, that's what the new organism is. human.
the embryo is an existing human being. you have yet to supply any information as to why or how the embryo is not. care to try again?
Then I guess the allies were wrong to interrupt nazi Germany's tyrant oppression and slaughter over the Jews. that's what you are saying yes? it is only up to those who are directly involved. clearly in certain acts of immorality in violation of another human's life, interruption is good. perhaps that is only some peoples thoughts as it was not the way nazis saw it.
what?
fits all the requirements in order to be considered one, therefore none should take that away. can a dead person be a person? oh well I guess I gave it away. YES.
I have not once said anything hateful.
what a person has the potential to do is reality, but being a human is not dependent on potential. you can only be a human because of your dna. why? how? because it describes exactly how you will develop. your arms, legs....your ability to walk, ability to see, ability to survive. it is all based on your dna. the lack of such things do not distinguish you as not human, only the absence of human dna.
IF I am wrong, then anyone one here could describe just what, how, and why we are human. so far, no one has done it.
I tell you what. convince me, and I'll be pro choice. no b.s. provide some viable evidence on how, why, what is human - and I'll change my position.
your other post is a waist of time. instead of attacking the claim you attack the people and their morality. incredibly illogical. I will not follow your fallacies.
In your restricted view you can't understand simple things. Being biologically human is not the same as being a person.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Hypocrism
In your restricted view you can't understand simple things. Being biologically human is not the same as being a person.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Thank you, I was about to go punch a wall. I haven't provided any evidence that a fertilised egg isn't human because there isn't evidence, it depends how you define human being, he asks is a dead human a person and assumes my answer is yes because he is so set in his ways. My view on cadavers is actually that what made them human (their mind in my opinion) ceased to exist on death. This is why I'm ok with cadaver dissection, something I've done personally, and without it my knowledge of anatomy would probably have suffered. I keep on having to re explain my arguments rather than addressing flaws in his, I just need to face that there isn't much point debating zealots.
Original post by Sereni
Thank you, I was about to go punch a wall. I haven't provided any evidence that a fertilised egg isn't human because there isn't evidence, it depends how you define human being, he asks is a dead human a person and assumes my answer is yes because he is so set in his ways. My view on cadavers is actually that what made them human (their mind in my opinion) ceased to exist on death. This is why I'm ok with cadaver dissection, something I've done personally, and without it my knowledge of anatomy would probably have suffered. I keep on having to re explain my arguments rather than addressing flaws in his, I just need to face that there isn't much point debating zealots.
Totally agreed, except that your point about cadaver dissection leads to a good point: when I was doing dissection, I noticed that we feel huge respect for the cadavers because of the lives they lived as a person. In the same way, we don't have to have respect for an embryo, even though it's biologically human in the same way, because it hasn't lived as a person. It could, but potential life is not really relevant.
This leads me to repeat myself and say that pro-choice has a deeper respect for human life: we value important things like personality, experiences, and the things that make us an individual, while the pro-life argument has been so thoroughly defeated that it needs to cling onto a cold, unfeeling view of human individuality as being based on biology. No pro lifer has ever given a satisfactory response to this observation!
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Oh my! you sure told me. despite your dribble, not once did you explain how or why an embryo is not human! you just stated I was wrong. big deal.
no I did not play word games. if you do not know what a word means, don't use it. think before you type.
I did not say the simple use of a word makes the embryo child human. I am pointing out that people (some biologists, some embryologists, some whomever) identify and can only identify the offspring of a human as being part of the human race/species. This supports the claim that humans can only procreate another human from conception. otherwise a different term would be used since (w/ present technology) biologists/embryologist would declare the embryo as such, since science uses precise terminology.
It's black and white because the scientific method allows any person the ability to copy each and every experiment (if 'scientist' or whomever followed the method). therefore nothing is withheld.
lets cover the most concerning aspect your comments. you state "science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilized egg becomes human"
yet, previously you stated:
"My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology"
philosophy does not cover humanity on the cellular level, only science can. so it is quite possible, as it already has occurred, to determine who is human. the word itself is based on the species homo sapiens - of which we all are apart of from conception to death. this is not philosophy nor theology. just science.
correction. at fertilization, you have a new human being. no potential about it, that's what the new organism is. human.
the embryo is an existing human being. you have yet to supply any information as to why or how the embryo is not. care to try again?
