[bryantm3]

Deckard, your argument is just as or more circular than mine. You keep going back to 'well, sperm and unfertilized eggs are sacred because they could potentially make life like an embryo could', but you completely ignore or throw away the fact that an embryo is alive with an existentialistic 'what is life anyway?' argument.

well, let's consult dictionary.com and wikipedia. these are both fairly secular resources.

dictionary.com:
life
   /laɪf/
noun, plural lives  /laɪvz/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahyvz]
adjective
–noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

let's do a checklist:

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth through metabolism? no.
2. reproduction? no.
3. adaptation to environment? no.

embryo:
1. growth through metabolism? yes.
2. reproduction? yes.
3. adaptation to environment? this one is iffy; an egg cannot survive outside of the womb, but a grown human cannot survive in subzero temperatures, either. so there are differing conditions in the sensitivity of the person at different stages of life.

wikipedia:
Life is a state that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally. A physical characteristic of life is that it feeds on negative entropy. In more detail, according to physicists such as John Bernal, Erwin Schrödinger, Eugene Wigner, and John Avery, life is a member of the class of phenomena which are open or continuous systems able to decrease their internal entropy at the expense of substances or free energy taken in from the environment and subsequently rejected in a degraded form (see: entropy and life).

unfertilized eggs:
1. growth and reproduction? no.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? no.
3. feeds on negative entropy? no.

embryo:
1. growth and reproduction? yes.
2. communicate and adapt to environment? yes.
3. feeds on negative entropy? yes.

now, let's look at the definition of circular reasoning.

Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.


Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion. To say, “You should exercise because it’s good for you” is really saying, “You should exercise because you should exercise.”

It shares much with the false authority fallacy because we accept these statements based solely on the fact that someone else claims it to be so. Often, we feel we can trust another person so much that we often accept his claims without testing the logic. This is called blind trust, and it is very dangerous. We might as well just talk in circles.