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]

Could we use the more generic term "human person", instead of the ( circularly loaded ) child or offspring or baby?

Nope, we're discussing biology now. 'Person' is a legal construction and is itself loaded to either tilt the discussion either way, depending on the arguer using an explicit or implicit definition of 'person'.

Nobody ( as far as I know ) in this debate is advocating killing a child or an offspring or a baby here.

Unless, of course you can define the word "offspring" in a way that does add to the debate. That was my question to you.

It adds to the debate to point out that the embryo are equally children, offspring, descendants of their parents.

So as SOON as you use the term "child" .. you are spinning your wheels and NOT going anywhere. Let's put your part of the debate in GEAR.. Let's get it moving.

So long as you the others deny it, how are you "getting anywhere"? Of course, what you mean by "getting anywhere" means being convinced by your argument.

We aren't debating if a fetus is a human person?
You have LOST me there.

We're discussing biology, not the possible dozen definition of 'person'.

The common people in my example weren't asked if the egg was of a certain species. The people were asked what they were seeing, when looking at an egg.

What the common people think is irrelevant to what is the case. Since what is the case- what is truthful about reality - is primarily at dispute, first we settle that and then later we can consider how we might convince the common people of it.

Deal with my argument, otherwise I have had enough of your rambling.

[Paprika]

Paprika Post 323:...............though of course fault lies with Christian leaders for not taking a firmer stance on this and carrying out church discipline accordingly.

I agree with you when you clearly illustrate the truth that embryos are human beings.
I also thank you for your reply. When confronted with the fact that most abortions are undertaken by 'Christians ', you suggest the above reasoning. I think that you err greatly in your opinion.

What you advocate here is outdated, old-school religion that has shown itself to be a failure. Why has it failed. Well, you can only lead for as long as people follow. Christian approaches to sex, birth control, women, etc, etc, are a legacy from the Dark Ages. The Christian intelligentsia who constructed this abstract order on the populace of their congregations did so without Divine or Common influence. People rejected it and now you want to whip them back in line. Good Luck with that, Paprika.

Perhaps it has failed. But you were asking why Christians behave as they do, themselves slaughtering so many of their unborn, and much of the credit has to be given to those who actually tried to popularise and normalise the killing.

Now, I myself highly doubt that this progressive/liberal attitude and praxis (which includes but is not limited to widespread contraception, normalisation of abortion, popular sex out of wedlock, no-fault divorce) is sustainable: just observe the birth rates of liberal Western culture (in particular the birthrates of the self-identified liberals are amongst the lowest), so low that foreigners must be mass-imported to keep birth rate up. It is so amongst all the Western countries that have embraced progresssivism/liberalism.

Such cultures which refuse to reproduce in sustainable amounts will only end up killing themselves. They are dysgenic. Of course, before they do get to that stage, the immigrants will be the majority - the whites in the minority - and who know what will happen? The Muslims, for example, generally are quite pro-family.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 335 by acapiz]

I think Paprika has a good point. The church leaders should be much more concerned with discipline and hard stances. Perhaps they could reinstate the inquisition (among themselves, of course) and put other Christians on the rack or burn them at he stake or use the "pear of despair" on them when they eat shellfish or wear clothing made out of two types of yarn or have an abortion or mow their lawn on the sabbath.

You don't disagree with that, do you?

Oh, I think excommunication will be sufficient. Excommunicate 'Catholics' like Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, for a start.

[acapiz]

Paprika:Such cultures which refuse to reproduce in sustainable amounts will only end up killing themselves. They are dysgenic. Of course, before they do get to that stage, the immigrants will be the majority - the whites in the minority - and who know what will happen? The Muslims, for example, generally are quite pro-family.

In a modern world, going forward, Paprika, religion has three clear options, IMHO.


Religion can be the fundamentalist horror of extreme Islam.(Coercion)
Religion can be the tea and bun 'Sunday School' hooha of many well meaning denominations, no pressure and much a do about nothing.
Religion can be a well organised relevant structure based on an updated and clear world agenda that reaches into the lives of all people who live. The best candidate to do this IMHO is Catholicism. If the leaders of this thing had real Divine Insight and ambition they could change the world. Here's a list of things they would need to change.
Their definition of what Divinity means.
Their insistence on using Heaven as an incentive to obedience.(Bad Parenting)
Their antiquated notions of gender roles.
Their lack of clearly developed social, environmental, educational, etc agendas.
Their advertising strategy. They have the shops, they just need to re- brand.
There are many areas in which this monolithic religion could provide a positive input if they got their house in order ie wealth distribution, moral direction etc but at the moment they appear as irrelevant prudes and stick in the muds. This is a church that still retains a gigantic amount of good will and popular support globally.