Then I guess the allies were wrong to interrupt nazi Germany's tyrant oppression and slaughter over the Jews. that's what you are saying yes? it is only up to those who are directly involved. clearly in certain acts of immorality in violation of another human's life, interruption is good. perhaps that is only some peoples thoughts as it was not the way nazis saw it.
what?
fits all the requirements in order to be considered one, therefore none should take that away. can a dead person be a person? oh well I guess I gave it away. YES.
I have not once said anything hateful.
what a person has the potential to do is reality, but being a human is not dependent on potential. you can only be a human because of your dna. why? how? because it describes exactly how you will develop. your arms, legs....your ability to walk, ability to see, ability to survive. it is all based on your dna. the lack of such things do not distinguish you as not human, only the absence of human dna.
IF I am wrong, then anyone one here could describe just what, how, and why we are human. so far, no one has done it.
I tell you what. convince me, and I'll be pro choice. no b.s. provide some viable evidence on how, why, what is human - and I'll change my position.
your other post is a waist of time. instead of attacking the claim you attack the people and their morality. incredibly illogical. I will not follow your fallacies.
no I did not play word games. if you do not know what a word means, don't use it. think before you type.
I did not say the simple use of a word makes the embryo child human. I am pointing out that people (some biologists, some embryologists, some whomever) identify and can only identify the offspring of a human as being part of the human race/species. This supports the claim that humans can only procreate another human from conception. otherwise a different term would be used since (w/ present technology) biologists/embryologist would declare the embryo as such, since science uses precise terminology.
It's black and white because the scientific method allows any person the ability to copy each and every experiment (if 'scientist' or whomever followed the method). therefore nothing is withheld.
lets cover the most concerning aspect your comments. you state "science has no stance of the philosophical question of when the fertilized egg becomes human"
yet, previously you stated:
"My point was that embryos are not yet human on even a cellular level, and you would have understood my point had you actually read about embryology"
philosophy does not cover humanity on the cellular level, only science can. so it is quite possible, as it already has occurred, to determine who is human. the word itself is based on the species homo sapiens - of which we all are apart of from conception to death. this is not philosophy nor theology. just science.
correction. at fertilization, you have a new human being. no potential about it, that's what the new organism is. human.
the embryo is an existing human being. you have yet to supply any information as to why or how the embryo is not. care to try again?
Then I guess the allies were wrong to interrupt nazi Germany's tyrant oppression and slaughter over the Jews. that's what you are saying yes? it is only up to those who are directly involved. clearly in certain acts of immorality in violation of another human's life, interruption is good. perhaps that is only some peoples thoughts as it was not the way nazis saw it.
what?
fits all the requirements in order to be considered one, therefore none should take that away. can a dead person be a person? oh well I guess I gave it away. YES.
I have not once said anything hateful.
what a person has the potential to do is reality, but being a human is not dependent on potential. you can only be a human because of your dna. why? how? because it describes exactly how you will develop. your arms, legs....your ability to walk, ability to see, ability to survive. it is all based on your dna. the lack of such things do not distinguish you as not human, only the absence of human dna.
IF I am wrong, then anyone one here could describe just what, how, and why we are human. so far, no one has done it.
I tell you what. convince me, and I'll be pro choice. no b.s. provide some viable evidence on how, why, what is human - and I'll change my position.
your other post is a waist of time. instead of attacking the claim you attack the people and their morality. incredibly illogical. I will not follow your fallacies.
There isn't a black and white definition of human being, definitely not from a scientific viewpoint, I would know this because I've had this discussion among other medical students and opinions on brain dead comatose people, the dead, embryos etc vary. Pro lifers take the hard line that anything you could possibly give the label human to is a human being. I don't believe embryos are human because I think it is our minds that defines us as human individuals.
However that is my opinions, I don't have to provide evidence a fertilised egg isn't a human being because it is an opinion. It is not an opinion that it is a human embyro but the term human being refers to something more than that.
Also I was attacking the source you cite because the entire website is full of bull**** and as I mentioned in my post I don't need to counter their conclusion because their basic premise is an opinion.
