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?

[Blastcat]

.

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?

For that matter, when would we distinguish a child from an adult?
when does day actually become night?

When is it that a drop of water becomes an ocean?
When does sky become space?

All matters of opinion.

But yet, we CAN make distinctions between these different states of being.
Apparently, the pro-lifer can't.

[tam]

I see two choices for the status of human to be assigned: conception or birth. For the (fertilized) human and the chicken egg alike.

If birth, then we are saying that a 9 month old fetus is not human. But if someone chooses a stage before birth but at any other time other than conception, then they bear the burden of explaining at what point in that gradual developmental stage is the crossing over point from non-human into human.

I think this dilemma is present with or without religious reasons.


Peace again.

[Blastcat]

I see two choices for the status of human to be assigned: conception or birth. For the (fertilized) human and the chicken egg alike.

If birth, then we are saying that a 9 month old fetus is not human.

I would agree that birth isn't a good criteria, and not many people support that notion. I have seen completely developed chicks in the egg... These are chicks.. not yet "born" .. but completely chicks in every way otherwise. Feathers and all....

But if someone chooses a stage before birth but at any other time other than conception, then they bear the burden of explaining at what point in that gradual developmental stage is the crossing over point from non-human into human.

I agree again. Yes. We have to establish a cut off point. Opinions differ.

I think this dilemma is present with or without religious reasons.

I agree. Many of my atheist friends don't agree with my views on abortion. But adding RELIGIOUS sensibilities to the question doesn't help at all.

The dilemma is complicated enough.

Peace again.

Thank you for not supporting slavery.
It really matters.

Peace to you, tam.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 250 by tam]

What about viability?

If the fetus MUST steadily receive nutrients through a specialized, attached organ (placenta and umbilical chord) then it is "parasitic" and may be disposed of as any other living parasite. (You have billions of animals living in your body and on your skin that you kill with showering or pooping and etcetera).

I could accept that a fetus is human when it can survive outside the womb with a supply of something like mothers milk. Don't many states draw the line at that approximate point?

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 250 by tam]

What about viability?

If the fetus MUST steadily receive nutrients through a specialized, attached organ (placenta and umbilical chord) then it is "parasitic" and may be disposed of as any other living parasite. (You have billions of animals living in your body and on your skin that you kill with showering or pooping and etcetera).

I could accept that a fetus is human when it can survive outside the womb with a supply of something like mothers milk. Don't many states draw the line at that approximate point?

Since a fetus is heavily dependent upon the mother until viability, clearly abortion cannot coherently be compared to any case of killing another entity (leaving aside the fact that fetuses are not moral agents or persons)- at best, the situation would be comparable to having someone who requires intensive care to stay alive, and you refusing to provide that care. The difference between killing someone and not keeping them alive. Of course, any significant moral differences between the two cases are rendered moot by the aforementioned fact; fetuses lack any/all of the features pertinent to moral agency and thus personhood and moral status.

[tam]

Parasites are not the same species as their host. They do not grow into the same species as their hose. Parasites are also an intruder; whereas both parts of a fertilized egg are human. Human sperm, human egg, creating a human being.


The fertilized egg is inherently human. There is nothing non-human in it, and it will develop into a fully developed human being - unless something or someone prevents that.


As for viability outside the womb, that could be a valid point, and is worth considering. But that time of viability changes with our scientific and technological advancements. A 5-6 month old fetus, once born today... is capable of surviving now with help from neo-natal equipment. But twenty years ago, there would have been no chance.

Was there a crossing over point... or did our technology just get better, enabling us to assist a human being born underdeveloped.

Giving a pregnant woman steroids during her pregnancy at a certain point, especially when pre-mature delivery has become a possibility (like a fall, which is what happened with me and my son)... this can speed the development of the fetus's yet undeveloped lungs.


Peace again, and to you as well Blastcat (though I am still a - willing - slave of Christ)

[Hamsaka]

I see two choices for the status of human to be assigned: conception or birth. For the (fertilized) human and the chicken egg alike.

If birth, then we are saying that a 9 month old fetus is not human. But if someone chooses a stage before birth but at any other time other than conception, then they bear the burden of explaining at what point in that gradual developmental stage is the crossing over point from non-human into human.

