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?

[Paprika]

It is a biological fact that embryos are organisms, acknowledged by authorities in the field.

Thank you.

Therefore, since human embryos are human organisms, they are members of homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore human embryos are humans.

A level of development is required before it qualify as members. It still makes no sense to call an chicken egg a member of any species.

If it is an human organism, it is a member of the human species. No 'development' is needed.

[Paprika]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

[Bust Nak]

If it is an human organism, it is a member of the human species. No 'development' is needed.

A member of the human species is a person. A level of development is required.

[KenRU]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

[Paprika]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

[Paprika]

If it is an human organism, it is a member of the human species. No 'development' is needed.

A member of the human species is a person.

That's a view or premise that you hold.

A level of development is required

So you claim.

Now, neither of these follows from the biology: a human is equivalent to a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, the embryo is a member of the species and so the embryo is a human.

[KenRU]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

Correction, I am arguing that by the Oxford definition, it is reasonable to assert that a blastocyst is not a Human Being. Just as it is equably reasonable to assert it can be considered a Human Being when using other dictionaries.

I used those 3 criteria as an example. That doesn't mean that I ignored the rest of the definition, nor does it give you the license to ignore the rest of the definition to argue your point.

What we do have, then, is the definitions of "Human Being" and "Child".

The full definition of Human Being (if it is to be understood and used - without circular logic) shows that a blastocyst can reasonably not be called a Human Being.

I have shown you the definitions (from Oxford) for "Human Being" and "Child" to show that it is reasonable and accurate.

Perhaps it would be time to acknowledge this?

[Paprika]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.
...
Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Seems to me, that they will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But they currently do not.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't. Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

Correction, I am arguing that by the Oxford definition, it is reasonable to assert that a blastocyst is not a Human Being. Just as it is equably reasonable to assert it can be considered a Human Being when using other dictionaries.

I used those 3 criteria as an example. That doesn't mean that I ignored the rest of the definition, nor does it give you the license to ignore the rest of the definition to argue your point.

What we do have, then, is the definitions of "Human Being" and "Child".

The full definition of Human Being (if it is to be understood and used - without circular logic) shows that a blastocyst can reasonably not be called a Human Being.

I have shown you the definitions (from Oxford) for "Human Being" and "Child" to show that it is reasonable and accurate.

Perhaps it would be time to acknowledge this?

Hardly.

By that same definition many children are not human beings. Are you willing to acknowledge this?

[Bust Nak]

That's a view or premise that you hold.

One shared by many. This time I have the dictionary to back this up.

Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person.

So you claim.

Now, neither of these follows from the biology: a human is equivalent to a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, the embryo is a member of the species and so the embryo is a human.

Again I point to egg and chicken, acorn and oak and so on, bearing in mind I am referring to the species, as opposed to a grown individual of the species.

[Paprika]

That's a view or premise that you hold.

One shared by many. This time I have the dictionary to back this up.

Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person.

Golly. An embryo is a human organism, therefore a member of the species Homo sapiens, and according to your reference it is therefore a human being and a person. So the reference you provide actually supports my point and contradicts your view.

So you claim.

Again I point to egg and chicken, acorn and oak and so on, bearing in mind I am referring to the species, as opposed to a grown individual of the species.

What now? You've already conceded that the human embryo is a human organism. Therefore it is a member of the human species.

Oh, and I'm still hoping you will elaborate on the earlier claim that "a level of development is required".