Your claim that you aren't wrong because no one else has provided an answer is absurd, it is pretty much the god of the gaps argument, just because one side recognises that the issue at hand is subjective and hard to know doesn't mean the other side is correct when they go straight in there and say they know the answer. My opinion and that of most like minded individuals I've talked to is that the mind is the central component in a human being. This is an opinions, like yours but if you so desire something specific to argue against that is what I believe.
Your opinion that DNA defines what is human is akin to saying that a blueprint is the same as a building. In the foreseeable future we will be able to reverse engineer the DNA of adult cells to the point where they could be used to create a new human twin of the adult individual. Would that make every adult cell capable of this an individual human being?
Original post by Hypocrism
Totally agreed, except that your point about cadaver dissection leads to a good point: when I was doing dissection, I noticed that we feel huge respect for the cadavers because of the lives they lived as a person. In the same way, we don't have to have respect for an embryo, even though it's biologically human in the same way, because it hasn't lived as a person. It could, but potential life is not really relevant.
This leads me to repeat myself and say that pro-choice has a deeper respect for human life: we value important things like personality, experiences, and the things that make us an individual, while the pro-life argument has been so thoroughly defeated that it needs to cling onto a cold, unfeeling view of human individuality as being based on biology. No pro lifer has ever given a satisfactory response to this observation!
Posted from TSR Mobile
This leads me to repeat myself and say that pro-choice has a deeper respect for human life: we value important things like personality, experiences, and the things that make us an individual, while the pro-life argument has been so thoroughly defeated that it needs to cling onto a cold, unfeeling view of human individuality as being based on biology. No pro lifer has ever given a satisfactory response to this observation!
Posted from TSR Mobile
A good point, like ive said i defne human being by their minds, but recognise that that is my personal opinion and that as much as pro lifers want it to be a black and white issue it isnt. at least we haven't heard the word soul being used. Interestingly the initial laws regarding aborting were based around the foetus becoming 'ensouled' at about 40 days.
Original post by Sereni
There isn't a black and white definition of human being, definitely not from a scientific viewpoint, I would know this because I've had this discussion among other medical students and opinions on brain dead comatose people, the dead, embryos etc vary. Pro lifers take the hard line that anything you could possibly give the label human to is a human being. I don't believe embryos are human because I think it is our minds that defines us as human individuals.
I knew someone who was dead for 15 minutes. brain dead, heart not beating, etc. I met him in a karate class years after his motorcycle collision.
even a dead person is still human, just a dead human/person. this does not change an organism's species. it only changes word tense.
there is a black and white definition of human being.
you're thinking of humanity or human nature which is philosophical. science spells out the animal kingdom
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genus
biology even covers the entire development stage of our human species:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_development
in order to be apart of the development stage, one must be human. must be apart of our species. the embryo is as is the fetus.
However that is my opinions, I don't have to provide evidence a fertilized egg (& embryo) isn't a human being because it is an opinion. It is not an opinion that it (a fertilized egg, since that is what you were just talking about) is a human embryo but the term human being refers to something more than that.
the term human being refers only to homo sapiens and our ancient relatives of the same biological family. no one is excluded just because of how they look or how far along they have developed.
as for the human embryo vs just fertilized egg, no these two are not the exact same, other than in the sense that they are human. they are of the same species as the parents. or do you disagree?
Also I was attacking the source you cite because the entire website is full of bull**** and as I mentioned in my post I don't need to counter their conclusion because their basic premise is an opinion.
Your claim that you aren't wrong because no one else has provided an answer is absurd, it is pretty much the god of the gaps argument, just because one side recognizes that the issue at hand is subjective and hard to know doesn't mean the other side is correct when they go straight in there and say they know the answer.
1.I never claimed that I was not or am not wrong because you can not provide a response. I am saying that I can not agree with people who can't even explain their own position. Was this not an argument? part of an argument is that you present your claim, and your support. I can remember only one other person on this thread doing so who was actually against my position.
I also said I was correct because I am merely pointing out what biology states. This is not just my opinion.
2. how is being human subjective? were the nazi's not wrong for their genocide against the Jews? if being human is subjective, then they had all right in doing their actions. do you agree with them?
