Now you're just being silly.... You know that's a fallacy of logic...
All dogs have tails and fur,
That animal (cat) has a tail and fur,
Therefore that animal is a dog.
Do you agree with the basic principle that all life has only two options; continue or die?
I don't know, and I don't care, when life first began because its irrelevent to understanding that principle. Equally, any philosophical and/or theological belief is irrelevent to understanding and accepting the principle set forward. Philosophical, theological and ideological concerns can, however, cause one to reject that principle. I have yet to see science offer a third option for life, which would be needed to reject the principle on the basis of science.
If an individual has a heart that is no longer beating, and it has lungs but is no longer breathing, can that individual continue to live?
I would hope we can agree that a life, dependent on a heartbeat and lung function to continue living, cannot continue to live when those systems cease working. Without the ability to continue, life dies.
Now... we focus our attention on a living sperm, combine it with a living egg (neither of which have a heartbeat or perform the act of breathing yet you have already accepted them as both being alive) and in that process, life continues as a distinct individual.
By that logic, we can't know when life ends either and therefore cannot have a legal definition of death... yet we do.
My opinion is based on following the rules of logic and there are no contradictions in my definition of life and death. Either life can continue, or it cannot.
I'm not saying everyone has to accept my argument... Some people still believe the earth is flat and they are welcome to that opinion. As a Libertarian, I fail to see why its not acceptable from a libertarian point of view... We both consider ourselves libertarian conservatives so why is your view more libertarian than mine? Isn't your insistence that we can never reach a definition, therefore we should not try, a bit authoritarian on your part?
At some point, someone suggested a definition for death, that definition has been accepted. Was that person a Conservative? Was that person being authoritarian in their suggestion? Did everyone agree with the definition before it was adopted as the legal definition? Did their definition conform to the libertarian viewpoint?
I'm sorry my friend, but you are continually using such fallacies both in support of your opinion and in an attempt to dismiss mine... so I must ask: Are you against bans on abortion? Holding such a position would explain your constant criticism of unanswered (and unanswerable) ethereal questions that I have not claimed to try and resolve.
