Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 326 by Hamsaka]

How ridiculous is it to refer to a bucket of embryos as a bucket of human lives? Lol.

Yall are really missing out when it comes to this "paprika" character. The terminology he uses is retarded (note that I did not call any PERSON "retarded"). Dismantle/deconstruct the verbiage and he doesn't have any arguments. It's all just empty vitriol and extremist propaganda. No truth in an empty box with a pretty bow can always be beaten by simple truth without any packaging at all.

Prolly best not to use the term 'retarded' at all, but I take your words to mean 'way behind the current consensus'. Arguments that deliberately refuse to acknowledge that which impacts the argument aren't arguments at all, and ought to be dismissed until a rational, reasonable argument is offered instead.

How to derive a rational argument from irrational premises isn't rocket science. "I think abortion is killing a real, actual child, because I believe my religious opinions deserve special regard, as they apply to everyone whether they know it or not."

"Truth" may 'out' in the final analysis, but in the meantime, being 'right' will do.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 316 by Paprika]

perhaps, in another discussion, perhaps about the meaning of the word "living".

Please don't tell me you want to go down that semantic rabbithole. While the status of 'living' is debatable with respect to certain things (eg viruses), embryos and feti are clearly living and not anywhere close to the grey area.

Well, that would be an excellent contribution to the "potential" debate. But as this semantic rabbit hole isn't an ACTUAL debate, we don't have to worry about the issue TOO much right now.

Why is this offspringy thing so important to the debate?

Because people want to maintain some value distinction between killing children of some stages of physical maturity and others of later stages (eg some would maintain the pre-birth and post-birth distinction, while others prefer a pre-third trimester and post-third trimester line, yer others a pre-X-week and others a post-X-week separation)

Sorry, but I still don't see how bringing the word "offspring" into the debate clears anything up. I would think that it adds to the confusion, instead.

Could we use the more generic term "human person", instead of the ( circularly loaded ) child or offspring or baby?

Nobody ( as far as I know ) in this debate is advocating killing a child or an offspring or a baby here.

Unless, of course you can define the word "offspring" in a way that does add to the debate. That was my question to you.

Of what use was the term "offspring" in this debate?

Can we just drop that and continue using a more general and more specific term so that we know what we are talking about and avoid using emotionally charges words that represent a circular kind of reasoning?

IF a fetus IS a baby or a child or an offspring, THEN the debate is over.

But that's the DEBATE.. the IF.
We are trying to decide IF a fetus is a human person or NOT.

So, just saying it is ( or implying it by slipping in the definition ) isn't going to WORK at all in a debate about it.

OK?

So as SOON as you use the term "child" .. you are spinning your wheels and NOT going anywhere. Let's put your part of the debate in GEAR.. Let's get it moving.

We KNOW that you consider feti .. ( ugly word not going to do that again ) embryos HUMAN PERSONS.. but that's NOT the question, as we HAVE your opinion already.

What we WANT to see is your reasoning WHY you have this opinion, or how you arrived at it.

So far.. the reasoning I'm seeing is a little thin.

It's not a "problem" with my perception at all.. I could say the same thing about your perception.

You could say the same thing, but it still remains a problem with your perception.

Ah... er... okee dokee then!!
Thanks for explaining THAT one.

You have a problem with YOUR perception, and I have a problem with MINE.
It's a wash, isn't it?

Now HOW are we to decide if a fetus is a person or not?
Perceptions aren't going to be good either way, so THAT'S out.

The point is that we have DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS given the same perceptions.
It's not about PERCEPTION, it's about a judgement on personhood.

You don't see a human person, and I don't see an egg.
We see a bunch of cells and you CALL that a person and I CALL that an egg.

No, the concept of 'personhood' doesn't come into my argument at all.

We aren't debating if a fetus is a human person?
You have LOST me there.

All that is required is that the embryo is human (adjective) because of its DNA and that it is an organism of its own, therefore it is a human.

What do you mean by "organism on it's own "

Are my toenails organisms on their own?
Please explain this as well as you can, since you say it's central to your argument.
I am confused as to your meaning.

Let me take a hundred people.. show them the picture of an egg... are they going to call it a CHICKEN or a freaking EGG.. what do YOU think they are going to say?