My opinion and that of most like minded individuals I've talked to is that the mind is the central component in a human being. This is an opinions, like yours but if you so desire something specific to argue against that is what I believe.
Your opinion that DNA defines what is human is akin to saying that a blueprint is the same as a building. In the foreseeable future we will be able to reverse engineer the DNA of adult cells to the point where they could be used to create a new human twin of the adult individual. Would that make every adult cell capable of this an individual human being?
the blueprint analogy is only to explain what dna does or what dna is like in terms of how it influences our bodies. after that, the analogy pretty much stops. why? because it is not the exact same thing.
so I never stated that dna was a human being just like real blueprints are not buildings. I stated that dna determines you to be a human or not human.
kind of like how blueprints determine a building to be a house or a skyscraper.
does that make sense?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Hypocrism
In your restricted view you can't understand simple things. Being biologically human is not the same as being a person.
Does this mean you agree that the fetus and embryo are human beings?
also, insults are tools of the weak.
Original post by Hypocrism
Totally agreed, except that your point about cadaver dissection leads to a good point: when I was doing dissection, I noticed that we feel huge respect for the cadavers because of the lives they lived as a person. In the same way, we don't have to have respect for an embryo, even though it's biologically human in the same way, because it hasn't lived as a person. It could, but potential life is not really relevant.
This leads me to repeat myself and say that pro-choice has a deeper respect for human life: we value important things like personality, experiences, and the things that make us an individual, while the pro-life argument has been so thoroughly defeated that it needs to cling onto a cold, unfeeling view of human individuality as being based on biology. No pro lifer has ever given a satisfactory response to this observation!
This leads me to repeat myself and say that pro-choice has a deeper respect for human life: we value important things like personality, experiences, and the things that make us an individual, while the pro-life argument has been so thoroughly defeated that it needs to cling onto a cold, unfeeling view of human individuality as being based on biology. No pro lifer has ever given a satisfactory response to this observation!
1. the embryo has lived as a person, just not what you think as being human. how?why? because every human has gone through the developmental stage of an embryo.
2. however, if you decide that a person is dependent on life experiences, does this mean you do not respect an infant? how bout a 5 year old? by that logic, they must be able to die at our will as well.
3. all those things you think make you a person, you mean like your ability to think, walk, etc.? then I must push the question again. what about the mentally handicap? physically handicap? you know? the people in wheel chairs that can hardly move or speak...this is not at all the ideal experience you profess
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Sereni
There isn't a black and white definition of human being, definitely not from a scientific viewpoint, I would know this because I've had this discussion among other medical students and opinions on brain dead comatose people, the dead, embryos etc vary. Pro lifers take the hard line that anything you could possibly give the label human to is a human being. I don't believe embryos are human because I think it is our minds that defines us as human individuals.
However that is my opinions, I don't have to provide evidence a fertilised egg isn't a human being because it is an opinion. It is not an opinion that it is a human embyro but the term human being refers to something more than that.
Also I was attacking the source you cite because the entire website is full of bull**** and as I mentioned in my post I don't need to counter their conclusion because their basic premise is an opinion.
Your claim that you aren't wrong because no one else has provided an answer is absurd, it is pretty much the god of the gaps argument, just because one side recognises that the issue at hand is subjective and hard to know doesn't mean the other side is correct when they go straight in there and say they know the answer. My opinion and that of most like minded individuals I've talked to is that the mind is the central component in a human being. This is an opinions, like yours but if you so desire something specific to argue against that is what I believe.
Your opinion that DNA defines what is human is akin to saying that a blueprint is the same as a building. In the foreseeable future we will be able to reverse engineer the DNA of adult cells to the point where they could be used to create a new human twin of the adult individual. Would that make every adult cell capable of this an individual human being?
However that is my opinions, I don't have to provide evidence a fertilised egg isn't a human being because it is an opinion. It is not an opinion that it is a human embyro but the term human being refers to something more than that.
Also I was attacking the source you cite because the entire website is full of bull**** and as I mentioned in my post I don't need to counter their conclusion because their basic premise is an opinion.
