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]

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 .

Correction: Arguing that your preferred definition of 'child' is the truth gets no one anywhere. This is just repetitive bleating and insisting, a matter of personal preference.

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.

And that 'distance' is very important. It is a distance filled with the birth of a welcomed child, and the nuture, the growing attachment, the 'getting to know you', the rearranging of parental and extended familial lives around this child. All that falls into this 'distance', you would call that irrelevant?

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.[/quote]

Can you link to any articles or studies that show the general, say American consensus at one time was that a conceptus, embryo or fetus was just always regarded as a child, and then changed to a sentiment that it is otherwise?

The reason I ask is that it is now possible to charge a murderer for both the mother's and her unborn's life. It was not this way before. You are attempting to claim that 'society' was just bug eyed in love with every gestation from the git-go, and now those hideous pro-choice people have poisoned all our minds.

I say it can be shown through simple observation of the changing laws around murder that unborn humans were NOT always regarded as persons, and that this is a reflection of the ethics of a society that did not regard unborn humans as persons, either.

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

Your point being?

The point is all we have are points, and no consensus. You may have reached what you believe should be a consensus, but that does not mean a proper, useful consensus has been reached.

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.

That is merely your personal preference, and perhaps that of your fellow believers. It is another example of forgetting that one's preferred definition does not dictate reality.

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.

That train of thought could 'go that way', toward your unstated, vaguely threatening 'hint' at, I dunno, eugenics or something. But not necessarily. If that train of thought does NOT 'go that way' (the way you are using as a vaguely threatening 'hint'), then you would be wrong. This is not prophecy, in spite of the chill or thrill thinking it causes within you. I disagree, as we have come a long, long way ethically and morally, as our superstitious fears diminish in the face of human progress.

[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 .

Correction: Arguing that your preferred definition of 'child' is the truth gets no one anywhere. This is just repetitive bleating and insisting, a matter of personal preference.

Correction: that it is the child, offspring of father and mother, is vital to grasp.

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.

And that 'distance' is very important. It is a distance filled with the birth of a welcomed child, and the nuture, the growing attachment, the 'getting to know you', the rearranging of parental and extended familial lives around this child. All that falls into this 'distance', you would call that irrelevant?

It's not relevant to whether the fetus is a child or not.

Can you link to any articles or studies that show the general, say American consensus at one time was that a conceptus, embryo or fetus was just always regarded as a child, and then changed to a sentiment that it is otherwise?

The reason I ask is that it is now possible to charge a murderer for both the mother's and her unborn's life. It was not this way before. You are attempting to claim that 'society' was just bug eyed in love with every gestation from the git-go, and now those hideous pro-choice people have poisoned all our minds.

I am not making that claim, and your request must go unfulfilled.

The point is all we have are points, and no consensus. You may have reached what you believe should be a consensus, but that does not mean a proper, useful consensus has been reached.

I assume you have a point besides stating the obvious that people disagree on this topic.

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

That is merely your personal preference, and perhaps that of your fellow believers. It is another example of forgetting that one's preferred definition does not dictate reality.

It is hardly mere preference. Is it not the offspring of mother and father? Is it not yet a mature adult? It is a child.

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.

That train of thought could 'go that way', toward your unstated, vaguely threatening 'hint' at, I dunno, eugenics or something. But not necessarily. If that train of thought does NOT 'go that way' (the way you are using as a vaguely threatening 'hint'), then you would be wrong. This is not prophecy, in spite of the chill or thrill thinking it causes within you. I disagree, as we have come a long, long way ethically and morally, as our superstitious fears diminish in the face of human progress.

The train of thought is to highlight the absurdity of the principle invoked: if there is a disagreement, if no one has the cornerstone on that truth, then it should be left to the individual to determine that truth. So, not everyone agrees about whether many people should be killed...so do we let the individual decide?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 188 by Paprika]

Unless they somehow advise me, I find it most reasonable to believe that people use a word the way it is commonly used instead of an obscure an uncommon meaning. If you intended the obscure and uncommon meaning, you should have been careful to let me know when you used it. Your mistake.

Are you alaways this boring and antagonist when you keep finding yourself in error over and over? I am grateful for your behavior because of what it proves about your state of mind and your inability to reason properly with normal terminology. It's helpful information for those who engage you. Perhaps I should follow what seems to be your model and take joy in your continual flaunting of your own errors, but I'm just not that way.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 188 by Paprika]

Unless they somehow advise me, I find it most reasonable to believe that people use a word the way it is commonly used instead of an obscure an uncommon meaning. If you intended the obscure and uncommon meaning, you should have been careful to let me know when you used it. Your mistake.

Finally, you grasp that I was the one who first used "lying", and I used the uncommon meaning. Now, I don't tend to use footnotes when there can be possible ambiguity, but if you ask nicely I might make an exception for you.

Are you alaways this boring and antagonist when you keep finding yourself in error over and over? I am grateful for your behavior because of what it proves about your state of mind and your inability to reason properly with normal terminology. It's helpful information for those who engage you. Perhaps I should follow what seems to be your model and take joy in your continual flaunting of your own errors, but I'm just not that way.

