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?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 167 by Paprika]

You can say that you ar going to the store after work and be telling the truth because you have that intention and belief. I can say that I believe that you won't because of some other factor, such as I know your wife is having an emergency and will call you straight home.

I consider the example to be brilliant for obvious reasons. Your stated reasoning for it being "banal" had to do with the structure and the goal, not the example and method employed.

Think more critically and question your own arguments to avoid these mistakes you keep making.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 146 by Lion IRC]

Quit stalling and hiding. Try not to choke.

Save the many embryos or the one three year old??

ANSWER PLEASE

I needed to clarify that we are unequivocally talking about human lives of equal worth.
Now if that's conceded, as appears to be the case, then you have my answer.

So you'd put what effort you could into saving the embryos rather than the three year old.

The reason I'd save the three year old (hands down) is that a bucket full of embryos aren't even implanted in a womb. At best, 5 day old embryos (blastocysts) have a 60 to 74% chance of successfully implanting, and 37 - 68% chance of making it to full term.

A three year old has gone beyond such critical milestones of survival and has become self aware, and beloved of parents and family. So using your logic, numbers of potential children supercede, in importance, the sum of relationships and experiences of a single child.

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality (as the pro-life advocates depend on) results in unethical conclusions in real life. This is the hard part for me, personally, loving children and babies as I do and being a pediatric nurse. It's hard for all of us, and it should be if we have any humanity at all.

The (extremely) uncharitable and deliberately inaccurate propaganda of 'abortion on demand' has it's own set of consequences, too, which I don't see pro-life advocates taking any responsibility for.

It's just like any moral principle based on Divine Command. Seeking to 'obey' divine commands will inevitably leave the three year old to burn, for the sake of the UNaltruistic, yer-own-butt-saving so God won't send you to Hell obesiance to a god that has yet to even show up.

Well said and beyond argument IMO B

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 167 by Paprika]

You can say that you ar going to the store after work and be telling the truth because you have that intention and belief.

If an event doesn't happen, the statement that it would happen is false. Such a simple logical error, really now.

I consider the example to be brilliant for obvious reasons. Your stated reasoning for it being "banal" had to do with the structure and the goal, not the example and method employed.

Well, as you don't seem to be disagreeing with 'banal' or in anyway inclined or able to disprove it I won't press the point.

Think more critically and question your own arguments to avoid these mistakes you keep making.

Physician, you might want to heal yourself first (see above).

[Clownboat]

Me believing he would act differently in the situation is not an accusation of lying. I honestly believe he would act differently in the situation if it really occurred, even if he believes differently at this moment, not having been in the situation.

So you're not claiming that he's making a false statement? My bad, I suppose I am too generous in initially assuming that everyone is sufficiently straightforward such that their "I believe X" is equivalent to an "X is the case".

I have never seen convincing evidence of any god concept that would make me consider it as being true (I am open of course). Therefore at this point I think/believe all 'gods are human inventions' and this is therefore the case (according to you words I put in bold above)?

Are you sure this is how you assume things work? If so, I could win any argument with you by stating I believe "X".

I could state my doubt about this and claim that I would think you would not reason like you suggest, but we have been down that road already here, so I will leave you with your statement and method of arriving at 'how things are the case'.

[Blastcat]

[quote="Paprika"]

"I believe X" is equivalent to an "X is the case".

This is not a rational position, as what we may believe may at times NOT be the case.

[Clownboat]

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality

What the thought experiment reveals is that people are emotional and sentimental towards children,

Why would that be? Why would people be emotionally attached to children more than embyos?

Why isn't the answer obvious: that one MAY grown into a child while the other IS a child?

One is a child, and the other is a child

Am I being silly or is that why there is an emotional attachment to one and not the other?

One plausible reason is that most people don't interact with embryos and therefore don't have the chance to emotionally attach to them while the opposite is the case for children. Another is that the pro-abortion advocates has been for decades trying to dehumanise the unborn child eg. 'parasite', 'invader', 'not fully human', 'not a person' etc.

I submit if one chooses to save a possible child instead of an actual child that their priorities are askew - horribly askew. And it kinda proves Maher's point.

I submit the obvious points that both are children, human, offspring of their father and mother and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.

You need to understand the the word you choose to use in place of an embryo in this scenario is not important and not relevant. Call it the president of the United States for all it matters.