Jesus had a global agenda and he said that you would know his followers by what they do. I think that Catholicism has decided that it has done enough. You are correct in many of the observations you make about the world today. Islam is on the move and western decadence seems exasperated in its attempts to quell it. Look at the displacement rates from Libya, Syria, etc towards Germany and the UK in the last year. Desperate people move and they bring religious luggage with them, I assumed every American would know that from their history.

[Paprika]

You are correct in many of the observations you make about the world today. Islam is on the move and western decadence seems exasperated in its attempts to quell it. Look at the displacement rates from Libya, Syria, etc towards Germany and the UK in the last year. Desperate people move and they bring religious luggage with them, I assumed every American would know that from their history.

I think it is useful at this point to recap major changes within the last century: the fall of the last Muslim empire. The rise of a State reclaiming that mantle. The mutual destruction of European states in two World Wars, leading to decolonialisation and filling of the power vacuum by USA and USSR. The rise of imperialism by the USA, and reactions to it (eg Iran, Al Qaeda). Fall of the USSR. Formation of the EU, and its current decline and renationalisating of many member states. The rise of China. Resurgence of militant Islamicism.

So much has changed in one century, and so much more will in time to come.

In a modern world, going forward, Paprika, religion has three clear options, IMHO.


Religion can be the fundamentalist horror of extreme Islam.(Coercion)
Religion can be the tea and bun 'Sunday School' hooha of many well meaning denominations, no pressure and much a do about nothing.
Religion can be a well organised relevant structure based on an updated and clear world agenda that reaches into the lives of all people who live. The best candidate to do this IMHO is Catholicism. If the leaders of this thing had real Divine Insight and ambition they could change the world. Here's a list of things they would need to change...

As above, the 'modern world' has changed so much, and it will continue to change, so I think it shortsighted that the Church must adapt to things as they currently are; what has worked is to hold fast to doctrine which remains surprisingly relevant in a world that undergoes so much flux and change. But perhaps the world will remain much as it is, and the church may have to do as you suggest to be effective. But I think that unlikely:

The progressive nations are deep in their decadence, trying to tear down what Christian foundations remains that still inhibit them. More likely, the whole edifice will collapse around them, and amidst the ruins they will realise that the Church has warned about this all along, and yet it still is there for them if they so want.

And suppose the church does decline into irrelevance into the West. So what? Christianity is resurging in Africa, South America, Asia - places where fetishism of 'Progress' has not occurred, without which the church is no prude. So what if light dies in the West? In time it will return from the East and the South.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 326 by Hamsaka]

How ridiculous is it to refer to a bucket of embryos as a bucket of human lives? Lol.

Yall are really missing out when it comes to this "paprika" character. The terminology he uses is retarded (note that I did not call any PERSON "retarded"). Dismantle/deconstruct the verbiage and he doesn't have any arguments. It's all just empty vitriol and extremist propaganda. No truth in an empty box with a pretty bow can always be beaten by simple truth without any packaging at all.

[Replying to post 326 by Hamsaka]

How ridiculous is it to refer to a bucket of embryos as a bucket of human lives? Lol.

Yall are really missing out when it comes to this "paprika" character. The terminology he uses is retarded (note that I did not call any PERSON "retarded"). Dismantle/deconstruct the verbiage and he doesn't have any arguments. It's all just empty vitriol and extremist propaganda. No truth in an empty box with a pretty bow can always be beaten by simple truth without any packaging at all.

Prolly best not to use the term 'retarded' at all, but I take your words to mean 'way behind the current consensus'. Arguments that deliberately refuse to acknowledge that which impacts the argument aren't arguments at all, and ought to be dismissed until a rational, reasonable argument is offered instead.

How to derive a rational argument from irrational premises isn't rocket science. "I think abortion is killing a real, actual child, because I believe my religious opinions deserve special regard, as they apply to everyone whether they know it or not."

"Truth" may 'out' in the final analysis, but in the meantime, being 'right' will do.

Bloviage: 100%
Rational address of the argument presented: 0%

Unsurprising, of course.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 339 by Paprika]

Could we use the more generic term "human person", instead of the ( circularly loaded ) child or offspring or baby?

Nope, we're discussing biology now. 'Person' is a legal construction and is itself loaded to either tilt the discussion either way, depending on the arguer using an explicit or implicit definition of 'person'.

This is a moral matter, this is a legal matter, whether or not abortions are murder or not.
YOU say that it's wrong because an abortion is killing a baby.