Being verbose and condescending isn't going to erase the fact that you slipped up multiple times from either of our memories. Just admit error and move on.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 192 by Paprika]

I admit zero errors. You have made many mistakes. When using a term in a way it is rarely used, it is up to the author to make his meaning clear. It's the rule, not the exception, but I certainly don't expect you to understand that fact, nor consider it, nor change to what is right and proper. Rather, I expect you to keep making the error over and over and blaming the person who interprets the term the way it is most often used while you carry on your idiculius silliness for pages and pages. It's what I expect and desire you to do.

Pretending you haven't made multiple errors while claiming your opponent has made many when in fact he has made non is simply your style of debate. I would never expect you to "admit it and move on," so please don't. Carry on EXACTLY as you have until now, friend.

[Paprika]

I admit zero errors.

And that's your problem. How truly sad.

[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.

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.

No, the point of the analogy is to illustrate that some people see a difference between potential life and existing life. Some people, obviously which you are one, do not see a difference.

Recognizing and respecting the other point of view seems like the civil thing to do.

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?

Grasping at straws already? I’m very disappointed. Why does one necessitate the other?

We could forget about most of the existing laws since there is no consensus on them.

Right. One equals the other. Since you are so keen on bringing law into this conversation, we currently do have a law which states abortion is legal. So, according to you, case closed?

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

Proof please. Show evidence you speak the truth here.

and b) they are living and

So are sperm cells and eggs. Are they children too?

c) they are living at conception.

Alive doesn’t equal human. But nice try.

I'm not sure what other biological facts you have not grasped;

Apparently, I am unable to grasp that your version of biological facts are facts at all.

further discussion is necessary.

I agree.

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 think the child not surviving to the next day is the same kind of odds as an embryo living to birth?

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.

I call major BS here. Sorry. You really want to argue that if you had to decide between your crying 2 year old and your embryo, you would flip a coin?

Sorry, but I call BS. I don’t believe it.

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.

Says you. Many call it potential life. Repeating yourself does not make it a fact.

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

It hardly matters to me,

Civility hardly matters to you?

but I'll accede to your request.

How magnanimous of you.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 194 by Paprika]

What's sad is that you fail to recognize that I haven't made any in our discussion. You used an obscure definition that isn't used often and became emotionally overwrought when you were called out on it.

I tried to help you, and you became antagonistic.

I explained that I would not bother to attempt to assist you in fixing your errors, and you became boring and antagonistic.

I encouraged you to continue exactly as you have shown yourself to be, and you attempt to fool the readers of this thread into thinking I made a mistake that I did not make.

I admit my errors when I make them; when some arrogant blowhard pretends to be in the right when all the proven facts show he is wrong, I merely pity him.

I have most recently called you "friend," and I have been gracious enough to attempt to walk you through the missteps you continue to make.

I appreciate your intensity, but I KNOW your method of debate turns people away from your arguments and their conclusions. Thus, I approve while feeling sorrow for such wasted effort and obvious blindness.

DO CARRY ON EXACTLY AS YOU HAVE BEHAVED SO FAR!!

[Blastcat]

[quote="Paprika"]
[
Lying can be unintentional, though the common usage is that of intentionally stating falsehood. Try again.

Oh you mean your UNCOMMON usage of the word.. you should have SAID... now it all makes MUCH more sense.

[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.

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.

I respectfully ask that you discuss the subject, and not quibble over what word is being used.
The analogy is focused on the differing 'values'. So calling it a child, and embryo or the president of the United States matters not. I fear you are arguing words to distract from what I assume is obvious here. Calling an embryo a potential child is accurate anyway. Did you not know that 75% of conception end in a miscarriage?

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.

It's almost like you disagree with there being a value difference, but then allude to how there is a value difference. See the bold for one reason YOU suggest for there being a value difference. Where do you stand here, it's getting hard to follow you?

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.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. As a parent, I would ask you to put yourself in one of your neighbors shoes. Pretend it is their 3 yr old and their embryos. I know you would save the embryos because there are greater numbers there, but do you honestly know a single parent on this planet that would be grateful for your decision to save their embryos over their 3 yr old?

I would rather lose a million of my embryos before I would lose one of my daughters.
You are entitled to your opinion of course, I just hope you are the only person on the planet that would save the embryos. It's hard to believe you, but I do and I'm sad as a parent.

Especially since 75% of conceptions end in a miscarriage. And then to think you would save embryos from a fire over a 3 yr old.
I love my children, and I loved them as embryos that I truly hoped would make it to full term and be born. But to even suggest that the values are close to equal is not a reality for me and most of the readers here I would assume.

The idea of losing a whatever you want to call it after conception (but before birth) is sad (I'm a realist and know about the 75% figure), but to lose one of my girls would devastate me. Please consider this if ever in a burning building or when discussing whether a women should be the person to decide to attempt to carry a fetus to full term over a 3rd party.