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?

[Paprika]

The embryo is living. Yes, we can agree on this scientific fact.

That is great. But you must excuse me if I carry on discussion with others who disagree on this issue.

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?

I do not deny that. Now work through with me: is not the DNA of the embryo human? So it is human. Now, is it not an organism, unlike hair or skin cells? It is therefore a human.

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.

They are offspring, children of their father and mother.

You seem to mistake a potential for an actuality.

Not at all. I affirm that the fetus and the embryo are the direct offspring of their father and mother, and therefore their children.

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

Quite so, my dear fellow. You must, however, allow that since I was in a discussion with a poster who disagreed on that very point, pressing that point in a post directed at him is perfectly valid.

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.

You move too quickly, my friend. I've only exposited on the first part of the argument, which is the easiest and the most uncontroversial. We now move on to whether the embryo is an organism.

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

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. [/quote]
A chick is not a chicken, and MAY become a chicken. A chicken is more of a chicken than a chick.

A child is not a mature adult of its species, therefore the adult is more of its species than one in an immature stage of development that may not be mature.

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

Mere assertions.

We don't think that your reasons are very convincing due to logical errors.

What logical errors?

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.

For SOMEONE ELSE, killing you may not be murder but justified killing and they might choose to kill you.

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.

Whether killing you is justified (or not) are mere opinions.[/i]

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 231 by Paprika]

Which definition of "lying" are you implying with your accusation? Therarely used definition that is perfectly understandable and acceptable or the commonly used one that is harsh and demeaning? Certainly there no way to determine from your post history and childish histrionics when someon imagines you are using the used, common definition rather than the hardly used one.

[Zzyzx]

.

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

Okay. Agreeing (for the moment / sake of discussion) that embryos are living.

Hundreds of thousands of embryos produced by IVF programs are not implanted but are destroyed.

How is destroying those embryos any LESS destruction of life than when an embryo is destroyed via abortion? Why aren't those embryos a major issue with "Pro-Life" proponents? Emotionalism? Moralizing?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 240 by Hatuey]

You know what would be hilarious, guys?

Imagine that parents John and Mary have a three year old "Sally" and four embryos in a room. You are in that burning room with Sally and the embryos. You save the embryos and let Sally fry. The reason you give to John and Mary is the reasoning provided by the pro lifers on this thread.

Would that be fun and funny? I bet that john and Mary and the police and the community would be so happy and grateful for you doing the right thing and saving the embryos.

[Blastcat]

The embryo is living. Yes, we can agree on this scientific fact.

That is great. But you must excuse me if I carry on discussion with others who disagree on this issue.

Some people say that embryos aren't living? Weird idea. But yes, go ahead with those who disagree on that point. It's odd that anyone would think that living cells are not cells that are living ?

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?

I do not deny that.

Good, then we agree that some things that are alive are not human things.
Thanks for the clarification.

This is my point about human embryos, by the way ... alive but not yet humans, but only potentially humans.

Now work through with me: is not the DNA of the embryo human?

I am quite happy to work with you.
It's been a lot of fun so far.

Human DNA isn't a human being. But I have to agree that human DNA is human DNA, if that's what you meant...

So it is human. Now, is it not an organism, unlike hair or skin cells? It is therefore a human.

You will find DNA in hair and skin cells. Hair and skin are PARTS of humans, but not fully human beings themselves. We don't say that hair and nails are beings. We say that they are PARTS of beings. But we don't fret too much over cut HUMAN hair or nails. Yet , they contain DNA...

DNA is USUALLY defined as a nucleic acid and not as a human person. Is destroying human DNA ( acid ) tantamount to murder to you?

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.

They are offspring, children of their father and mother.

And yet, a cell is not a child.
A cloud is not a storm.
The part is not the whole.

This is the classic category error. You should avoid the fallacy as it invalidates any argument built on it.

Even a whole LOT of cells do not amount to one child. It's as if you think the words "cells" and the word "child" means the same thing. To me, those two words have two distinct meanings.

Even a whole LOT of clouds are not the same thing as a storm.

You seem to mistake a potential for an actuality.

Not at all. I affirm that the fetus and the embryo are the direct offspring of their father and mother, and therefore their children.

So this word "offspring" is the same as "child" to you..I agree that in some way, that's true. BUT an offspring may not be yet human. A conglomerate of cells is not what I call a human or a child.

You say that BECAUSE a bunch of cells come from parts of a mother and parts of a father that this is human. But it's not human yet. It only has the POTENTIAL of being a child. I suppose we have very different definitions for the word "child".

I suppose that you mean that a human fertilized egg is a child, whereas, I only see a fertilized egg as a potential child, and not YET a child. To become a human BEING means more to me than a fertilized egg. When I look at an egg, I don't see a child.

Do you think that all fertilized eggs are the animals that produced the eggs? There is no difference between an egg and a chicken or an egg and a snake or an egg and a duck billed platypus, or an egg and and an ostrich?

Eggs ARE what they will change into?

But changing the word "child" for "offspring" doesn't address the issue of POTENTIAL child or POTENTIAL offspring. I call this kind of word substitution word play. Changing a word to a synonym doesn't add to the debate. It just changes the word, but not the meaning of the words, and I find that ... quite useless.

Use the words you want.. but substituting ONE word for another doesn't add facts.