So, you would rather use a term like "baby" to talk about fetuses and zygotes.

So, ok, it's wrong to kill a baby.
You won the debate about killing a baby.
Your conclusion is sound.

Killing babies isn't what people consider morally good, and so, should be discouraged.

But we are talking about killing a fetus, and not everyone calls a fetus a baby like you do.
Why we should is the subject of this debate, isn't it?

OR IS IT?

I just realized that I might not be in the same debate as you are.
Please.. can you CLEARLY spell out your argument.

This is all getting messy and vague right now.
It doesn't help to be having two different debates and arguing about what the debate is, and so forth.

So a little effort on your part here would help us GREATLY.
I think I might have built a straw man, and I don't want to do that.
Sorry if I did.

Please, spell out your case... as clearly as you can... point by point.
Use numbers .. point form... it really HELPS me to understand.

that way , we can be sure that we are on the same page.

Nobody ( as far as I know ) in this debate is advocating killing a child or an offspring or a baby here.

Unless, of course you can define the word "offspring" in a way that does add to the debate. That was my question to you.

It adds to the debate to point out that the embryo are equally children, offspring, descendants of their parents.

No, it would WIN the debate if we were to agree that a zygote is a child.
We DON'T agree that zygotes are children.

It only appears to be your opinion that zygotes are children.
Others need not have the same opinion.

IF your argument rests upon opinion, then we all have one of those.
But you haven't proved that your opinion is a FACT, and therefore, you lose the debate.

Playing at "change the name" isn't going to prove your point.

So as SOON as you use the term "child" .. you are spinning your wheels and NOT going anywhere. Let's put your part of the debate in GEAR.. Let's get it moving.

So long as you the others deny it, how are you "getting anywhere"? Of course, what you mean by "getting anywhere" means being convinced by your argument.

Deny it?
Your case rests on the "fact" that we deny your "truth"?

Well, if that's the case, maybe you DO win the debate.
But I am not denying anything.

I am ASKING for your argument.
It's of no use to say that I deny your conclusion.

I can't GET to your conclusion because your ARGUMENT isn't getting me there.
And it's no use to attack my character in a debate.

This debate isn't ABOUT if I am in denial or not.
The debate is about how you can get to your conclusion.

IF you can demonstrate that your conclusion is justified by your premises, I won't deny THAT fact.

I just don't see how you get from calling a zygote a CHILD to proving that it is a child or how that would be very HELPFUL in a debate about whether or not a zygote is a child.

"Let's a zygote a child, therefore a zygote is called a child."

Well, by THAT kind of reasoning, a child is a child...
Completely and hopelessly tautological. X, does indeed equal X.

But we are trying to establish if a zygote is a child.. X AND Y .. not X and X.

And as X does NOT necessarily equal to Y......

We would have to PROVE that X equals to Y.. and not just say so as if that could possibly settle the matter.

We aren't debating if a fetus is a human person?
You have LOST me there.

We're discussing biology, not the possible dozen definition of 'person'.

It seems to me that you are trying to define a fetus as a "baby" and an "offspring" and a "child" and so on. These words are in the category of "person".

You are DEFINING a fetus as a person when you call it a baby or a child... and so on.

And because of your definition, since there IS no distinction in your view, killing a zygote is the same as killing a child, OR an offspring OR a baby. Whatever you want to call it.

You won the debate if we were to accept that zygotes are babies.

If your argument is about how it's wrong to kill babies, then let's not kill babies.
End of debate. We agree.

But we don't accept your definition, that a zygote is a baby, and so, sorry, you haven't WON the debate yet.

You MIGHT want to explain how we get the concept "baby" from the concept "zygote".

You SAY that they are the same SPECIES... yes, a human zygote is in the same species as a human toenail, or a human eye ball, or a human liver. We don't get "baby" from any of those human species parts.

You MIGHT want to explain how we get the concept " baby of the species homo sapiens sapiens" from the concept "zygote of the species homo sapiens sapiens".

The common people in my example weren't asked if the egg was of a certain species. The people were asked what they were seeing, when looking at an egg.

What the common people think is irrelevant to what is the case.

You might be what some people refer to as a "common person". What you might think also might be "irrelevant to what is the case".

But you miss the point.
I was saying that the people IN MY EXAMPLE were asked about if an object was an EGG or a chicken, and you say that they would likely say something about the species.

These hypothetical people would be either DEAF or very stupid to answer what they thought the species was.. if they were asked about a distinction between an egg and a chicken. They weren't ASKED about what species they thought the object was.

