How clever of you. Now you are left unable to prove the same thing that you coudn't prove before.
Of course there is a logical fallacy. You are begging the question, making an assumption that you can not prove. The legal definition of person is "a human being" there are no qualifications listed. "A human being." simple as that.
The cemetaries are full of dead human beings. What exactly is your point? Since frozen zygotes can be reanimated while those in cemetaries an not, perhaps the law should examine that conundrum.
And yet, you can provide no credible scientific evidence to support that claim. Here we still stand. I have made no claim that I have failed to support with credible materials, and you have not made a claim that you can support. Your lips are moving but nothing is coming out.
dogma - n - a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative.
You offer up your arguments without support and claim that they mean something in the face of credible science and the law that says you are wrong. You simply assume that your arguments carry some authority even though we both know that you can support none of them with credible materials. You make a claim that somehow I am "switching" definitions and can offer no evidence of that either. Your whole position is supported by nothing more than your faith.
You are dogmatic specifically because you believe in that which you can not prove. You simply assume that your arguments are authoratative.
Again, you think a thing, and argue the thing but can not prove the thing. I don't expect you to buy a single unsupported argument that I make and you expect me to buy your whole argument unsupported.
I have made no claim that I have not proved. Do feel free to point out any claim that I have made that isn't supported. While you are at it, how about pointing out any claim that you have made that is supported.
