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]

[Replying to post 228 by DanieltheDragon]

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.

The case could be made for Christian fundamentalism's lobbying against reasonable sex education and contraception increases the number of abortions. But as I understand it, they are over a barrel; to obey their [strike]bible[/strike] god, they have to promote abstinence and sex only within marriage.

If they give too much information, what if it gives kids 'ideas' they wouldn't have had? Then the Christian would be at fault for misguiding a child. Contraception (if it's not a sin of its own) information is only appropriate for married couples.

The rest of 'em just aren't supposed to do it at all. I imagine it's similar to not teaching a child how to murder, or lie. Of course we don't want kids murdering, and explaining how murder is done when you don't want them doing it is silly.

The only choice to be made and stay obedient to God's word is to teach abstinence. It doesn't matter if abstinence programs do not work. Obeying God's word is what matters.

[Blastcat]

[
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.

Paprika wants to use whatever word he wants, then when proven absolutely wrong claim that he meant it the way some aborigine three thousand years ago meant it with a different pronunciation and that you should have realized that's what he intended. It's a strange way to argue, but I have to support it because it works against him. It means you can never be sure what he really means....it might turn out that he meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote...by the common usages of the terms.

So much for rational debate.

I have to agree. If we can't understand what someone might MEAN by any word, and such simple words as "lie"... then we can't expect to have a debate with that person. Debates rely on language.

[Paprika]

My apologies to one and all; I have been busy recently. But now to the fray:

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.

The embryo is living: that is a biological fact. As always, it is always amusing when the atheists try to deny basic scientific fact.

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

Not at all, merely reductio of the principle to absurdity: if people disagree on whether any single person should be killed, why not let all individuals decide?

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?

Is it that hard to see that my point was that letting individuals decide on any point where there is no consensus means that laws are nullified?

Proof please. Show evidence you speak the truth here.

They are the offspring of their parents. They are children

and b) they are living and

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

They're not, because they're not offspring of a father and mother. Do you concede that they are living?

c) they are living at conception.

Alive doesn’t equal human. But nice try.

Nonsense. They are human, because they are of the human species.

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?

That's not what I said. Try reading again.

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.

More accusations of lying? How unoriginal.

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

When someone denies a basic scientific fact, what else remains? There remains only mocking, like that creationists receive.

[Paprika]

I have most recently called you "friend,"

How friendly of you. Come, give me a hug!

Paprika wants to use whatever word he wants, then when proven absolutely wrong claim that he meant it the way some aborigine three thousand years ago meant it with a different pronunciation and that you should have realized that's what he intended. It's a strange way to argue, but I have to support it because it works against him. It means you can never be sure what he really means....it might turn out that he meant exactly the opposite of what he wrote...by the common usages of the terms.

So much for rational debate.

Hardly. Though not as common my usage of 'lying' is perfectly valid.

Look before you leap next time.

[Paprika]

I respectfully ask that you discuss the subject, and not quibble over what word is being used.

KenRu and I are free to quibble as we may. Please don't butt in; you don't own our conversation.

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.

The embryo is a child.

Did you not know that 75% of conception end in a miscarriage?

Did you not know that >99.9999% of lives end in deaths? So what if a certain stage of life is more hazardous than others?

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?

No, I disagree with the existence of an actual value difference, but allude to how many people believe there is a value difference, eg "I don't believe that you would choose this choice because <projection projection projection>".

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?

How is their gratefulness or ingratitude relevant?

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.

Need a tissue?[/b]

[Paprika]

Given that statistically most embryos never come to term, isn't it more accurate to call them "potential life"?

Given that statistically most people never live past a certain stage, say age 90...

[Paprika]

It has always amazed me the effort people will put in to not allow a women to decide to carry her fetus to term or not, all the while 75% of conceptions end in a miscarriage.

It's quite simple. We don't think that mothers should be allowed to kill their children, whether directly or through a proxy (medical staff).

[Paprika]

The reason I can see to make this vital 'grasp' is because it's the only way to salvage your position. It is hopelessly circular, past this point.

The denial is vital to salvage your position, because once you accept that abortion is killing children then for most people its moral viability collapses.

Which is why the pro-abortion activists have tried to dehumanise the unborn (as I've mentioned above).

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.

This is grotesque. Just, wow. Thankfully, the 'logic' your position relies upon defeats it, and no one in their right mind, you included, would carry it to it's logical conclusion.

Whether X is a child is orthogonal to whether feels have been developed with it.

