Well now, you are backpedaling to your original statements without proof. It seems that you are no longer trying to protect the proof of your own logic which you have not proved anyway. You kept hammering on proof, but now you abandon it just to go back to your original dogmatic stance.
The holes I put in your argument are in your proofs where you switch definitions. You have a different definition of human in your first statement than in the second. You have not refuted that argument except to vaguely claim dogma. Well, Mr. Palerider. Dogma is all you have left.
I didn't merely put dents in your arguments, I showed you where all your holes are. You put them in. You shot yourself in the foot.
I not only offered the evidence, I showed where you destroyed your own arguments by giving the same definition of human to what you yourself called dead zygotes. Remarkably inanity. Dawkins raised another point. Since you define humans by their DNA, dead humans are just brimming with DNA. Should zygotes in a freezer and dead humans in a cemetery have freedom of speech? the right to bear arms? Since you have so much trouble with multiple definitions, I should tell you that when I say "bear arms" I mean weapons, not appendages that have five fingers.
Finally, you said in your previous post,
It looks like you are saying they are not on the same level. You called them both humans in your first statement. Now you are implying that one form of human has some distinction from the other? That was exactly your argument against sentience, and now your own argument comes back to haunt you. Your argument is full of holes, not just dents.