What the common people think about the distinction between a chicken and an egg IS the case to be settled in my example. So their thoughts on the matter WAS the case to be settled. and EXTREMELY relevant to my example.

The case was "What is this object, a chicken or an egg?"

So their OPINIONS on the matter was the ONLY thing that was relevant in my example, since that was the ONLY case being deliberated on.

Since what is the case- what is truthful about reality - is primarily at dispute, first we settle that and then later we can consider how we might convince the common people of it.

I agree. I am a common kind of person. If you can convince me of your position, that would be one common person convinced.

Ok, let's talk about what is truthful about reality.
HAVE WE CONCLUDED THAT YOU ARE CORRECT YET?

You might want to demonstrate how your opinion accurately reflects reality.
What I have seen so far is semantics, circular thinking and category errors.

In other words, you haven't convinced me that your case is very good at all.
But still, you might be right.

So, let's try to see how we can get to your conclusion.

Your point seems to be that because a human zygote or fetuses or embryos is of the same species than a human ...( LETS NOT USE PERSON!!! )... baby... then we should not kill zygots or fetuses or embryos, BECAUSE they are "babies".

But you haven't established that zygots and embryos and fetuses are babies.

You just simply state it as if you have demonstrated it.
But you haven't demonstrated it.

STATING SOMETHING isn't demonstrating that it reflects reality.

The only thing so far that you have demonstrated is that you have an opinion that as soon as an egg gets fertilized, it's a ... child in early stages of development.

You seem to neglect that calling the egg a CHILD is hopelessly circular to your case.
Because as soon as something is a human CHILD, it is a PERSON and should not be killed without good justification.

You wont settle issues of BIOLOGY by changing the WORDS for what we are talking about.

You can CALL a fetus anything you LIKE.. but that won't do much at all if we are trying to decide if abortions are right or not.

Deal with my argument, otherwise I have had enough of your rambling.

Rambling? REALLY?
Now, I am hurt.

Not dealing with your argument?
Now, I am confused.

I THOUGHT I was dealing with your argument as best as I could.
I am taking great PAINS with your argument.

How am I NOT dealing with your argument?
You won't win your argument by ad hominem or by poisoning the well as I am trying my best. It hurts if you call all of my efforts "rambling".

Let's stick with the issues, I'll try not to ramble.

[Paprika]

This is a moral matter, this is a legal matter, whether or not abortions are murder or not.

*facepalm*
People such as yourself were denying that the embryo was a human, which is essentially a biological question. Yes, abortion is a moral matter and also has to be dealt with in the legal realm, but what must be sorted out is the question: 'what is the embryo/fetus', and to that we first turn to biology. That is the foundation; from what the embryo/fetus is we can then build on to formulate moral and legal arguments.

So to settle the biological argument I formulated what was chronologically the second argument I have fielded:

1) The embryo is living
2) The embryo is human (adj, as opposed to leonine or serpentine) by its DNA
3) The embryo is an organism of its own (and not say like a muscle cell in my heart which is not)
C) Biologically, the embryo is a member of the human species
C) The embryo is a human (noun)

Corollary) As the embryo is a human and whose DNA is directly derived from a male and a female human, the embryo is the child of the male and female, and they are the embryo's father and mother, respectively.

The corollary of the second argument also supports the (chronologically) first argument about whether the embryo or fetus is a child.

You won the debate if we were to accept that zygotes are babies.

Good to know what's the 'target' for you.

Deal with this:
1) the embryo is a human (noun), an individual of the human species and just as human (adj) as us and equally a human (noun) as we are.

2) It has a father and a mother - those who gave it the DNA - so it is their child (which is not a perversion of the language, also see 'with child')

3) I did not insist on 'baby', but since you like to bring it up: as a very young child it is a baby.

4) 'person' appears nowhere in my points above.

Because as soon as something is a human CHILD, it is a PERSON and should not be killed without good justification.

See 4). That a human child is a 'person' is due to your conception of personhood, not mine.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 346 by Paprika]

This is a moral matter, this is a legal matter, whether or not abortions are murder or not.

*facepalm*
People such as yourself were denying that the embryo was a human,

I have a few problems with that statement:

1. I am not denying that a human embryo is human.
2. Calling an embryo a human doesn't say anything about IF it is or not a human PERSON.
3. If a human embryo is a human person, then we need good justification to kill it, as we would for any other human person.
4. I am DENYING that you have established that a human embryo is a human person.

which is essentially a biological question.

I don't agree.