Your claim that you aren't wrong because no one else has provided an answer is absurd, it is pretty much the god of the gaps argument, just because one side recognises that the issue at hand is subjective and hard to know doesn't mean the other side is correct when they go straight in there and say they know the answer. My opinion and that of most like minded individuals I've talked to is that the mind is the central component in a human being. This is an opinions, like yours but if you so desire something specific to argue against that is what I believe.
Your opinion that DNA defines what is human is akin to saying that a blueprint is the same as a building. In the foreseeable future we will be able to reverse engineer the DNA of adult cells to the point where they could be used to create a new human twin of the adult individual. Would that make every adult cell capable of this an individual human being?
A human has objectively and biologically defined - it's pret b&w.
A 'person' on the other hand is more philosophical and arbitrarily definable.
Original post by da_nolo
Does this mean you agree that the fetus and embryo are human beings?
Does this mean you agree that the fetus and embryo are human beings?
No; they are biologically the same species as us, making them human. They do not have the characteristics we associate with being an individual, so they are not human beings.
also, insults are tools of the weak.
Where did I insult you? It's true that you are pro life, no? A view restricted to "abortion should not be allowed." Whereas most 'pro-choice' people are actually both pro life and pro choice, and not pro choice in all scenarios.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Hypocrism
No; they are biologically the same species as us, making them human. They do not have the characteristics we associate with being an individual, so they are not human beings.
the word "being" defines an organism that exists; has an existence. the embryo has an existence. they exist. how can you be human but not human "being" if you are both a human and do exist?
Where did I insult you? It's true that you are pro life, no? A view restricted to "abortion should not be allowed." Whereas most 'pro-choice' people are actually both pro life and pro choice, and not pro choice in all scenarios.
"restricted view you can't understand simple things"
above is just a long winded version of calling someone stupid.
"pro-life" ME? no. I am not.
pro-life view is not restricted to "abortion should not be allowed". it involves all human life being given the opportunity to live according to their needs. that all human life is protected as they should. this includes their desire to abandon the death penalty.
Yes, but that embryo has not lived in the way that defines the human individual
no living condition defines a human individual. if it did, everything would be subjective. then who is to say gestapo can't knock on your door? if everything would be subjective, then it would be based on who is in control. a dangerous concept that puts people in harm, except of coarse those not targeted.
On the contrary, I live in the manner I do (such as you and everyone else) because I am a human being.
Those people obviously have life experiences; they are alive and moving and seeing and thinking. They eat and play and cry and feel emotion.
In any case, a disabled person is alive and living independently of the biological functions of anyone else. They also have experiences and emotions. They also have people, family and friends, who are close to them. That's why it's different.
I didn't talk of an ideal, just the concept of experiences that make somebody an individual far more than having human DNA. How dry it would be if the only human characteristic were to have 1% different base pairs in their cells' nuclei to animals.
how? why?
If experiences dictate what is or is not human (of whom would be a person), then the wrong experience will change who you are, or the lack of an experience might limit you to being a person.
what sort of experience distinguishes humans from an elephant or dolphin or dog, since they too feel, cry, move, etc.???
they also breath
individual:
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
person:
a human individual
these are the definitions of the terms and we can only go on what the words are used to define. the human embryo is fits the definitions, so by correct use of language - the embryo is an individual and person.
This is my argument. It has lived, it had human biology. But I do not consider that human biology to be what makes an individual or what binds us together in society; I do not think that biological matter makes one an individual person.
Except I would amend it to this:
"The embryo has lived as biologically human just not what you think as being a person."
Except I would amend it to this:
"The embryo has lived as biologically human just not what you think as being a person."
Then where do you get your terminology? we are speaking English no? if you do not agree with the words as they are defined and used for centuries, then what are they for? what do they describe?
also, what do you think binds us together in society?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
your mind is dependent on how it develops inside the womb. your dna "instructs" what cells go well and will operate its formation (in most basic terms). you could have been born w/o a brain, or w/ limited cognitive response. genetics and your condition within the womb determines the outcome.