You seem to be having a semantic problem.

What the common people says hardly matters unless truth is a matter of democratic vote; the biologist would say that the fertilized egg is a member of the species.

The common people in my example weren't asked if the egg was of a certain species. The people were asked what they were seeing, when looking at an egg.

You don't think that the abortion debate is a matter of consensus?
Who are you trying to convince.. yourself?

Or.. other people?

As soon as you use the term "member of the species" you invalidate your reasoning by way of circularity IF you mean "person" by "member".

Yes, the chicken egg is of the species "chicken".

A pile of lumber might be in the category of "pine" but it MIGHT not be in the category of "house". IT MIGHT be.. potentially.. but even IF the pine lumber is slatted for house construction, it is NOT the same to say that if the pile of lumber burns, a house has.

No house has burned here. Only a pile of lumber.
The pile of lumber was a potential house.

The egg is a potential chicken.
If the egg falls off the counter, the common folk looking at the yolk won't say.. LOOK AT THE DEAD CHICKEN.. they would say that an egg broke.

I was just trying to establish that there MIGHT conceivably be a difference between things we call EGGS and things we call CHICKENS.

Some people CAN see a distinction. ( actually, I'd argue that most can )
Apparently, you have some difficulty there.
I am asking why that is.

Do you think that all fertilized eggs are the animals that produced the eggs? There is no difference between an egg and a chicken or an egg and a snake or an egg and a duck billed platypus, or an egg and and an ostrich?

Yep, but they aren't at the same level of development.

Ok. so you DO see a difference between a chicken and an egg.

Good. Perfect.

Now.. if we are to transfer that to the human question.

Can you see the difference between a child and an adult? Yes, you have stated so many times. But this debate isn't about the difference between a child and an adult.

Can you see the difference between a human person and what is not yet a human person? You say no.

This is what the debate is about.

So you might call a zygote a child who is very young.

Is that correct?
Zygotes and human persons are the same thing?

Doesn't matter to you.. no distinction between the two states?
You only see one state.. Butterfly ?

Stop your silly nonsense about "no distinction between the two states". I have on multiple occasions acknowledged that there is distinction in physical maturity (just as there is a difference in physical maturity between human adult and human toddler), so let's cut through your silly semantic nonsense:

Not trying to be silly here.. ( Well SOME of the time I'm not trying to be silly )
Right now, I'm TRYING to understand your position, and it's not easy, so I ask questions. Don't call me silly and I won't call you silly either and that will save us a lot of time.

It would be MORE helpful if you just answered the question as best you can. The personal attacks don't do that.

So the only distinction you seem to be able to make is between the different stages of a butterfly development is a an adult butterfly and a younger butterfly. When you see a caterpillar.. it's a butterfly to you.

If you step on a egg, it's a butterfly? If you step on the larva, that's a butterfly, too?
If you step on a pupa, that's a butterfly again? And when you step on an a adult butterfly, that's a butterfly too?

All these stages .. all the same thing to you?
Adult butterfly and all the other stages.. younger butterfly.

Is that correct?

Back to humans for a sec.... I digress.. bear with me?

How about the coitus interruptus stage.. is that murder too? We HAVE, after all, the potential of a human person.

What about a guy and a girl looking fondly into each other's eyes.

Isn't THAT a potential human baby going on there?

For a while, I went to an all boys high school. Let me tell you that there were a whole LOT of potential offspring in the class rooms. How many ACTUAL offsprings WERE in the room, do you figure?

I mean a hot car is a potential baby going on there... vroom vrooom....wink wink nudge nudge.

Full moon?
Potential for a few babies, I'd wager.

Where does the potential END?

Sorry, that's a tangent.
I was thinking about the MEANING of the word "potential"....

Maybe you can clarify that so I don't go there again.

They are of the same species (just as a human adult and a human toddler are of the same species) and it is wrong to kill a human adult just as it is wrong to kill a human toddler, ceteris paribus.

I can be SO irritating, believe me, I know. I irritate myself sometimes.

Being of the same species isn't the question.

My TOENAIL is of the species homo sapiens sapiens, and yet, not considered to be horrific if snipped away from my human person.

