Xocrates wrote: Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
Xocrates wrote:Now, is a human simply a community of one cell organisms or is it a single one? - here's the crux to show how your accusation is flawed - I believe the second.
The actually answer is both. . . A human is an organism made of many cells. Every humans starts out as a single cell.
I was justifying my logic. Your point here is completely irrelevant. Since it goes completely out of context and doesn't prove anything.
Irrelevant? You asked a question and I answered it from a scientific perspective. I don't see how that is irrelevant.
Xocrates wrote:Which is a pity since this is one of the most important points on my argument. I really don't know how to explain it any better or more clearly.
Well, if you can't explain "one of the most important points" of your argument, it is a shame.
Xocrates wrote:The fetus does not have the same DNA as the mother. I pointed out countless times before this point that I don't consider the fetus part of the mother. However for this point to work you need to assume that I do.
Not every cell in the body has the same DNA either. Sperm and egg cells for example would approximately the same amount of DNA in common with the mother as the fetus's cells would. By your argument we should treat all of these cells as separate from the mother.
Xocrates wrote:By this logic a tapeworm is part of it's host because it can't survive outside of it.
This isn't altogether untrue which is why I brought up the issue of the tape worm earlier. The host should have every right to do what it sees fit with regard to anything inside its body. In this I class tapeworms and fetus in the same group.
Xocrates wrote:Which is kind of odd since you did not only argue semantics in the same post as you wrote this as you used it as a fundamental part of your argument.
Semantics only deal with what our words mean, they don't change the underlying reality. The semantic pieces of my argument are simply establishing a link between my usage of words and their meaning. I don't rely on this link for anything beyond the discussion. It's not a core part of my views in other words.
Xocrates wrote:At no point did my logic fail. For answering this post all I had to do was point out your arguments were irrelevant, illogical, out of context, or simply the repetition of something that had been said before and which I had already justified. You even managed to contradict yourself.
I am just going to note that saying something is irrelevant,illogical or out of context doesn't make it so. You actually need to demonstrate how it is irrelevant, illogical or out of context.
Xocrates wrote:So the twins can be killed while they're still linked right?
They can be killed if it is a matter of survival for the other, yes.
Xocrates wrote:You do realize that after birth the baby becomes biologicaly independent from the mother. How is it different from the twin's case?
As I have said equal rights should extend to any person once they are biologically independent. Thus once a baby is born, they enjoy these rights. With conjoined twins, they enjoy these rights after birth as well, but only to the outside world. Between themselves (the twins) they are not biologically independent and thus the rights don't apply. One may be sacrificed to save the other for example.
Xocrates wrote:How much of that stuff that you're exposed every day is relative to the discussion outside your country? How much of it is done in a different language?
Quite a bit actually. My TV has news stations is many different languages.
Xocrates wrote:If I'm not mistaken the answer will be virtually none. Yet you insist the point that I very obviously have had extensive knowledge of the abortion debate in the US/UK/whatever and not only did I do that as all that debate was done in english.
As you will see you are mistaken. I never insisted that you had extensive knowledge of the abortion debate in the US/UK. You are yet again putting words in my mouth.
Xocrates wrote:You're doubting my word so much I can't see it as anything other than accusing me of being a liar.
I'm just saying that you can't possibly make such a claim.
2+2.000001 = 4
From a mathemathic point of view it is dead wrong, from an engineer's point of view it is reasonable. The logic differs.
That's not an issue of logic. That's an issue of rounding in math which is a separate issue from core logic.
Like I said, logic is only foreign to those who don't use it.