We are not discussing what to call an embryo, we have shown that there is a value difference via the analogy it would seem. (I do assume most readers provided themselves with an answer).

If you disagree, please explain who you would choose in the scenario and why. You are free to save the embryos after all, but if you would, please explain why.

Or... be 'banal' and dodge the analogy.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 171 by Paprika]

Fail.

Yesterday I told my boss I was going I leave early; however, something came up that prevented me from leaving early. My statement turned out to be false, but I did not lie. Likewise, one of my coworkers might have expressed disbelief because of the current workload. I did not lie, but my statement turned out to be false, and my coworker was justified in his disbelief. Think about your propositions before presenting them.

I'm not disagreeing with your use of the term "banal;" I am disagreeing with your reasoning to make the declaration. You don't seem to be examining all the relevant facts before making hasty comments. I'm trying to help you recognize and discontinue this habit, but you are welcome to continue in the same boring mistakes in logic.

[Paprika]

I suppose I am too generous in initially assuming that everyone is sufficiently straightforward such that their "I believe X" is equivalent to an "X is the case".
I have never seen convincing evidence of any god concept that would make me consider it as being true (I am open of course). Therefore at this point I think/believe all 'gods are human inventions' and this is therefore the case (according to you words I put in bold above)?

Are you sure this is how you assume things work?

No, as you misunderstand me: I give people the initial assumption that when they state "I believe X" that they are intending "X is the case"; now while there are many who would weasel away (eg. "it's just my opinion) I think it fitting to make the assumption that an unknown person would not do that unless there is evidence to that end.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 171 by Paprika]

Fail.

Yesterday I told my boss I was going I leave early; however, something came up that prevented me from leaving early. My statement turned out to be false, but I did not lie.

Lying can be unintentional, though the common usage is that of intentionally stating falsehood. Try again.

I'm not disagreeing with your use of the term "banal;" I am disagreeing with your reasoning to make the declaration. You don't seem to be examining all the relevant facts before making hasty comments. I'm trying to help you recognize and discontinue this habit, but you are welcome to continue in the same boring mistakes in logic.

I do think you have to try much harder to demonstrate any mistakes, because you're just failing to make any coherent or relevant objection.

[Paprika]

It is thought experiments like this that help us develop and refine our ethical sense. This thought experiment shows (well, it blares) that there are tangible and real differences between embryos and three year olds. Dismissing those differences results in absurd conclusions. If not absurd, unthinkable, or unspeakable ethical conclusions.

It also demonstrates why approaching the issue of abortion with emotionalism and sentimentality

What the thought experiment reveals is that people are emotional and sentimental towards children,

Why would that be? Why would people be emotionally attached to children more than embyos?

Why isn't the answer obvious: that one MAY grown into a child while the other IS a child?

One is a child, and the other is a child

Am I being silly or is that why there is an emotional attachment to one and not the other?

One plausible reason is that most people don't interact with embryos and therefore don't have the chance to emotionally attach to them while the opposite is the case for children. Another is that the pro-abortion advocates has been for decades trying to dehumanise the unborn child eg. 'parasite', 'invader', 'not fully human', 'not a person' etc.

I submit if one chooses to save a possible child instead of an actual child that their priorities are askew - horribly askew. And it kinda proves Maher's point.

I submit the obvious points that both are children, human, offspring of their father and mother and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.

You need to understand the the word you choose to use in place of an embryo in this scenario is not important and not relevant. Call it the president of the United States for all it matters.

It is important and relevant since KenRu has attached importance to the toddler as a 'child' while the embryo is potentially a 'child' - that is, important to the discussion between the two of us, so kindly pay us the courtesy of letting us continue discussing that freely.

We are not discussing what to call an embryo, we have shown that there is a value difference via the analogy it would seem. (I do assume most readers provided themselves with an answer).

I would agree that it would seem to some that you have shown a value difference, but really what is made apparent is that people have an emotional attachment to a human child while it is in one stage of development and not when it is in another.

If you disagree, please explain who you would choose in the scenario and why. You are free to save the embryos after all, but if you would, please explain why.

Or... be 'banal' and dodge the analogy.

As both the embryos and the toddler are human children, the key factor is thus the number and thus I would save the greater.