I knew someone who was dead for 15 minutes. brain dead, heart not beating, etc. I met him in a karate class years after his motorcycle collision.
even a dead person is still human, just a dead human/person. this does not change an organism's species. it only changes word tense.
there is a black and white definition of human being.
you're thinking of humanity or human nature which is philosophical. science spells out the animal kingdom
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genus
biology even covers the entire development stage of our human species:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_development
in order to be apart of the development stage, one must be human. must be apart of our species. the embryo is as is the fetus.
you just said, "it is an opinion". followed by "it is not an opinion". make up your mind!
the term human being refers only to homo sapiens and our ancient relatives of the same biological family. no one is excluded just because of how they look or how far along they have developed.
as for the human embryo vs just fertilized egg, no these two are not the exact same, other than in the sense that they are human. they are of the same species as the parents. or do you disagree?
Ad hominem, you were attacking the people behind the web site. you can't argue it, just admit it.
1.I never claimed that I was not or am not wrong because you can not provide a response. I am saying that I can not agree with people who can't even explain their own position. Was this not an argument? part of an argument is that you present your claim, and your support. I can remember only one other person on this thread doing so who was actually against my position.
I also said I was correct because I am merely pointing out what biology states. This is not just my opinion.
2. how is being human subjective? were the nazi's not wrong for their genocide against the Jews? if being human is subjective, then they had all right in doing their actions. do you agree with them?
then explain why. how is the brain supposed to determine who is or is not human?
I fear you are not an architect and the blue print analogy is confusing you.
the blueprint analogy is only to explain what dna does or what dna is like in terms of how it influences our bodies. after that, the analogy pretty much stops. why? because it is not the exact same thing.
so I never stated that dna was a human being just like real blueprints are not buildings. I stated that dna determines you to be a human or not human.
kind of like how blueprints determine a building to be a house or a skyscraper.
does that make sense?
I knew someone who was dead for 15 minutes. brain dead, heart not beating, etc. I met him in a karate class years after his motorcycle collision.
even a dead person is still human, just a dead human/person. this does not change an organism's species. it only changes word tense.
there is a black and white definition of human being.
you're thinking of humanity or human nature which is philosophical. science spells out the animal kingdom
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Genus
biology even covers the entire development stage of our human species:
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Human_development
in order to be apart of the development stage, one must be human. must be apart of our species. the embryo is as is the fetus.
you just said, "it is an opinion". followed by "it is not an opinion". make up your mind!
the term human being refers only to homo sapiens and our ancient relatives of the same biological family. no one is excluded just because of how they look or how far along they have developed.
as for the human embryo vs just fertilized egg, no these two are not the exact same, other than in the sense that they are human. they are of the same species as the parents. or do you disagree?
Ad hominem, you were attacking the people behind the web site. you can't argue it, just admit it.
1.I never claimed that I was not or am not wrong because you can not provide a response. I am saying that I can not agree with people who can't even explain their own position. Was this not an argument? part of an argument is that you present your claim, and your support. I can remember only one other person on this thread doing so who was actually against my position.
I also said I was correct because I am merely pointing out what biology states. This is not just my opinion.
2. how is being human subjective? were the nazi's not wrong for their genocide against the Jews? if being human is subjective, then they had all right in doing their actions. do you agree with them?
then explain why. how is the brain supposed to determine who is or is not human?
I fear you are not an architect and the blue print analogy is confusing you.
the blueprint analogy is only to explain what dna does or what dna is like in terms of how it influences our bodies. after that, the analogy pretty much stops. why? because it is not the exact same thing.
so I never stated that dna was a human being just like real blueprints are not buildings. I stated that dna determines you to be a human or not human.
kind of like how blueprints determine a building to be a house or a skyscraper.
does that make sense?
I have studied how the brain develops in an embyro you don't need to teach my it in 'the most basic term'. There is an obvious difference between your friend who was technically brain dead for 15 minutes and a cadaver where the brain has died on a cellular level. It seems like you think belonging to our species is all that is required to belong to humanity, the argument that a dead person is a person actually goes strongly against you, if all that matters is we share DNA not any form of intelligence or life then there isn't really anything that makes life sacred, who cares then if we kill an embryo because all that matters is it still shares our DNA, it's life added no value to it according to that argument.
I said its an opinion followed by it is because I was talking about two separate things, retread whati wrote ffs. Of course we are the same species, but I don't give something value purely because we share DNA. DNA isn't some holy thing. I was attacking the website because you used it as a source, that isn't ad hominum, you chose to cite a very obviously biased website full of bull****, had I said you were wrong purely based on who you are that would be ad hominum.
