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?

[KenRU]

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

Correction. It MAY be a child. Not all embryos survive (see Hamsaka's earlier reply for stats).

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.

You’re proving my point here.

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.

Cart before horse. You assume that everyone equates fetus with human being. You do not have a corner market on the truth here, despite your theology.

The fact that there is no consensus tells us exactly that – that there is no consensus.

So, I’ll turn the question to you, Paprika. Would you save the embyos, or the child crying?

IMO, it is a very fair question.

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

You keep forgetting the very salient fact that the embryo MAY or MAY NOT make it to child birth.

Do you think this is relevant? If not, why not?

and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.

No one here (that I am aware of) is advocating abortion as a means of contraception. The fact that seems inescapable to me, is that there is a disagreement about where life begins. No one has the cornerstone on that truth. And therefore, it should be left up to the individual to determine that truth.

Condemnation has no business in the discussion, imo.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 177 by Paprika]

I was assuming the common usage that is most used most of the time by most people. I wasn't considering strange and uncommon usages. You should have recognized that from the start and not gone off on such a nonsensical tangent. It would have saved you some embarrassment.

If you refuse to accept my kind and generous corrections and suggestions, then please, by all means, continue on in error, mistake, and misstatement. You seem to be on "the other side" so it's all the better to me.

[Paprika]

Correction. It MAY be a child. Not all embryos survive (see Hamsaka's earlier reply for stats).

Correction: it is the child, offspring of father and mother .

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.

You’re proving my point here.

Hardly, rather that emotional attachment (or lack of it) is partially due to distance and that it is therefore not necessarily linked only to value.

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.

Cart before horse. You assume that everyone equates fetus with human being. You do not have a corner market on the truth here, despite your theology

.
Not at all: my suggestion is that one reason people don't have attachment to embryos is because much effort has been spent to dehumanise it - which doesn't assume that everone equates fetus with human being.

The fact that there is no consensus tells us exactly that – that there is no consensus.

Your point being?

So, I’ll turn the question to you, Paprika. Would you save the embyos, or the child crying?

The embryos, as I answered in an earlier post.

You keep forgetting the very salient fact that the embryo MAY or MAY NOT make it to child birth.

Whether it makes it to birth is not relevant to whether it is a child, offspring of father and mother.

and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.

No one here (that I am aware of) is advocating abortion as a means of contraception. The fact that seems inescapable to me, is that there is a disagreement about where life begins. No one has the cornerstone on that truth. And therefore, it should be left up to the individual to determine that truth.

There is a disagreement about whether certain humans should be killed...and I think you know how this train of thought ends.

Condemnation has no business in the discussion, imo.

I might care a little more if you shared that opinion with others who condemn. Otherwise I'll just carry on my way.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 177 by Paprika]

I was assuming the common usage that is most used most of the time by most people. I wasn't considering strange and uncommon usages. You should have recognized that from the start and not gone off on such a nonsensical tangent. It would have saved you some embarrassment.

Hardly strange. If you had just a bit more knowledge about that word you might not have made the mistake of thinking that my description of "lying" was inaccurate. It's all right though, we all learn.

If you refuse to accept my kind and generous corrections and suggestions, then please, by all means, continue on in error, mistake, and misstatement. You seem to be on "the other side" so it's all the better to me.

Does this mean you've given up trying to find fault with my posts? Wonders will never cease, but you'll forgive me, I hope, if I don't hold my breath.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 182 by Paprika]

Oh, it is certainly strange that you would claim I was using an uncommon definition when the context PROVED I was using the common definition. (Yes, I was aware of the uncommon definition, I just never dreamed in my wildest imagination that anyone could be so bad at reading comprehension as to think I was using that definition) If you said, " my friend and I rowed the canoe to the opposite bank," I would show myself an idiot to claim you were talking about a financial institution. You knew I was using the common definition a yet demonstrated complete obtuseness with your useless badgering as if it wasn't absolutely obvious that your complaints were unfounded.

As to correcting you, you've proved you'd rather continue on in ignorant hubris even after you've been corrected with unassailable logic. Ill try to care for a dog's wounds for a while, but after it bites and attacks me repeatedly, I'll leave it to its disease. I leave you with your ineffective reasoning and poor argumentation that denies the obvious. Why shouldn't I?

I won't, however, rejoice in your future mistakes and bad argumentation, but rather I will pity your inability to learn simple lessons from those you merely disagree with ideologically.w

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 182 by Paprika]

Oh, it is certainly strange that you would claim I was using an uncommon definition when the context PROVED I was using the common definition.

No, I claimed that I was using the uncommon definition ("Lying can be unintentional, though the common usage is that of intentionally stating falsehood. Try again."). Try to keep up.

As to correcting you, you've proved you'd rather continue on in ignorant hubris even after you've been corrected with unassailable logic. Ill try to care for a dog's wounds for a while, but after it bites and attacks me repeatedly, I'll leave it to its disease. I leave you with your ineffective reasoning and poor argumentation that denies the obvious. Why shouldn't I?

You say you want to leave me and my 'errors' alone, but you just can't seem to help yourself, as evidenced by this post. Will there be many more?

[KenRU]

Correction. It MAY be a child. Not all embryos survive (see Hamsaka's earlier reply for stats).

Correction: it is the child, offspring of father and mother .

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.

You’re proving my point here.

Hardly, rather that emotional attachment (or lack of it) is partially due to distance and that it is therefore not necessarily linked only to value.

“Not necessarily�. Seems you allow for wiggle room.

The point here being that you can’t interact with an embryo because it is just that – an embryo. And, may or may not live. Hence the wiggle room is important.

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.