1. What you are doing is defining your terms.
2. You have labelled the term "human zygote" a human person of extremely young age.
3. By this definition, the two TERMS are interchangeable and identical.
4. Discussing the labels for terms pertains to semantics, what you have done is insist on a definition. Definitions are in the domain of semantics.
5. Semantics is NOT biology.

Yes, abortion is a moral matter and also has to be dealt with in the legal realm, but what must be sorted out is the question: 'what is the embryo/fetus', and to that we first turn to biology. That is the foundation; from what the embryo/fetus is we can then build on to formulate moral and legal arguments.

1. You agree that abortion is a moral matter and a legal matter.
2. You say that the pertinent question is "WHAT is an embryo/fetus?".
3. Embryo and fetus are not the same things. That's the first thing a biology professor would say. There are distinctions in biology. Conflating the two biological terms only serves to confuse the issue.

1) The embryo is living
2) The embryo is human (adj, as opposed to leonine or serpentine) by its DNA
3) The embryo is an organism of its own (and not say like a muscle cell in my heart which is not)
C) Biologically, the embryo is a member of the human species
C) The embryo is a human (noun)

Good, thank you.. I hadn't seen that.

We can now check your premises, to see if any are false.
We can also look at how the premises lead to your conclusion.. or if your argument is valid.

If you agree to continue this debate, I will be glad to address all of those points in detail. I will await your agreement. I don't want to make this one post too long. People tend to zone out when I go on too long in detail. I don't want that to happen. I want to WIN debates, not just carry them out forever.

Corollary) As the embryo is a human and whose DNA is directly derived from a male and a female human, the embryo is the child of the male and female, and they are the embryo's father and mother, respectively.

That seems to follow if your initial argument is sound.
Perfect. I would concede the point of this corollary.

The corollary of the second argument also supports the (chronologically) first argument about whether the embryo or fetus is a child.

Yes, if we can prove that a human zygote is a human CHILD, then we already know that it is a human child. I'm perfectly in agreement with that, too. I won't dispute it if we can establish that your initial argument works.

You won the debate if we were to accept that zygotes are babies.

Good to know what's the 'target' for you.

It would also be good to know if you agree that this is the target, or the point of the debate. I have no intention of debating the wrong issue, so that I might get to the wrong conclusion.

Deal with this:
1) the embryo is a human (noun), an individual of the human species and just as human (adj) as us and equally a human (noun) as we are.

The embryo IS an individual?
This would have to be demonstrated. You haven't done that other than by way of defining it so. Well, you can define anything you like for whatever reason you chose, but if your reason doesn't CONVINCE me.. I won't be able to agree with it. So, it's NICE that you define your terms like that. But I would need to see some reasoning for it.

2) It has a father and a mother - those who gave it the DNA - so it is their child (which is not a perversion of the language, also see 'with child')

You have not established that a fertilized egg is a human PERSON. I think you need to define what it means to be one of those. If by CHILD you mean human person, then fine. If by child you DO NOT mean human person, then we can just go ahead and kill it.. It would not apply to any law prohibiting murder of a human person.

As to the expression "with child". I THINK that was coined a bit before modern science had anything to say about it. But in any case, to use a phrase does NOT mean that people have to agree that zygotes are children. Hence, this "with child" expression is an irrelevancy to your position.

3) I did not insist on 'baby', but since you like to bring it up: as a very young child it is a baby.

Then do you insist on baby, or "very young child".. I am very willing to use the word you like the best. You get to pick your terms, not I.

4) 'person' appears nowhere in my points above.

In that case, a child isn't a human person. We can kill it.
But the word "person" really should be somewhere in your argument.

Otherwise, we can't decide if a zygote is a child or a person.
That's the issue, isn't it?

Again, I seem to be confused at to what you are debating about.
If you mean that a human zygote is a HUMAN zygote, then the debate is over.

Is that what you've been debating about? I am baffled. Please tell me what you are debating about, if not persons.

Because as soon as something is a human CHILD, it is a PERSON and should not be killed without good justification.

See 4). That a human child is a 'person' is due to your conception of personhood, not mine.

You don't think that a human child is a human person?
Then we can kill it with as much justification as we could kill any other animal.

Only human persons can be "murdered"... that is, if you agree that the definition of murder is "the crime of deliberately killing a person".

What IS the case you are debating if it's not about deliberately what you consider a person?

So the issue to ME is.. Is a zygote a person, yes or no. Should we be allowed to deliberately kill zygotes without good justification?

What do YOU think the issue about abortion should be?

[otseng]

Bloviage: 100%
Rational address of the argument presented: 0%

Unsurprising, of course.

Moderator Comment

This is not adding any value to the debate and can be considered uncivil.

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.