It really doesn't matter to me what you "want" The fact is that a bioethicist is perfectly qualified in the science to make such a statement. It is only your abject ignorance of the topic that keeps you in the discussion at all.
What has become abundantly clear is that your ignorance on the topic is so broad that you don't even know how to find the information that you don't know...you present a classic example of not even knowing what you don't know.. But here...I have taken some time to find you some actual biological reference material....as if that is going to change your mind...You have made up your mind and no amount of actual information will ever change it...you are a typical pro choicer trying to defend the indefensible.
http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/clones
http://www.sonoworld.com/Fetus/page.aspx?id=283
Here...from the Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society
http://www.archive.org/stream/journalroyalmic04londgoog/journalroyalmic04londgoog_djvu.txt
While this particular segment is speaking about dogs...feel free to provide some credible evidence that the early development of dogs, or even most mammals is significantly different from human beings.
And this certainly isn't new knowledge...here is a paper from Twin Research in Psychiatry speaking to the fission of a blastocyst from back in 1938.
http://eliotslater.org/index.php/psychiatry/genetics/222-twin-research-in-psychiatry-1938
Principle and Practice of Pediatric NeurosurgeryDOI: 10.1055/b-0034-98061 page 269
BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis THE BIOLOGY OF TWINNING Submitted byMiriam Earle James
Genetics The Science of Life Cloning, Susan Schaffer: Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group :
You might then go and look at this presentation on the topic of cloning and asexual reproduction:
https://prezi.com/6kfzhy-0mjid/asexual-reproduction/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684762
And on and on it goes. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction...twins are natural clones....a human being is capable of asexual reproduction for a very short time..and it is the result of fission.
There is this process known as critical thinking where one takes the known facts and is able to draw a coherent rational conclusion from them...you clearly need to be spoon fed and then have whoever feeding you tell you what to think about what you were fed....this whole tangent resulted from me stating that for a short time, human beings are capable of asexual reproduction....I have provided credible biological references to support that statement. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the act of a cell or cells dividing to form two beings where there once was one is, by definition, fission, then I can't help you.
The undeniable fact is, and remains that for a short period of time, human beings are capable of asexual reproduction...go out on google and search for the terms "natural clone" "twins" "asexual reproduction" and for Pete's sake, try to actually think for yourself.
And again, your claim that a bioethicist is not qualified to state that fission is fission is nothing more that a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem....a bioethicist is more than qualified to make the statement.
