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]

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

You called them "potential life" here.

Context is everything, Paprika. Life is such a generic term. Sperm cells, eggs and viruses are alive – hence they are life. If you believe I think differently than you are (either intentionally or unintentionally) not getting my point.

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.

They are alive – so by your definition, they should be protected.

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.

You did descend to this type of argument first …

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.

Opinion noted.

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?

I note you failed to answer my question. Care to try again?

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.

As mentioned by another poster: Is a chicken egg a chicken? Are you consistent?

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.

Sure. I’ll walk you through it.

You may not like how I phrased the question, but it doesn’t change the condition of the argument – especially since you tried to equate the life expectancy of a child already born to the risks a fetus has of coming to term (I compared them, you EQUATED them). If you didn’t like the analogy then perhaps another argument was in order?

If those percentages mean nothing to you – just say so.

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?

Yes.

Still calling BS, sorry.

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.

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

I remind you of context (see above). Taking things out of context does you only disservice, nor does it further your argument.

Care to try to reply again, now that you can’t deny what I mean when I say “potential�?

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.

I agree: like calling a chicken egg a chicken?

[KenRU]

With the argument in hand,

So says General Custer.

perhaps even to those inured against the humanity of the embryo by pro-abortion propaganda it may become clear why some might choose to save the bucket of embryos over the toddlers:

Depending on the maturity of the embryo, the bucket will contain two to three times in order of magnitude the number of human lives. The choice then easily follows.

Keep devaluing your own argument. The absurdity of this comparison becomes quite clear: saving one the Picture in Post 223 or a two year old child.

1v1 shows the absurdity of this argument.

[ecco]

.
.
.
Why does god spontaneously abort 20%-30% of all pregnancies?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 346 by Paprika]
Would you accept the following argument?

1) An fertilized chicken egg is living.
2) Said egg is chicken/ (adj) by its DNA.
3) Said egg is an organism of its own (and not say like a muscle cell in a chicken heart.)
C) Biologically, said egg is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus.
C) An fertilized chicken egg is a chicken (noun.)

If not, why not?

[ecco]

[Replying to post 346 by Paprika]
Would you accept the following argument?


2) Said egg is chicken/ (adj) by its DNA.

If not, why not?

Pardon my intrusion.
The correct version is 2) Said egg is an egg containing the DNA of a chicken

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 352 by Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 346 by Paprika]
Would you accept the following argument?

1) An fertilized chicken egg is living.
2) Said egg is chicken/ (adj) by its DNA.
3) Said egg is an organism of its own (and not say like a muscle cell in a chicken heart.)
C) Biologically, said egg is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus.
C) An fertilized chicken egg is a chicken (noun.)

If not, why not?

I can't because of 2).

I would correct it thus

2) Said chicken egg is a chicken egg and we can find out the species of the egg by looking at it's DNA. But a chicken egg is not a chicken. A chicken egg only has the potential to become a chicken.

3) is a little problematical, too.

The fertilized chicken egg needs a period of incubation or will not become a chicken. This tends to weaken the assertion that it is an organism "on it's own", as it can't incubate itself on it's own.

[Paprika]

.
.
.
Why does god spontaneously abort 20%-30% of all pregnancies?

You may not have seen it, but I have addressed this line of argument earlier:

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

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 346 by Paprika]
Would you accept the following argument?

1) An fertilized chicken egg is living.
2) Said egg is chicken/ (adj) by its DNA.
3) Said egg is an organism of its own (and not say like a muscle cell in a chicken heart.)
C) Biologically, said egg is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus.
C) An fertilized chicken egg is a chicken (noun.)

If not, why not?

But of course.

Yet due to the ambiguity of 'chicken' as denotation of species, and as a mature female of that species, it may be replace 'chicken' with Gallus gallus domesticus; the argument would be equivalent and I would accept it as well.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 347 by Blastcat]
Blastcat: I do believe that you are sincerely trying to engage, but since you're not getting my point after more than one explanation this will be my last attempt.

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.

I agree that I have not established that a human embryo is a human person. Because my task thus far has been merely to establish that a human embryo is by biology a human, an individual of Homo sapiens sapiens, a Homo sapiens sapiens.

Do you understand what I'm saying here, and what I'm not saying thus far in the argument?

[Paprika]

perhaps even to those inured against the humanity of the embryo by pro-abortion propaganda it may become clear why some might choose to save the bucket of embryos over the toddlers:

Depending on the maturity of the embryo, the bucket will contain two to three times in order of magnitude the number of human lives. The choice then easily follows.

Keep devaluing your own argument. The absurdity of this comparison becomes quite clear: saving one the Picture in Post 223 or a two year old child.

What rational argument do you have? Only that it is 'clear'. Clear by what standards?

1v1 shows the absurdity of this argument.

How so? You're making many assertions without any justification.