While the response to criticism of Balbulican's invalid argument has been amusing -- essentially boiling down to an argument that the alleged psychological sexual fetish described by Balbulican shouldn't have to actually adhere to the definition of a sexual fetish according to psychology -- some of the other arguments to be raised in the course of that thread have been amusing in an altogether different manner.
Such as the argument raised by Mike of Rational Reasons, who, in the course of taking exception to the arguments raised by Blue Wave Canada's Suzanne, suggests that a fetus -- or unborn child, as some may prefer to call it -- is a foreign entity to its mother:
"...My bodily integrity is paramount and I cannot be compelled to carry any foreign biological entity within me against my will. After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity and you are trying to compel a woman to carry this entity within her against her will. I cannot be compelled to carry such an entity even if it means certain death for the entity or someone else."In the wake of a comment this incredibly stupid, one really can't help but wonder who, precisely, it was that taught Mike one of two things: sex education, and english.
Mike's counter-argument seems to rest on one key misconceived premise: if an unborn child is separate from its mother then it's a foreign entity.
But even if one were to accept the argument that an unborn child is separate from its mother -- and considering that, as Mike himself notes, the unborn child receives oxygen and nourishment from its mother through its umbilical cord, this is a very difficult argument to accept -- it doesn't logically follow that the unborn child is foreign to its mother.
After all, if Mike had received the same birds-and-the-bees talk that the vast overwhelming majority of educated people receive he would know that an unborn child is the product of natural processes occurring within the mother's body.
Yet the word foreign, in almost any sense of the term, deals with things that either originate externally, or do not belong there in the first place.
Considering that a child is conceived within the mother's body, through the reproductive processes that are natural to a woman's body, an unborn child could not possibly be a foreign entity.
It would also be foolish to believe that the unborn child doesn't belong there, considering that (again) it results from natural bodily processes within the mother.
Yet Mike, as it turns out, not only won't admit to the fallacy of his argument, he wants to disavow the argument altogether:
"And, in that exact same paragraph, I quite clearly explained how it connected with what Suzanne said:And yet, interestingly enough, it wasn't Suzanne who suggested that the unborn child is separate and foreign to the mother.
After all, it is the basis of your entire argument that a fetus is a distinct and thus foreign biological entity…"
Suzanne indeed suggested that the mother and their unborn child are distinct biological entities. Interestingly enough, she doesn't actually use the word "separate", although it's clearly implied in her argument.
But there are numerous cases in which two entities can be biologically distinct from one another, yet not separate and certainly foreign to one another.
An interesting test case is that of conjoined twins. Conjoined twins are often born sharing the same organs, and even the same DNA. Yet, they are biologically distinct from one another to the extent that they can often be successfully separated via surgery -- although often one or both twins die in the process.
Thus "biologically distinct" -- even though it's clearly implicit in Suzanne's specific argument -- doesn't automatically mean separate. Nor does separate necessarily mean foreign.
Of course, this is nothing new to those who are familiar with Mike. The indefensible argument is one of this individual's specialties, and whenever he's caught in one, he simply insists that he isn't obligated to defend his ideas.
Which may be true enough. But no one is obligated to accept an undefended and unsupportable idea.
Any truly rational person knows this.