Because a majority of all persuasions agree a fetus is indistinguishable from a new baby more or less from the age of viability (around 24 - 25 weeks at the earliest), a great deal of investigation has gone into determining when a fetus' has the capacity to have an experience. At 20 weeks of development, the sensory neurons and their corollaries in the brain are 'hooked up'. Prior to that, the capacity to suffer pain, for instance, is not there, and can't be 'sentimentalized' into existence or relevance except by the person carrying a pregnancy.

There's been a lot of work done to address the ethics, both medical and philosophical, and serious investigation into the consequences. Many straw men are put forth by pro-life advocates to distract from this fact.

I think this dilemma is present with or without religious reasons.

Peace again.

Agreed on that last point. There is an entirely secular anti-abortion movement, here's the link http://www.secularprolife.org/ . I listened to a formal debate between SPL's president Kelsey Hazzard and Matt Dillahunty, and my take-away is that the secular pro-life position relies entirely on sentimentality (sans doctrine/dogma from religions). I'm hopelessly sentimental when it comes to children and babies, including the little fellers still 'in the oven'. Even so, my sentimentality ought not to become legislation beyond my own sphere of influence.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Parasites are not the same species as their host. They do not grow into the same species as their hose. Parasites are also an intruder; whereas both parts of a fertilized egg are human.

While true, this is sort of incidental to the parasitism of the parasite. The same relationship holds between the mother and the fetus that distinguishes parasitism; i.e. the relationship is non-mutual, with the one organism benefiting at the expense of the other. Its exactly like a parasite- only of the same species. This appears to be the only significant difference. But the sense in which a fetus is like a parasite happens to be salient feature; this dependence is both necessary (for the survival of the fetus or parasite species) and non-mutual. Refusing to facilitate such a relationship- with the consequence that the fetus cannot survive- is clearly of a much different order than killing something which is independently viable.

The fertilized egg is inherently human. There is nothing non-human in it, and it will develop into a fully developed human being - unless something or someone prevents that.

Not exactly, or at best this is misleading; they will develop into a human being, provided the mother continues to oblige its need for this non-mutual dependency. In other words, as long as the mother continues to participate in a relationship that is parasitic in a significant way. Again, its comparable to the difference between failing to keep someone alive at one's own expense, and actively killing someone. Abortion is comparable to the former, not the latter.

[Zzyzx]

.
Hamsaka sums it up beautifully with:

I'm hopelessly sentimental when it comes to children and babies, including the little fellers still 'in the oven'. Even so, my sentimentality ought not to become legislation beyond my own sphere of influence.

[KenRU]

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.

Please show me where I said that embryos are not alive, or retract this accusation.

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 disagree that the picture in Post 223 by Daniel should be called a person.

By the same absurd argument, sperms and eggs should be protected – and this can be carried on to even greater absurdities.

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?

No, it is hard to see how anyone has the right to tell a mother that the picture in Post 223 has more rights than the mother. Is that hard to understand?

Proof please. Show evidence you speak the truth here.

They are the offspring of their parents. They are children

Not what I meant. They might become offspring and they might become a child (using the primary definition of the word child in the dictionary). You do not know this will happen. 75% of pregnancies never come to term. That makes you only 25% right.

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?

I concede the picture in the post mentioned above is a form of life. Do you concede that it will most likely never be born – due to natural means?

c) they are living at conception.

Alive doesn’t equal human. But nice try.

Nonsense. They are human,

The picture mentioned above will become human. There are other words we can use that are far more accurate.

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.

Then you didn’t get my point. Perhaps you should 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.

Actually, you’re the one who said you’d flip a coin, when deciding between a 2 year old child and the picture in Post 223. Do you stand by that statement?

“Sorry little Johnny. Mommy and daddy flipped a coin, we can only save the jar containing your 75% likely-to-die sibling and not you."

This is what you’d like me to believe?

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?

Given that my statement is more accurate than yours (that most pregnancies never come to term) calling it potential life is inarguably more accurate than your assertion. Feel free to argue otherwise.

There remains only mocking, like that creationists receive.

I apologize if you think I mock, I don’t. Consider my tone a mixture of incredulity and bewilderment – not mocking.

All the best,