You keep going back to the ****ing nazis as if this was the same situation, proving you have already made up your mind that it is. Yes human being is subjective, as evidenced throughout history by countless groups oppressing others based on the mentality they were lesser beings. I obviously don't support that in any way shape or form because I believe all one needs to be a person is a mind and so the nazis killing millions of minds was obviously one of the greatest crimes in history. If you went and asked the nazis though many of them would probably see very little wrong with what they were doing, because it is subjective, that is what subjective means, even if you disagree with someone that doesn't stop it being subjective.
Ad even though I have already said it it seems like I need to say it again. My position is that the rights of a fully formed human being superseded the rights of a partially formed human being, my position is that the central characteristic that defines human beings as opposed to homosapiens is our minds. I believe that there is a need for a separate human being on top of homosapien because otherwise you are unable to tell the difference between a life that has meaning and a life that has less or no meaning, an example being in cases where the forebrain is destroyed but the cerebellum preserved which leaves a 'human' that has no consciousness and will never have a conciousness, or in cases where a person is being kept alive by machines alone and their mind is gone. I am not arguing that these examples have no value and we could do whatever we like to them, I am saying they have less value because they are less of a person or less of a human being.
The blueprint analogy does not end where you want it to end, and trying to confuse it by throwing in different types of blueprints and saying look see because on blueprint is a hotel and the other Is a house that proves the blueprint has the same rights as the house. A blueprint for a house is still not a house,a blueprint for a hotel is still not a hotel. DNA in an embyro that could one day become a person, is not a person. It might be a hotel blueprint and the hotel might be a hotel hotel, but unless you believe the only value we have as human beings comes from our DNA then arguing that they are the same thing is pure nonsense.
Ps my iPad autocorrects things stupidly so if there is a word that is obviously out of place try to just read around it
(edited 10 years ago)
Then where do you get your terminology? we are speaking English no? if you do not agree with the words as they are defined and used for centuries, then what are they for? what do they describe?
also, what do you think binds us together in society?
also, what do you think binds us together in society?
The whole argument comes down to terminology. Human, human being, individual...
Let me ask you a question. Are Siamese twins two individuals or the same individual? Two human beings or one human being
This is I think the most important part of my post; the rest will just be chasing arguments in circles.
Original post by da_nolo
the word "being" defines an organism that exists; has an existence. the embryo has an existence. they exist. how can you be human but not human "being" if you are both a human and do exist?
the word "being" defines an organism that exists; has an existence. the embryo has an existence. they exist. how can you be human but not human "being" if you are both a human and do exist?
Yes, because you hear people saying "look at that canine being" or "look at that feline being" or "look at that bovine being".
"Human being" has special significance, meaning a biologically human who is an individual, as opposed to isolated human biological material.
"restricted view you can't understand simple things"
above is just a long winded version of calling someone stupid.
above is just a long winded version of calling someone stupid.
No, it means that in your mindset for the discussion, you are not going to be able to understand certain things. Nothing about you personally, but the mindset you have in this particular context is limiting.
"pro-life" ME? no. I am not.
pro-life view is not restricted to "abortion should not be allowed". it involves all human life being given the opportunity to live according to their needs. that all human life is protected as they should. this includes their desire to abandon the death penalty.
pro-life view is not restricted to "abortion should not be allowed". it involves all human life being given the opportunity to live according to their needs. that all human life is protected as they should. this includes their desire to abandon the death penalty.
That isn't pro life?
no living condition defines a human individual. if it did, everything would be subjective. then who is to say gestapo can't knock on your door? if everything would be subjective, then it would be based on who is in control. a dangerous concept that puts people in harm, except of coarse those not targeted.
Everyone who has been born is a human individual by default. It is those who have not who we are debating.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.
Congratulations. Once again you pass the prize for reducing human complexity down to cold biology!
(If you didn't get it, I think this paragraph of yours is irrelevant.)
The embryo has a family as well. hence the accurate term of child based on human offspring.
A family that wants to abort them.
And, again, disabled people are born and clearly individuals. There's no slippery sloe here.
