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?

[KenRU]

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...

This is only relevant if one starts ignoring the definitions of words. Is that your argument now? If not, you are failing to make your point.

[KenRU]

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?

That is the million dollar question, imo. Which is why abortion should be left up to the mother and not anyone else (I am not arguing here for late term abortions, btw).

all the best,

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 256 by enviousintheeverafter]

Tam said:

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.

What I put in bold was eloquently said, and proceeds appropriately from the best of our current scientific and ethical frameworks.

In addition; the mother obliging the dependent fetus is one of several necessary conditions allowing it to proceed to personhood. Pro-life tends to focus entirely upon the mother's obligation, elevating it and moralizing it in spite of the dearth of clear condemnation, biblically.

When I was pregnant with both of my kids, I suffered the worst allergies to whatever was in the air, par none. My midwife explained that my immune system was partially deranged, due to housing a 'not-self' (the kid). Normally, a few 'not self' cells show up and they are toast, but the placental hormones inhibit maternal immune response to protect the little 'not self' percolating in there. The parasite analogies get worse the deeper one looks.

[/quote]

[Blastcat]

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

Sorry to hear that you promote slavery.

[Clownboat]

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.

You are correct, and thanks for showing our differing approaches at respectfulness. You did say please after all.

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.

This broad brush is not accurate.
I trust the readers have seen the pictures posted here of early stage embryos. Calling it a child is laughable IMO.
Either way, I hope you stick to this argument. It makes it easy show that the god you believe in is the biggest abortion-er of all.

To use your words, 75% of children end in a miscarriage.
OK readers, let's all consider his arguments against choice abortions now, but do try to take them seriously.

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?

So what!?! We are providing you with evidence as to why it is more accurate to call an embryo a potential life. 99.9999% of lives ending in death has no bearing on the fact that 75% of conceptions end in a miscarriage.

Readers ask yourself this. If someone were to point out that all lives end in death. Would any of you think about embryos? I would assume all of us would instantly relate this fact to being common with all the living members of our species.

According to your logic, I could say that 25% of embryos will make it to being born where they then fall into the 100% death scenario. As if anyone considers the 75% of miscarried embryos. I've been to lots of funerals, but never for an embryo. Miscarriages are just something we all know can happen, but it's not like they lost a child. They lost a potential child since it had a 25% chance of becoming an actual child.

I close friend of mine (and his wife) lost their 6 yr old daughter unexpectedly last year. They are still devastated obviously.
They had many a miscarriage trying to have their first child. Those were disappointments let's be sure, but not in the same ball park as the pain they still have over the loss of their daughter.

I'm pretty sure your argument (which you are totally free to have of course) would be an insult to them both though.

No, I disagree with the existence of an actual value difference, but allude to how many people believe there is a value difference, (leaving out this part I have not accused you of).

Right. As you claim, you would save 5 embryos over a 3 year old child. I accept this. Why did you dodge my question about whether or not there is a parent on this planet that would be thankful for your decision? Is it because every parent you know (and I for that matter) would be appalled if you saved their embryos (not matter the #) over their child?

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?

Bam!
There are some lines to read between. Thank you.

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?

No. My wife and I are done having kids. So you actually saving our embryos over one of our children can never be a reality for me to be sad over.

Besides, this is your bed... you sleep in it.

[Clownboat]

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...

This should be good Paprika.

Please, follow this logic to its full course. Please finish the sentence above that you started. Seriously, I want to know where you were going with this.

[Clownboat]

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).

I don't think mothers should be able to kill their children either.

It's almost like you didn't know abortion IS legal. Yet, why are we all not out killing are children?

Perhaps your rebuttal is nonsensical?

Embryo, fetus and baby... are words that have meanings. I trust it is not lost on the readers why you MUST focus on the word 'child' when describing embryos and/or fetuses. You must battle the English language IMO to even attempt to make the analogy above that you did.

We can euthanize our dogs after all, and they are a part of our family, so why can't we euthanize our entire family. Is this really the type of arguments that you find convincing?

[tam]

Okay, so thank you everyone for your responses and input. In attempting to formulate replies, I have been forced to confront some of my own reasons for not wishing to enforce my personal pro-life stance upon others. Not the position itself, just the reason behind the position. I would like to mull that over a bit before I comment further, since I am off to work and do not wish to respond in haste.