How is it helpful to say that an embryo is of the human species when we are trying to establish if it is a human PERSON?

Thanks for your considerable effort.
This IS a really difficult and complex issue.

I appreciate your time.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 329 by Hamsaka]

Here's the point:

Obviously, parents, communities, and legal officials would all have the SAME OPINION if someone chose to save John and Mary's bucket of embryos over their two year old child in a burning building.

It's freaking obvious.

The rest is just rationalization for biased ideology and everyone with half a brain knows it.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 316 by Paprika]

Agreed.

Fetuses are living.
Sperm is living.
Unfertilized eggs in or out of e ovaries are living.

At no time are the components to a fetus "nonliving."

Every sperm is sacred, and we should subject to capital punishment every man and woman alive because each man and woman have allowed thousands or millions of potential human offspring to die in the normal course of daily living.

If you mean all of this ironically, then I have to agree.
With the opposite.

Right now.. I'm only ASSUMING that you are being ironic.

Is this your true position, or are you lampooning?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 311 by acapiz]

You are a person today, and unless you die or have your DNA spliced with an alien, you will be a human tomorrow despite any minor changes in a few organs due to what you eat or think.

A chicken egg is a chicken egg and not a chicken (fertilized or not) and this is proved by what you would label an egg if being paid to label which are eggs and which are chickens. Stop being ridiculous; it's silly.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 329 by Hamsaka]

Here's the point:

Obviously, parents, communities, and legal officials would all have the SAME OPINION if someone chose to save John and Mary's bucket of embryos over their two year old child in a burning building.

It's freaking obvious.

The rest is just rationalization for biased ideology and everyone with half a brain knows it.

That it is obvious doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it is reasonable or rational -- it just matters that it is OBEDIENT to their god's laws. That's it, it goes no further than that. All the dancing around is evidence there is nowhere else to go, no further information to be had.

I seriously, seriously doubt that a pro-life advocate would choose to save a bucket of embryos over a single child in any sense. The rhetoric is for 'display' only.

[acapiz]

Paprika Post 323:...............though of course fault lies with Christian leaders for not taking a firmer stance on this and carrying out church discipline accordingly.

I agree with you when you clearly illustrate the truth that embryos are human beings.
I also thank you for your reply. When confronted with the fact that most abortions are undertaken by 'Christians ', you suggest the above reasoning. I think that you err greatly in your opinion.

What you advocate here is outdated, old-school religion that has shown itself to be a failure. Why has it failed. Well, you can only lead for as long as people follow. Christian approaches to sex, birth control, women, etc, etc, are a legacy from the Dark Ages. The Christian intelligentsia who constructed this abstract order on the populace of their congregations did so without Divine or Common influence. People rejected it and now you want to whip them back in line. Good Luck with that, Paprika.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 335 by acapiz]

I think Paprika has a good point. The church leaders should be much more concerned with discipline and hard stances. Perhaps they could reinstate the inquisition (among themselves, of course) and put other Christians on the rack or burn them at he stake or use the "pear of despair" on them when they eat shellfish or wear clothing made out of two types of yarn or have an abortion or mow their lawn on the sabbath.

You don't disagree with that, do you?

[Paprika]

With the argument in hand, perhaps even to those inured against the humanity of the embryo by pro-abortion propaganda it may become clear why some might choose to save the bucket of embryos over the toddlers:

Depending on the maturity of the embryo, the bucket will contain two to three times in order of magnitude the number of human lives. The choice then easily follows.

Not even close. Your argument above conveniently leaves out reference to the personhood, the status as 'person', in regard to the embryo. You announce this is just not part of the issue, but announcing or claiming something doesn't make it so.

I announce that it is not part of the argument, which is entirely biological. Shall I take it that you admit that the argument is cogent?

It is a legal and ethical issue, with the appropriate bodies of medical and ethical research from which to draw guidance.

'Personhood' is merely a legal construction to justify preferential treatment (ie. 'blacks are 3/5th of a white person').

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 303 by Paprika]

Do you think the parents would appreciate you deciding in such a manner?

Somehow, I think the scenario highlights stupid reasoning and stupid rationalization required to produce such stupid reasoning.

I might just hurt their feels. What a travesty!