I am not human nor an individual nor a person because of my experiences, no one is. I was a person first. that is what enabled me (and you) to experience things as a human. you are human first, and a human is described as being a person. then and only then may you experience life as a human.
We disagree there. I think you we're human before you we're a person. I think being biologically human is irrelevant. If a chimpanzee manages to learn English and integrated into society, I'd consider it more of a "human being" than an embryo.
how? why?
If experiences dictate what is or is not human (of whom would be a person), then the wrong experience will change who you are, or the lack of an experience might limit you to being a person.
If experiences dictate what is or is not human (of whom would be a person), then the wrong experience will change who you are, or the lack of an experience might limit you to being a person.
You seem to be mixing up "having life experiences" with "experiencing life". Everybody born experiences life except brain dead people, and we regularly remove feeing tubes to end the lives of such people.
what sort of experience distinguishes humans from an elephant or dolphin or dog, since they too feel, cry, move, etc.???
they also breath
they also breath
Really? Breathing? You are clutching at straws.
individual:
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
person:
a human individual
these are the definitions of the terms and we can only go on what the words are used to define. the human embryo is fits the definitions, so by correct use of language - the embryo is an individual and person.
A single human being as distinct from a group, class, or family
person:
a human individual
these are the definitions of the terms and we can only go on what the words are used to define. the human embryo is fits the definitions, so by correct use of language - the embryo is an individual and person.
Again, an embryo is not a human being but is human. It is not an individual since it is not a human being as in your definition.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by da_nolo
the word "being" defines an organism that exists; has an existence. the embryo has an existence. they exist. how can you be human but not human "being" if you are both a human and do exist?
the word "being" defines an organism that exists; has an existence. the embryo has an existence. they exist. how can you be human but not human "being" if you are both a human and do exist?
An embryo has a biological existence and it is part of the homo sapiens sapiens species, but that is far from being an individual / natural person.
It has, for example, no existence as a legal entity. It is not a person in the social sense.
Original post by starmonster
An embryo has a biological existence and it is part of the homo sapiens sapiens species, but that is far from being an individual / natural person.
It has, for example, no existence as a legal entity. It is not a person in the social sense.
It has, for example, no existence as a legal entity. It is not a person in the social sense.
you just need to be a human being in order to be an individual. that's the following definition. by definition, the embryo is a human individual.
natural person? a person is a human being. natural I can only guess you mean to be usual or common. since every single human goes through the same growth process, the embryo is absolutely natural person.
otherwise, feel free to elaborate.
in the u.k. a person may be charged for manslaughter if they kill a pregnant woman.
in u.s. law used to say that blacks were not human, and then they had a 2/3 rule. now blacks are recognized as human.
legality means nothing but what is legal and illegal. not what is or is not. sometimes these two concepts are on the same page, sometimes not.
social? what way do you use this phrase?
Original post by da_nolo
natural person? a person is a human being. natural I can only guess you mean to be usual or common.
natural person? a person is a human being. natural I can only guess you mean to be usual or common.
By natural person, I mean a natural person. Not a company or limited liability partnership (which is a legal person). An individual. A human being.
in the u.k. a person may be charged for manslaughter if they kill a pregnant woman.
If you kill a pregnant woman, you'll be charged with killing a woman (whether murder or manslaughter). You cannot murder or manslaughter an unborn foetus in English law; you can only murder "a reasonable creature in rerum natura", where the umbilical cord is severed and is theoretically capable of independent life.
Original post by Hypocrism
Well, yes, because you're just admitting you have no reply.
If you say so *shrug*
Original post by March
Ahhh sorry I was confusing you with Edith.
Edith said the thing in red and I agreed with her and then you thought I was generalising about something or other and... I'm still a little bit confused since it looks like we're making more or less the same points? I'm going to run away from this thread before my brain explodes.
Edith said the thing in red and I agreed with her and then you thought I was generalising about something or other and... I'm still a little bit confused since it looks like we're making more or less the same points? I'm going to run away from this thread before my brain explodes.
lmao, may I run with you?
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 4 minutes ago
PWC Flying Start Degree Apprenticeships 2024!Last reply 6 minutes ago
Google level 4 software development apprenticeshipLast reply 7 minutes ago
Accenture Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official: University of Cardiff A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 13 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 7 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 10 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 12 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