I can appreciate the complexity of the issue more thoroughly though.

Not because one (the mother) is human life and the other (the embryo/fetus/child/etc) is not... but because one life is tied up in (literally) another life. So whose rights should take precedence? Do we have the right to protect the rights of one, if that means violating the rights of the other? (not literal questions; just musing)


Talk more later, and again peace to you all.

[Blastcat]

Okay, so thank you everyone for your responses and input. In attempting to formulate replies, I have been forced to confront some of my own reasons for not wishing to enforce my personal pro-life stance upon others. Not the position itself, just the reason behind the position. I would like to mull that over a bit before I comment further, since I am off to work and do not wish to respond in haste.

tam, that's very reasonable of you.

It's one thing to hold that FOR YOU.. abortion is wrong and it's another thing for you to tell others that it's wrong for them. I now a lot of atheists who would NEVER consider having an abortion.

I was confronted by my own decision. I am PRO CHOICE and almost insanely so. But when the opportunity was presented to me.. abort a fetus or .. marry a woman and go through all of that?

I chose no. I said no. And I left the REAL decision up to the woman who WAS pregnant, after all. She decided to have the baby. She is now 24. I love her to bits. NO QUESTION.

But.. if my girlfriend at the time would have CHOSEN an abortion instead I would have supported her in that very difficult decision.

And my fantastically beautiful and wonderful daughter would not have been born. WOW... I'm kinda happy she was born. Love the kid, not so much the wife I had to get.

It turned out to be a VERY costly derision on our part.

I can appreciate the complexity of the issue more thoroughly though.

Thank you. Things are not always as simple as they first seem. Religions don't help in this regard. They complicate already complex problems even MORE.

Not because one (the mother) is human life and the other (the embryo/fetus/child/etc) is not... but because one life is tied up in (literally) another life.

I agree.. biology is a freaking MESS... I'm waiting for a brilliant ethical philosopher to figure all of this out for us. ONCE and for all...

So whose rights should take precedence? Do we have the right to protect the rights of one, if that means violating the rights of the other? (not literal questions; just musing)

But that's the issue. You nailed it.
From where I stand, I'm still pro choice if you ask me.. but personally? WOW.. hugely complex issue.

Talk more later, and again peace to you all.

I'm happy you dropped the slave thing.
It's way more respectful of real slaves past and PRESENT.

Peace to you , tam.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Not because one (the mother) is human life and the other (the embryo/fetus/child/etc) is not... but because one life is tied up in (literally) another life. So whose rights should take precedence? Do we have the right to protect the rights of one, if that means violating the rights of the other? (not literal questions; just musing)

This is indeed the problem- the sort of folk understanding of rights, both moral and legal, "ending where the next person's begins" gets completely confounded in a case like this, where the two overlap and conflict. In the case of abortion, one cannot affirm the right to bodily autonomy of the women without denying the right to life of the fetus, or visa versa. Something has to give, as a matter of logic.

But look at it this way- regardless of whether we're talking about morality or legality, we know for sure that one of these entities has the relevant status; the mother is clearly both a legal person and a moral agent. No disputing that. Everything hinges on the fetus- and it seems to me that any honest assessment has to conclude that the legal or moral status of a fetus is far from obvious or clear. According to most definitions of moral agency, a fetus simply doesn't come anywhere close to qualifying- it has none of the relevant features (the capacity for moral cognition/judgment, self-consciousness, linguistic ability, the capacity for morally praise/blameworthy actions, etc.), and the only definitions of moral agency which would include fetuses involve some highly contentious presuppositions (such as the existence of a soul or of God, or that personhood consists of nothing more than membership in the human species). So the legal/moral status of one of the parties is absolutely obvious and indisputable, whereas the other one is questionable at best. Put this way, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable justification for categorically preferring the questionable status of the fetus as a matter of law, and by extension its right to life, over and above the indisputable status of the mother, and her right to bodily autonomy. This is, at the very least, a strong argument for not legally prohibiting abortions, even if one happens to believe that fetuses are persons and that they have a right to life which outweighs the right to bodily autonomy of the mother- it seems only honest and objective to admit that, even if one thinks pro-life arguments and claims are ultimately correct, they are far from obvious or well-established.