You are hilariously petty.
Thank you for your concession. I trust you’ll no longer be promulgating your fallacious garbage.
Why stop at the cells? Why not molecules? Or particles? Electrons Protons Neutrons!! Electrons have potential rights!
Oh yes because that would be lunacy.
He did not say anyone made that claim. He asked if sperm do have rights.
Sperm do not have the potential to become humans? How can we even talk to people that dispute the laws of nature and scientific fact?
No, the sperm is like rubber. A tire is like a child. And a tire on a car is like a human that can reason.
So it is like saying that rubber has the potential to become a tire, which has the potential of being put on a car. (A sperm has the potential to become a child which has the potential to reason). Try to get your analogies straight.
You guys are the ones making the ludicrous argument that just because a child has the potential to reason that it has rights, and on the other hand even though a sperm has the potential to reason, it does not have rights. Your only criteria is “potential” and it is completely inconsistent.
No were pointing out how you two are conflating arguments. On the one hand we have a human, who is a human and will remain to be a human regardless of whether they are 5 or 50. You conflate that stating that we believe sperm have rights. But sperm are not humans and left to themselves do not ever become humans.
What were asking you and Stranger to do is stop with the conflation. It looks pathetic and it’s extremely obviously fallacious. It’s obvious you two are just being stubborn. This is more about being correct than it is about coming to any type of productive conclusion.
I agree. People who claim that sperm have the potential to become humans are disputing the laws of nature and scientific fact.
Children left to themselves will die before becoming humans as well.
And your begging the question again, are childrens human. You have yet to prove us otherwise.
Take your circular reasoning and toss it in the trash. Get your mind out of the gutter and join us on an intellectually productive plane for once.
Children already are humans.
Is this all you have left?
This makes no sense. Speak teh engrish. I don’t speak innuendo.
Can humans that are 1 year old reason?
And you obviously did not read what I posted. Nowhere did I ever state that you think sperm have rights. I stated that using your criteria, that children have the potential to reason endows them with rights, the same can be said about sperm and eggs.
And a one year old left to himself will never become human. Yet somehow you still think they have rights…
What’s pathetic is your inability to reason.
Maybe you should look in the mirror. I happily answer all of the “child’s rights” questions, yet you all like to ignore mine. The reason I am willing to answer questions should be obvious to anyone reading this thread. Those that advocate that children do not have rights have a much more consistent philosophy than those that do claim they do.
If you are wondering what my question is, it is “if children have rights because they have the potential to reason, why don’t sperm, which have potential to reason as well?”
And you are begging the question. Can small children think critically? See how fun this is?
The line of reasoning is simply stupid. I could just as easily say that apes are special and have rights. Now prove me wrong.
I already challenged you with at least 3 various questions. The likes of which you wouldn’t touch with a 10 inch pole. There is no need to repeat this again. Being unable to reason for a period of time does not mean you are not human.
The only stupid reasoning here is the ones who think people that are sleeping are homesteadable, and that they have not rights because they are asleep and cannot present their case to a judge.
The only stupid reasoning here are those who disconnect themselves from reality and prefer to make up their own dictionary definitions of what is or is not human, and then decide to apply different aspects of those definitions to meet your silly agenda.
The only thing that has transpired for the past X number of pages is a clear representation of lunacy.
And by the way, it is up to YOU to prove that children are not human. It’s not on me. And you cannot re-define the definition of human to do so. Such is the way of lunacy. Either you contend with reality or you go back to your whole were you can pretend to live in your fantasy world.
Your arbitrary new definition of what is, and is not human fails on so many levels as has been pointed out a clear number of times on this thread. Need we repeat ourselves over, and over and over again?
Can someone who is asleep or has alzheimers not reason? and by not reasoning do they stop being human? Also who is the judge of what is good or bad reasoning? Are you the omniscient arbitor that will enighten us? It’s either idiocy or lunacy to go down this path.
Stranger tried to conflate a sperm with being human. You defended him. Want me to re-quote everything all over again?
Accept that sperm and eggs are not human, and will not potentially be human. They are no more human than the molecules that make up our bodies.
Accept t hat a one year old already is human? Now your following the route of circular reasoning just as Stranger did. How many more beautiful examples of logical retardation would you like to provide for us? And your the one trying to compare a sperm to a 1 year old as if they are identical.
And you have yet to prove to us that 1 year olds don’t have rights without re-writing your own pet definition of human and rights in the dictionary. And you subscribe to a fallacy that positive law somehow creates rights. That laws come before rights do.
I’ve been giving you the benefit of the doubt. The only one inable to reason, and the only one being stubborn is you. I’m genuinly interested in how you came to what you beleive but you refuse to answer questions, like homesteading alzheimer patients.
Than answer mine in this past thread. I know of at least 2 that you have not answered. And don’t tell me you have because I have read, and re-read.
Look I could make up any kind of idiot theory I wanted and it would be 100% consistent if I re-defined select words and re-structured various meanings arbitrarily. In reality however the only way your consistency holds up is by arbitrarily re-defining what a human is and what rights .
Now for the umpteenth time explain to me this.
- How are you not homesteadable when your asleep?
- How are you not homesteadable when you have Alzheimer
- Who is the omniscient judge that can detirmine what is a reasoning body and what is not
- Most children can rationalize and critically think as early as age 5. Do they stop becoming property? How do you measure the rational capacity?
- Property is property, whats wrong if a father wants to keep his daughter chained in the basement for 30 years? Or is that accepted under your new reasoning?
- How can property arbitrarily stop being property at X random age.
- How can my property sue me to steal rights to what is mine? If I own the child as property they have no right to bring their case to a judge, they have no right to their body. Their body is mine. How is your definition NOT arbitrary?
Please observe Stranger and Spidey’s argumentum ad nauseum on this topic.