NightlyPoe said:
sundin13 said:
As I've said a few times now, it is clear that this conversation will be fruitless. I've attempted to make various appeals to different areas of the conversation, but you have shown your beliefs run quite deep. I will say that you have done quite well at explaining the beliefs you hold. That said, I do not believe you have adequately explained the "why" but alas, that is my entire issue with this conversation so that shouldn't come as a surprise.
Such circular arguments are considered logical fallacies for a reason. They do nothing to prove any truth, they only establish a belief. A belief can only be argued for so long. There were some misunderstandings in your post and some things that I disagree with you on, but there is clearly nothing that I can do to insert anything outside of that circle into your reasoning, so I see no point in continuing to prod at this circle.
Have a good one. I can only hope that my rights don't hinge on your circular beliefs in the future
|
You may go if you wish, but I object to your statement that I've been making circular arguments. It seems, from my perspective, that I used a fairly banal scientific answer for when life begins. And simply attached the opinion that this state means that it should be protected.
If conception isn't the beginning of life, then really nothing is. Using any other point in human development would just be an arbitrary marker. There's only a single moment that can be pinpointed as a definite threshold between nothing and a new, unique, and distinct entity, and that's conception.
You want me to come up with more than that, and I don't know what to say. What milestone do you want beyond mere existence?
|
While we can have a conversation about the meaning of "human" and "life", at the end of the day, that is simply a means of establishing a vocabulary to allow further conversation. Once we understand the definitions, we are able to get into the actual discussion of why this thing, that you've defined as "human" "life" should be protected. As you say in this post, you can't really do that beyond just saying that this human life should be protected because human life should be protected, which is, by definition, circular.
Do you believe that is a mischaracterization of your conclusion here?
