Comment: Flaw in logic...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: So all that... (see in situ)

Flaw in logic...

A = Has heartbeat
B = Living Human Being
C = Unborn Fetus

Your logic is:
IF B = A and C = A THEN C = B
IF "Living Human Being" has a heartbeat and an "Unborn Fetus" has a heartbeat THEN "Unborn Fetus" = "Living Human Being"

"Living Human Being" does not equal "Unborn Fetus"

Why that doesn't work outside of math...
If Red = Color and Blue = Color then Red = Blue

Anything after "THEN" is an ASSIGNMENT statement... not an observed condition. It being an assignment statement means you're trying to DEFINE "life" with heartbeat... when we could use similar flawed logic in order to come to the same conclusion you tried coming to.

Here's your fallacy:

It's flawed reasoning... and in turn... doesn't work to objectively define.

Your flawed reasoning leads you to a non-objective conclusion.

You had an objective appraisal as best you could, but ended up coming to a biased conclusion rather than an objective one.

And no... if you read the rest of what I wrote and actually gave it consideration... you would have seen there was more to pointing out a definition. I explained how your misuse of the word showed A LOT more about you, your overall position, and why you wanted to misuse words in the first place.

Heavy bias... which has no place in an objective debate.

Critical Thinking > Emotional Thinking > Pseudo-Intellectuals that Saturate DP
Utilitarianism > Consequentialism > Deontology > Egocentrism
Making people feel "troll'd" with the truth > being an intentional troll > acting like one naturally