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?

[BwhoUR]

[Replying to post 294 by Hatuey]

My SINGULAR point is that men should not be forced into economic fatherhood without consent. THAT IS HE POINT.

Thank you for your clarification. Your opinion is clear.

Men have ZERO rights over any woman's body. Duh. Never even implied otherwise.

Thank you for answering the question. Your opinion is very clear.

Men should LEGALLY be allowed to denounce ALL responsibilities of fatherhood until past the date when an abortion would be legal for the mother. (Unless uninformed of the fact--then the father should be given an appropriate amount of time to decide upon fatherhood).

In other words it should not be LEGAL for fatherhood to be thrust upon any man who is not aware of has not agreed to such a role. THAT would be equality.

Thanks again for your opinion on the topic.

Of course men can't bear children or force the mother into any action with her body. How ridiculously absurd. The issue is that of LEGAL entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father. Simple. Really. Think about it.

We agree that men can't bear children at this time.. ( I think???)

And we agree that men should not force women to bear children against their will.

The issue you are raising is that of the legal entrapment and slavery of men who had no choice in being a father.

Thanks for your opinion on that, too.

Blastcat, since you had access to all my posts and were wrong to cut them into sections that did NOT express the clear intent I stated,

I cut people's posts up in little pieces to address the ideas of the little pieces. I'm doing that now..

Do you think this is a bad technique?

When I quote someone. I at LEAST am not trying to misrepresent their words.
If there is a misunderstanding, we can clear it up in debate.

I didn't intentionally cut your words up to misrepresent them, I guarantee. It's just not something that I do. I DO however, sometimes MISUNDERSTAND what people mean.. and then I usually ask questions so that I can understand.

Not a good method, in your estimation?
I didn't do it well in this case?

Could you give me examples of where I went wrong?
I can guarantee you that if I find a mistake. I will gladly correct it.

But vague accusations don't help me learn.
I learn a LOT by my mistakes.. so don't hesitate to show me where I went wrong.

I expect an apology and an a outline of joe our positions are in exact and complete agreement. Your fault for not reading into comprehension.

Sorry, but that's not going to happen right now, as I don't think I misrepresented you or did anything wrong, really.

I will apologize quickly if it's pointed out to me. I just don't think I DID anything wrong that I should apologize for, at this time.

That's why I asked you for quotes.
As an ardent skeptic, I want evidence.. not just claims.

Are we on the same page when it comes to evidence and claims?

Blastcat, I think your parting out the comments is exactly how it should be done, my style is messier but I'm lazy so this is as good as it gets.

Unfortunately for "male abortion" in this scenario, the pregnancy isn't terminated, the father is. It took me a while to get it because the father is left very much alive. LOL! Maybe we should think of a better name for it.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 297 by Blastcat]

I am not going to criticize your posting style, Blastcat, but I believe you could do better. Your misrepresentations of my opinions could have been avoided if you had read my posts more thoroughly even if you were typing while I was posting them.

I am also not going to read or respond to your last private message, because the first few were to tiresome and unnecessary. I wish I had never read them.

I am glad you now understand my stated position better.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 295 by suckka]

Quite correct. If women can physically abort, then men can financially and relationship-ly abort. To the same month as abortion is allowed. Or as I laid out in my example.

[Paprika]

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?

Can't speak for all, but I think a reasonable explanation is 'one step at a time' and 'let's fight the easier war first'.

[Paprika]

[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.

'Objection' anticipated, hence I'd flip a coin.

[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.

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 ?

You have those people, and you also have people who go

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

as though it's not a simple biological fact, as we both know it is.

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?

No. Rather, any cell that contains human DNA is a human cell.

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

There you go with anticipating errors that don't exist. Not every cell is a child, but some cells are.

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.

If the offspring is human (adjective) by its DNA, it is a human (noun). That's clear, I hope?

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.

That's a problem with your perception.

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?

As before, there are differences in physical maturity, but they are members of the same species.

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.

As above, "If the offspring is human (adjective) by its DNA, it is a human (noun). That's clear, I hope?" And again, there are differences in physical maturity, but they are members of the same species.

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....

Most consumed chicken eggs aren't fertilised, in any case.

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.

I'm questioning the underlying principle used by you and KenRU and a host of others: if there's no consensus, then let anyone do as they like. Which would fail miserably if it was consistently followed in other parts of life.

[Paprika]

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

You called them "potential life" here.

By the same absurd argument, sperms and eggs should be protected

I do not see how it follows, but you are of course free to demonstrate how.

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?

It's not hard to understand how you might find it hard to see how anyone etc etc.

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.

They don't need to come to term to be a child.

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?

Thank you for that concession. Many toddlers will never make it to full maturity? Does it mean they are any less of a human?

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

An embryo is human and is a human.

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?

Apparently you were trying to say something about what I think. If you were actually trying to make some other point, feel free to make it clearer.

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? [/quote]
Yes.

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.[/quote]
As you conceded, embryos are living. So they are actual life, and not mere 'potential life'.

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.

I fear I may not have been entirely clear: there remains only mocking as a valid approach to those who persist to deny basic scientific facts.

[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.

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

Respectfulness is essential but usually overrated and overdone.

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.

So God actively acts to kill them? Do expound, it's bound to be hilarious.

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.

The argument as that embryos were "potential life" because some would die before reaching a certain stage of life. My statement shows the silliness of such an approach.

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

I might just hurt their feels. What a travesty!

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?

I might just hurt their feels. What a travesty!

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 might just hurt their feels. What a travesty!

[Paprika]

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.

I focus on the word 'child' - an accurate use, by the way - to counter the common propaganda that the embryo or fetus is something that is merely like hair or skin cells that can be discarded.

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?

I've not made such an argument. Try again.

[dianaiad]

As to correcting you, you've proved you'd rather continue on in ignorant hubris even after you've been corrected with unassailable logic. Ill try to care for a dog's wounds for a while, but after it bites and attacks me repeatedly, I'll leave it to its disease. I leave you with your ineffective reasoning and poor argumentation that denies the obvious. Why shouldn't I?

Moderator Warning


Do not make personal comments about the writer of a post. Comment about the content of the post, only.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.