Cart before horse. You assume that everyone equates fetus with human being. You do not have a corner market on the truth here, despite your theology

.
Not at all: my suggestion is that one reason people don't have attachment to embryos is because much effort has been spent to dehumanise it - which doesn't assume that everone equates fetus with human being.

Neither of us know what the reason other people have for deciding on when they believe life begins.

The abortion conversation has been going on for a long time now. Might be best if everyone just agreed there is no consensus on the subject and let individuals decide for themselves, no?

The fact that there is no consensus tells us exactly that – that there is no consensus.

Your point being?

I’ve made the point numerous times. It should be a personal decision and not come with condemnation. No one “knows� when life begins. No religion is more “right� then another.

This, imo, shouldn’t even be a conversation. It should be left to the individual.

Unless you (the general you) are privy to some “truths� that have eluded the rest of us?

So, I’ll turn the question to you, Paprika. Would you save the embryos, or the child crying?

The embryos, as I answered in an earlier post.

This saddens me to hear.

Why? You know that, statistically, the embryos may not even survive, correct? The child IS already alive.

You value potential life more than existing life?

You keep forgetting the very salient fact that the embryo MAY or MAY NOT make it to child birth.

Whether it makes it to birth is not relevant to whether it is a child, offspring of father and mother.

So, if it was one embryo in a jar, and one 2 year old, which would you choose? And why?

and the progressive trend to normalise killing one's children is problematic, to say the least.

No one here (that I am aware of) is advocating abortion as a means of contraception. The fact that seems inescapable to me, is that there is a disagreement about where life begins. No one has the cornerstone on that truth. And therefore, it should be left up to the individual to determine that truth.

There is a disagreement about whether certain humans should be killed...and I think you know how this train of thought ends.

No, this disagreement is about when life begins. No need to muddy the waters. Once again, I remind you that this truth (about when life begins) cannot be “known�. Do you concede this?

Condemnation has no business in the discussion, imo.

I might care a little more if you shared that opinion with others who condemn. Otherwise I'll just carry on my way.

My conversation is currently with you, and not others. Would you prefer a more hostile conversation? I wouldn't.

I try to keep things civil in my conversations (and hopefully I am succeeding here) even when others don’t.

Otherwise, imo, no point in having the conversation.

all the best,

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 184 by Paprika]

That YOU were using an uncommon definition is evidence of your poor reading comprehension and/or debate tactics since you were discussing how I used the term and what I meant.

Oh, I wish nothing more than to encourage your behavior if it is as misguided and patently silly as it has been in your responses to me. When I post a reply to you, it is for two reasons: to show the reader of this threads your ridiculous process and to expose just how easy it is to use your own statements against your stated purpose. I have no intention of bringing any sense or reason to your methods. I though that was obvious, but I don't mind explaining it to you, I guess. I'll at least be honest, even if I no longer wish to help you see your errors.

[Paprika]

Correction. It MAY be a child. Not all embryos survive (see Hamsaka's earlier reply for stats).

Correction: it is the child, offspring of father and mother .

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.

You’re proving my point here.

Hardly, rather that emotional attachment (or lack of it) is partially due to distance and that it is therefore not necessarily linked only to value.

“Not necessarily�. Seems you allow for wiggle room.

The point here being that you can’t interact with an embryo because it is just that – an embryo. And, may or may not live. Hence the wiggle room is important.

Not at all. The point of the suggestion is this: the reason why some care more about toddlers is because of the distance involved is because of the distance and not because one is more human than another, just as most people would care more about their child than a stranger child halfway across the world that they've not interacted with at all.

Neither of us know what the reason other people have for deciding on when they believe life begins.

The abortion conversation has been going on for a long time now. Might be best if everyone just agreed there is no consensus on the subject and let individuals decide for themselves, no?

Shall we let individuals decide for themselves on everything for which a consensus does not exist? We could forget about most of the existing laws since there is no consensus on them.

Unless you (the general you) are privy to some “truths� that have eluded the rest of us?

Well, it appears to have eluded you that a) the unborn are children and b) they are living and c) they are living at conception. I'm not sure what other biological facts you have not grasped; further discussion is necessary.

Why? You know that, statistically, the embryos may not even survive, correct? The child IS already alive alive.

You value potential life more than existing life?

And the child might not survive to the next day. Both are humans, and both are living.

You keep forgetting the very salient fact that the embryo MAY or MAY NOT make it to child birth.

Whether it makes it to birth is not relevant to whether it is a child, offspring of father and mother.

So, if it was one embryo in a jar, and one 2 year old, which would you choose? And why?

Some, like Buridan's ass, would be paralysed between two essentially equivalent choices. I would flip a coin.

No, this disagreement is about when life begins. No need to muddy the waters. Once again, I remind you that this truth (about when life begins) cannot be “known�. Do you concede this?

The embryo lives. Life exists at conception.

My conversation is currently with you, and not others. Would you prefer a more hostile conversation? I wouldn't.

It hardly matters to me, but I'll accede to your request.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 184 by Paprika]

That YOU were using an uncommon definition is evidence of your poor reading comprehension and/or debate tactics since you were discussing how I used the term and what I meant.

False. I first used "lying" in post #159, and you were the one disputing the accuracy of the term, starting here.

Oh, I wish nothing more than to encourage your behavior if it is as misguided and patently silly as it has been in your responses to me. When I post a reply to you, it is for two reasons: to show the reader of this threads your ridiculous process and to expose just how easy it is to use your own statements against your stated purpose. I have no intention of bringing any sense or reason to your methods. I though that was obvious, but I don't mind explaining it to you, I guess. I'll at least be honest, even if I no longer wish to help you see your errors.

Are you always this reactive when you get caught out?