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

Quite so, my dear fellow. You must, however, allow that since I was in a discussion with a poster who disagreed on that very point, pressing that point in a post directed at him is perfectly valid.

Ok, good, we agree. Thanks for clarifying that.

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.

You move too quickly, my friend. I've only exposited on the first part of the argument, which is the easiest and the most uncontroversial. We now move on to whether the embryo is an organism.

I would call an embryo an organism, but an organism might not yet be a HUMAN being, as there are potential human beings and actual human beings. Both are organisms.

But just because something is an organism doesn't mean it's a HUMAN BEING organism, as some organisms are only POTENTIALLY human beings, and not human beings YET.

You seem to forget that somethings are only POTENTIALLY true. As clouds are only POTENTIALLY storms.

A fertilized chicken egg is a potential chicken organism, for example. The organism we call the chicken EGG is different than the organism we call a chicken ...

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

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. [/quote]

A chick is not a chicken, and MAY become a chicken. A chicken is more of a chicken than a chick.

A chicken IS a chicken. A chick is a YOUNGER chicken, but we aren't TALKING about chicks or chickens, but EGGS.. and eggs are not chicks OR chickens. It's apparent to me that your whole argument rests on category error and word play.. OFFSPRINGS and ORGANISMS.... Eggs are chicks? Not in my book.

A child is not a mature adult of its species, therefore the adult is more of its species than one in an immature stage of development that may not be mature.

Yes, I agree, that a chicken EGG is more like a chicken than a HUMAN egg... but both are only potentially chickens and humans. As soon as you say that something is MORE like... you are saying that it's not QUITE EXACTLY LIKE. And that would agree with my position.

An embryo is MORE like a human being than other things.. but a human embryo is NOT a human being.

You are talking about children. Fetuses are not children. You conflate words together to make your point. That's not a valid form of argumentation. It's word play.

What applies to apples might not apply to oranges.

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

Mere assertions.

Well, take an egg. And then, take a chicken. Look at the two. Can you see any differences? MOST people do. When I eat a fried egg, for example, I don't mistake it for a roasted breast of chicken....

We don't think that your reasons are very convincing due to logical errors.

What logical errors?

1. Category errors. Parts of a set is not the whole of a set. You call a part human a total human.
2. Conflation of terms. You call a human embryo a human being. You call an egg a chicken by that standard. Eggs are not chickens. You conflate the two to be identical things. ( and that causes a category error .. )
3. Word play. Instead of talking about facts, you want to discuss the meanings of words like "offspring" and "organism".. however, the different meanings that words can have do NOT replace the facts of the issue.
4. You seem to think that your opinions about when human life begins are facts. We don't agree that you are bringing facts. We are in a debate about your opinions about what the facts are. And we don't agree. We have different opinions about what the facts are. Opinions aren't facts. This is another form of category mistake you're making.

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.

For SOMEONE ELSE, killing you may not be murder but justified killing and they might choose to kill you.

But we are not talking about human adults. We are talking about human embryos. Apples and oranges. We understand how killing actual humans is wrong. We don't understand that killing POTENTIAL humans is wrong. There is a difference.

You seem to deny the difference.

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.

Whether killing you is justified (or not) are mere opinions.[/i]

But the issue ISN'T about someone killing me. It's about someone killing a potential human. This is apples and oranges again. You conflate the two terms ( human and potential human ) to make your point.

You seem to be saying ( and correct me if I'm wrong )

That a fetus is a child.

Is that correct? You don't see any difference between a fetus and a child?

Well, some people CAN see differences between fetuses and children. We can make the distinction that you cannot.

Does that sum up the disagreement between your position and my own?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 240 by Hatuey]

You know what would be hilarious, guys?

Imagine that parents John and Mary have a three year old "Sally" and four embryos in a room. You are in that burning room with Sally and the embryos. You save the embryos and let Sally fry. The reason you give to John and Mary is the reasoning provided by the pro lifers on this thread.

Would that be fun and funny? I bet that john and Mary and the police and the community would be so happy and grateful for you doing the right thing and saving the embryos.

To make your story even more hilarious.. make it a bizzilon embryos saved and one young girl fried. That savior would be the greatest hero known to mankind. ( ok.. not more than Jesus of course.. or Yahweh.. he only drowns living beings. )

[Zzyzx]

.

Eggs are not chickens.

Exact and to the point.

Even a fertilized egg is NOT a chicken. Likewise even a fertilized human egg is not a human.

Most of us have probably eaten fertile eggs, particularly if we purchase "free range" eggs. Did we eat a chicken for breakfast?

Stretching definitions is a ploy often used to support weak positions.

[tam]

Peace again to you all,

So when does a fertilized egg (not just an egg which is what a woman has within her) become human?

[dianaiad]

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.

Moderator Comment

One of the things that makes this forum unlike many others is that we TRY to avoid making things personal. Please address the content of posts rather than making sharp, personal comments to the writer of them.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Zzyzx]

.

So when does a fertilized egg (not just an egg which is what a woman has within her) become human?

Greater minds than ours debate the issue. People who devote careers to studying the mater and related issues have not come to agreement.

Therefore, those who purport to KNOW are blowing smoke. It is still just a matter of opinion (often involving or based upon unverifiable religious beliefs).

When would we distinguish between an egg and a chicken?