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?

[Clownboat]

Perhaps some are hesitant to answer the question differently, because they think that by assigning more value to one life over another life... somehow means that the lesser valued life is not life?

"Look at these two life forms. This one is shown to have more value, therefore, the other is not life."
This is illogical and no one has argued for such a thing.

I disagree, and explain below.

But this is untrue.

Yep, and arguing against it would be a straw man since no one has suggested such a thing.

Value does not determine whether something is or is not life.

Correct, and I think it would do this thread a disservice to continue to bring up such an idea since no one here seems to be putting said argument forward.

I see that this issue has been a part of this thread from the moment the 'thought experiment' with the 3 year old child and several embryos was brought up. What I put in bold above is the unstated, unacknowledged position the theists are working from, and Tam is clarifying that, perhaps bringing it up for the first time. But it's been there. The thought experiment's goal was to flush these 'values' out so they could be examined, instead of remaining hidden but still driving the 'logic' some theists are promoting.

You can see when Lion IRC and Paprika admitted they'd 'save the greater number' rather than the 3 year old -- they misapprehend the values they are trying to work with. Look at the consequences of such a set of values as Lion IRC and Paprika espouse. This thought experiment backs them into a corner, and to remain 'consistent', they had to DEVALUE the single 3 year old child to that of the several embryos. In their attempt to elevate the value of embryos, they succeed in devaluing the living child, its and its parents/families experience, its capacity for suffering. This is HOW we must develop ethics, take a situation to an extreme, plug in some values, and see what happens. As it turns out, the pro-life position, if acted out, results in an atrocity, something no one with a conscience could get on board with.

I agree with you.
What I was responding to was how the values don't determine if something is 'life' or not.
We as humans cannot agree on when 'life begins', therefore 'the value differences' that we can see cannot determine if something is 'life' or not.

I was hoping to cut off that debate before it could take place. IE: Value somehow ='s life.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 203 by Lion IRC]

None given. Embryos are not "lives."

So you can label me despicable and don't care about civility.


Embryos are lives.
You are wrong.

[Zzyzx]

'

None given. Embryos are not "lives."

So you can label me despicable and don't care about civility.

Has someone besides yourself labeled you despicable? If so REPORT them.

Embryos are lives.
You are wrong.

Opinion noted. Lack of support also noted.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 203 by Lion IRC]

None given. Embryos are not "lives."

So you can label me despicable and don't care about civility.


Embryos are lives.
You are wrong.

Even you agree it is 'despicable' to save a box of embryos over a single 3 year old child. Your so-called Christian evaluation of the embryos as multiple lives versus a single 3 year old life is how you arrived at your 'choice' to save the embryos. This thought experiment 'choice' you made doesn't make you despicable, it makes you a Christian adhering to a pro-life position.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 203 by Lion IRC]

None given. Embryos are not "lives."

So you can label me despicable and don't care about civility.


Embryos are lives.
You are wrong.

This sir is an embryo, care to amend your statement or define life for us. Because this is not a life sir. Or maybe you could be more specific as to what stage an embryo becomes life. Instead of saying blanketly that all embryos at all stages are life.

[Lion IRC]

'

None given. Embryos are not "lives."

So you can label me despicable and don't care about civility.

Has someone besides yourself labeled you despicable? If so REPORT them.

I'm not discussing reports or Moderator actions in here. Nice try.

Embryos are lives.
You are wrong.

Opinion noted. Lack of support also noted.

That's exactly right! Someone spews out a personal opinion - without evidence - and obviously they should expect quid pro quo gainsaying in return.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 223 by DanieltheDragon]

Look in any high school biology book you will find a standard definition of life. (Eight characteristics.)

In any case, the abortion-on-demand lobby frequently argue that such living creatures arent even human beings so who cares if they ARE alive.

So please don't use disingenuous arguments about biological definitions of life when the "choice" being argued for by pro-choice advocates is the choice to end a life.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 225 by Lion IRC]

I care about human embryos, just not as much as human three year olds. Embryos are alive, but hey are not "lives." They haven't done any living.

If it helps, I'd save live sperm or eggs if I could. I'd save embryos over the ALIVE sperm or eggs. I'd save two day old embryos over one day old embryos. Sperm, eggs, embryos, three year olds are ALL alive. But it we're talking about "lives" lived and to live, embryos got nothing on toddlers.

If fetuses were that big a deal to God, you'd imagine he's not allow so many miscarriages. There's no bigger abortionist than God.

[Lion IRC]

[Replying to post 226 by Hatuey]

There's two 3 year old girls in the room - one is in a wheel chair with cerebral palsy.
(Not really a viable living person, hasn't really lived, a high-needs cost to society.)
The other is "normal".
You can only save one.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to Lion IRC]

Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.

Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold.

The iterance of an embryo I gave lacks these four characteristics of life. It can't reproduce, it can't respond to stimuli, it can't regulate its internal environment(the female host does this), it can't adapt to survive.

But we both know you were not talking about the biological characteristics of being alive. We are talking about a thinking feeling entity not a clump of cells in a petri dish right? we are not talking about the red blood cells coursing through my veins and arteries? We are talking about a thinking breathing feeling entity. An individual if you will.

So please don't use disingenuous arguments about biological definitions of life when the "choice" being argued for by pro-choice advocates is the choice to end a life.

No it is not disingenuous because we don't call a woman's period the ending of a life do we? We don't call the ejaculation of sperm into a condom a mass genocide do we? It is important to make these distinguishments, I am not necessarily for abortion. I personally think 21 weeks is a bit to far along. However, there are plenty of unique situations that making blanket bans unreasonable and even late term abortions in certain situations are not inherently wrong.

One blatant reality that needs to be addressed is banning abortions won't end abortions. More effective means for reducing abortions include comprehensive sex education(which only exists in 22 states), and the distribution and ease of access to contraception. Abstinence only education is a failure and leads to increased rates of abortion.