[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]:lol: Unless you are willing to claim that looking different and being fundamentally different are exactly the same thing, that is not semantics. Fail, yet again. :lol:
Actually, that wasn't what I was saying at all. But you just have to go by the most literal definition possible. . . .
Then there is a practical distinction between them, so it's not just semantics.
Try actually counterarguing instead of boasting. ;)
The burden of proof rests on BOTH SIDES. In an official debate, the one who opens the debate goes first and has to hold his burden of proof. But when he's done, his opponent then has to hold it. It's not a "you have to prove everything while I sit back and deny it" situation like you apparently think it is.
This isn't about the debate in general, it's about your claim that foetuses mustbe considered human lives with the right to life.
Um, this is a debate. :| You are in it.
Yes, and I was referring to your claim that foetuses must be considered human lives with the right to life. What's your point, assuming you actually have one?
...Why? :|
Explain how it's irrelevant, then.
Because the potential to become a baby doesn't mean that foetuses have the right to life.
And why not?
:roll: What's your point? Everyone considers some things to be less than human. Plants, for example. We all draw the line somewhere.
:| Did you even read my post? Particularly this part: If it has the genes of a human, the potential to be a human, and is a member of the human species. Do plants fall into that category?
I wasn't even responding to that bit, and I already disproved rather pathetic genes argument.
No you didn't. You just went "well my cells aren't human, so your wrong!" which isn't anything more than a red herring.
Pfft. For a start, I wouldn't make such a basis grammatical error. And why, exactly, is it a red herring?
3. Are you aware that this would mean that every individual cell in my body would have individual right to life? Every human cell has the genetic information of the human it belongs to.
:roll: None of your cells will grow off of you and become a human, unlike the embryo. Therefore, your cells are not the same thing.
I never said they were the same thing, and whether they are is irrelevant. What's relevant is whether the same principle applies, which it does.
:| Do you not see your argument here? "Okay, it applies in this case, but it doesn't in this absolutely irrelevant and different case, therefore it doesn't apply at all." That is wrong. It would apply if your cells had the potential to become a human, but since they don't, the principle does not apply to this case. It applies to embryos.
:roll: It's called reductio ad absurdum...
Why would it only apply in that case?
From Wikipedia: Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
You are the one committing that fallacy, not me.
Can you think of another case where an organism has the potential to become a human? If you can, then the principle will apply to that case as well.
You do realise that reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy? Perhaps you were thrown by the shiny latin name. It's not fallacious, it's just a type of argument. Fail.
I don't see what you're trying to say. You can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can't become human, if that's what you're doing (there's my insurance against accusations of a straw man).
You've been denying for about three pages now.:|
Urk. I don't know why I wrote that. I intended to say that you can't reasonably deny that a sperm cell can become human.
Look back at the dozens of replies by me and others to see.
None of them convincing. Especially not yours.
Theokhoth
Log in to comment