Still havn't figured out ye ol "Assumed Premise Fallacy" I see. That's where you walk into a debate over whether or not a single human cell is a human .. and repeat "its a human .. its a human" over and over .. as if repetition of premise is proof of claim.
All the more reason to criticize him. I've already done so with Fox in the past, but I'm not going to call Appeal to Emotionalism every other post. And if Whaler keeps making the same fallacy repeatedly, I'll most likely quit saying it for them as well. But it won't change that they are making those Fallacies repeatedly.
Care to discuss those "childish " arguments? Are those the ones where I state facts and you can't respond? Why would you call other arguments 'childish" when you get all your ideas from shows like Star Trek and Twilight Zone???
Well since scientifically and logically it is, I am comfortable with my position on this. Your circular hollow retorts are unconvincing.
I have read the actual law and I suggest you do so as well. Copying an opinion piece doesn't bolster your argument. It doesn't have to "grant legal personhood" to recognize the humanity of children in utero, which it clearly and obviously does.
It may "recognize the humanity" but it does NOT grant it rights. If you know the UVVA so well you are invited to show where it grants rights to fetuses....so far you haven't.
No, that poster has presented "arguments" based on TV shows and movies. Why are you diverting away from the topic?
The terms "child" and "parent" are used in multiple applications. In databases, you can have child and parent tables. In the sciences I noted, their use can be contextual as well. I am for example, a child of my parents, but I am no longer a child age wise. But when referring to stages of life, the term usually refers to birth until adulthood, or maybe as early as puberty.
No its not - you are confused - support your claim that scientifically a single human cell is a human. All you have done is repeat your claim - repetition of claim is not support for nor proof of claim. You are really having difficulty understanding the assumed premise fallacy - its been years- and you are still making the same mistake. Perhaps your failure as a student, is my failure as a teacher ?! OK - from the top ... an argument consists of 2 things 1) Statement of claim (science says its a human) 2) evidence or support showing that this claim is true. You seem to have (1) down pat - but you have yet to figure out (2)
It isn't me who is confused. Every human being starts life at conception. Scientific fact. So..... you are disputing that? Calling it a "premise fallacy"? Sorry, but that is hilarious. You can't teach me something that simply is false.
Read my previous post and the 50 or so priors where I explain to you that no law anywhere "grants" us rights. Laws merely recognize them. Recognizing the child in utero's humanity is recognizing its human rights.
And you base this "usually" claim on ......what exactly? A notion in your head? No the term child is generally used to describe a young human being. Therefore, a "child in utero" is one such human being located in utero (This is obvious to the rest of us).
Apparently you are unaware of the existence of human rights. I'll try to bring you up to speed. These are rights our Constitution recognizes that apply to all human beings.
No, it isn't. That's a real non-argument... My heart and big toe are human....they don't have rights... WHY do you insist the fetus have MORE rights than any other human?? And when can a woman claim a tax deduction on her ZEF..??? WHY do you insist the fetus have MORE rights than any other human??
Apparently you are unaware that women have rights, BORN women, ….I'll bring you up to speed (like into the 20th century, the 21st might be a bridge too far ) women have rights like everyone else so they have abortions and YOU can't stop them .. So why don't you want them to apply to women ???
Yes, it is you who has thing confused. You were not asked when a human being starts life. You were asked to support your claim that human being exists at conception. Saying "A human being starts at conception" - is repetition of premise - slightly changing the wording of the same premise. This is not support for claim - it is logical fallacy. You say its a human - but you have yet to state how you figure a single human cell is a human - you have given no rational or evidence that shows your claim is true or rather "That Science and Logic" states shows your claim is true. Science for example has 5 different perspectives on when life begins - 1 of them argues that human life begins at conception - the other 4 however, say something different. While the "genetic perspective" is popular with the mainstream - such as yourself - Scientists have rejected this perspective for a number of reasons. Regardless - the fact that "Science" posits 4 other perspectives , means you must refute all 4 of these other perspectives .. in order for your "Science and Logic" claim to be true. You did not even know what these other perspective were prior to me educating you - never mind refute them. and Heck .. you have yet to even support your own claim - never mind refute the 4 others. and still - after many years - you have yet to figure out what an "Assumed Premise" fallacy is - and its variants - and keep repeating the same error - over and over and over.
Why am I even entertaining this stupidity, but anyway so you think your big toe is. human being? Because a fetus clearly is and you are equating the two.
Girls in utero absolutely deserve those protections. The Constitution doesn't provide a right to kill at will, so no I don't think women should have the right to kill at will.
Whaler17 said: ↑ Read my previous post and the 50 or so priors where I explain to you that no law anywhere "grants" us rights. Laws merely recognize them. Recognizing the child in utero's humanity is recognizing its human rights. FoxHastings said: ↑ No, it isn't. That's a real non-argument... My heart and big toe are human....they don't have rights... WHY do you insist the fetus have MORE rights than any other human?? And when can a woman claim a tax deduction on her ZEF..??? WHY do you insist the fetus have MORE rights than any other human?? Ug, that is almost English but if you are insinuating that I called my toe a human being you would, as usual, be wrong. I said CLEARLY "" My heart and big toe are human...."" WHERE did I say I """think your big toe is. human being "" Check up above and you will see what YOU CLAIMED. They are equal, both are human. Here's the questions you "missed" And when can a woman claim a tax deduction on her ZEF..??? WHY do you insist the fetus have MORE rights than any other human??
FoxHastings said: ↑ Apparently you are unaware that women have rights, BORN women, ….I'll bring you up to speed (like into the 20th century, the 21st might be a bridge too far ) women have rights like everyone else so they have abortions and YOU can't stop them .. So why don't you want them to apply to women ??? And the minute they're born you contend they don't....you think once they're born they can be "harmed at will"...pathetic... Who TF said they did???