In your above 'suggestion' (stated as a claim), you attribute pro-choice endeavors to dehumanize embryos to explain why we (no longer? nowadays?) regard the unborn as equal to 'a child'. Please provide support, even if it is a line of reasoning, to support society's 'shift' toward dehumanizing the unborn. That is all I ask. I gave you an example of how I observe that we have INCREASED the value of unborn offspring in a court of law. What is your example?

My examples are simple: the legalisation of abortion, and the public funding it has received.

As long as we have that cleared up . . .

The old abortion canard: since people disagree, let's let everyone do as they like. Which if consistently followed in all aspects of life would lead to chaos (theft, robbery, burglary, assaults, etc etc are obvious examples, but special pleading galore and attempts to ignore the absurdity a la KenRu)

I've changed my mind. It's worse than a 'personal preference'; this position has many shared characteristics of a pogrom, the forced imposition of an ideology religionists have determined is 'truth' upon everyone else. This position disregards huge swathes of human experience (namely the value of a child already born, nurtured and loved), so that it is conceivable to such a person that it is more ethical to save a number of blastocysts (embryos, by definition, are already implanted) over a single 3 year old child. I'm nontheist, but God help us, anyway.

So scare-mongering, alluding to theocracies, failing to address the argument. Typical progressive 'argumentation', in other words.

Until you provide evidence (not emotionalism or sentimentalism) supporting the unborn as a person of equal capacity and agency as that of a person once born, your principle is absurd, and it's outcome is . . . well, unspeakable.

Strawman. I'm not claiming that the unborn is of equal capacity and agency as that of a toddler, just as I wouldn't claim that the average child is of equal capacity and agency as the average adult. Try again.[/i]

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 227 by Lion IRC]

I don't know. Probably the one I felt I could get to safety more readily. Certainly a tougher choice than embryos versus a toddler. God didn't allow people with physical deformities in the temple, but women weren't allowed in the temple anyway. I assume that God would save the one without deformities, but if one was a male, perhaps he would save that one?

Which one would you save and why?

[Blastcat]

The embryo is living: that is a biological fact. As always, it is always amusing when the atheists try to deny basic scientific fact.

The embryo is living. Yes, we can agree on this scientific fact. Single cells are also living. But just because something is living does not mean it is human, or human yet.

A cell is potentially a human.. but not yet. A bunch of cells are living, but not yet human. Sperm is living, and is potentially a human. Eggs cells are living, and potentially a human.

But some things that are alive are not yet human. Are you denying that scientific fact?

and b) they are living and

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

They're not, because they're not offspring of a father and mother. Do you concede that they are living?

They are living and only potentially children. They are not children YET. They MAY become children, just as a bunch of CLOUDS may become a storm. Yet, not all cloud formations are storms.

You seem to mistake a potential for an actuality.

c) they are living at conception.

However, "living" does not mean "human", as there are many things that are alive and not human.

Nonsense. They are human, because they are of the human species.

Every human cell is of the human species. Every human sperm is of the human species. Every human egg is of the human species.

But a part is not the same thing as a whole. I'm beginning to see that your argument rests on the fallacy of composition. You should avoid it.

When someone denies a basic scientific fact, what else remains? There remains only mocking, like that creationists receive.

I have to agree that it is potential life for logical reasons. The part is not the whole for one thing. Human cells are not humans. They are parts of humans. If I cut my finger off, it is not a full human, but a part of a human, in this case, me.

You seem to think that fertilized eggs are humans. That's like saying that a chicken EGG is a chicken. I happen to think that an actual chicken is more of a chicken than an egg that MAY become a chicken.

A chicken is simply not an egg, a human is simply not an egg. Fertilized or not.

I am not trying to mock you. The abortion issue is very complex, and I can completely understand why people might not want to abort. But I will not pay much attention to RELIGIOUS reasons for it. Not for society making laws.

I only want to entertain RATIONAL reasons for it or against it.

I think that right now, it's pretty much up to opinion. We have tried to explain how free choice about abortion makes sense to us. You don't agree, and that's fine.

We don't think that your reasons are very convincing due to logical errors. But that's fine, too. You don't need a masters degree to make a choice. So, for YOU.. abortion is off the table. And that's fine.

Don't get an abortion. You think it's murder.

FOR SOMEONE ELSE, it might not be murder, and they might choose to get an abortion.

These are opinions, whether an embryo is a human or only a potential human. Most people in the world and in history have thought that embryos were NOT fully human.

Most people in North America happen to hold the opinion that abortions are not murder.

You seem to think that your opinion is fact. It's not fact. It's opinion.