Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clippings are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
Am scientist (not in life sciences). If someone showed me this image, I’d have absolutely no idea what I’m looking at. So that’s one for the 10%, I guess.
Even if it was a human, Chris would be wrong with his lie about “90% of scientists.” Not sure why people think a lie will help their argument in cases like this.
Eh… A Human fetus is human, but it is not “a human”. Your toenail clippings are human.
Plus, the humanity or personhood of a fetus doesn’t really matter for the pro-choice position. Simply put, there is no (other) legal situation that can compell you to give up your bodily autonomy.
Example. I can shoot someone in the street in cold blood, and they could die without a blood transfusion. The courts cannot compell me to do something as harmless as donating blood to save that person’s life. A fetus, despite arguably being a person, does not have a right to your blood, your breath, your nutrients, or a space inside your body. Full stop.
Wow. I have never heard this argument articulated in this way. Thanks!
They don’t care about facts data or science. They use it to argue in bad faith, not to have a serious convo.
If you call that out they’ll just ignore you and try and get you with some other made up gotcha fact.
Exactly. It’s something like a gish gallop - you can’t really rebut that and explain why it’s a comment made in bad faith, but to casual readers it’s a valid retort.
Also, even if 90% of scientists did say that… what percentage of those scientists are not biologists?
Do we need to know a geologist’s or physicist’s opinion about “some sort of weird meat-science”?
Like the old “Yeah, sorry, I am a Doctor, but I’m a Doctor of Jazz, not medicine”
Am scientist (not in life sciences). If someone showed me this image, I’d have absolutely no idea what I’m looking at. So that’s one for the 10%, I guess.
Because they aren’t arguing to persuade the other party but to persuade the readers/listeners that won’t bother to research if its actually true.
Because they are stupid enough that they believe appeal to authority has any meaning.