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]

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.[/quote]
Indeed, yet you saw fit to call embryos 'potential life'.

If you believe I think differently than you are (either intentionally or unintentionally) not getting my point.

If your word choice is poor, then you leave yourself open to being misunderstood.

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.

That is not my argument . Try again.

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 …

You asked if that was hard to understand, and you got an answer.

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.

Hardly mere opinion, but keep ignoring my argument for it.

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?

I don't need to, as my counterquestion reveals its irrelevance. 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?

See my response.

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?

I did not equate them. I compared them, yes, I juxtaposed them, yes, but I did not equate them. If there was any equation, I submit that the perception of the equation lies in your own mind,

Still calling BS, sorry.

If you insist.

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�?[/quote]
You have hardly clarified "potential life" besides clarifying that it does not connote or denote that the referent is not living so no, I don't actually know what special meaning you imbue it with.

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?

A fertilised chicken egg is a chicken, gallus gallus domesticus. A simple biological fact.[/i]

[Zzyzx]

.

A fertilised chicken egg is a chicken, gallus gallus domesticus. A simple biological fact.

It only mildly surprising that some have difficulty distinguishing between eggs and chickens. Perhaps close study of a hen house would clarify. The smallish oval ones are eggs and the larger mobile ones are chickens. Those confined to urban areas might gain some appreciation by visiting a supermarket and asking for assistance in finding eggs and chickens. Most grocers probably understand the difference, though they may not know which, if any, of the eggs available are fertilized.

[Paprika]

.

A fertilised chicken egg is a chicken, gallus gallus domesticus. A simple biological fact.

It only mildly surprising that some have difficulty distinguishing between eggs and chickens. Perhaps close study of a hen house would clarify. The smallish oval ones are eggs and the larger mobile ones are chickens. Those confined to urban areas might gain some appreciation by visiting a supermarket and asking for assistance in finding eggs and chickens. Most grocers probably understand the difference, though they may not know which, if any, of the eggs available are fertilized.

It is quite entirely unsurprising that people engage in equivocation on the word 'chicken': it is very clear that the meaning of species is intended but emphasis on the other meaning is conducted to ridicule the argument. And somehow the Christians are the ones supposed to be irrational, those who do not treat the issue reasonably.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 357 by 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.

The use of the word "individual" would be misleading, if it were to imply or mean personhood, as it would be only substituting one word for another in order to prove your conclusion. But since the issue IS personhood, to call an individual a person would be a bit premature in the argument. That embryos are persons is, I think, the CONCLUSION of the argument, and should not be found in any of the earlier premises, nor implied by using a substitute word for person, like "individual" that IS sometimes used synonymously for the word "person".

We could say, perhaps, that a human embryo is of the genus homo sapiens sapiens. But we could say the same of human toe nails. Human toe nails are of the genus homo sapiens sapiens. I don't think you would call toe nails individuals, even though they are considered to be quite distinct from the human individuals that have them.

Perhaps it would be useful if you now defined what do you MEAN by the term "individual"?

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

I have to admit we are struggling for me to understand your position.
Thank you for assuming that I'm trying my best to do so.

I am sorry to see that this will be your last attempt.
I was enjoying the debate.

[Paprika]

Perhaps it would be useful if you now defined what do you MEAN by the term "individual"?

"a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item." Of if you must call it 'member'. Or 'element of the set defined as containing all homo sapiens sapiens, if you must[/i].

For the last time:
1) Personhood is disputed by some yes, but here I'm not addressing it because
2) I'm addressing the biology first. Consider this, the biological argument, the foundations for later argument about morality
3) Biologically, the embryo is a homo sapiens sapiens

If we still can't make any progress on this three I really don't see any point in both of us continuing this discussion.

[Hamsaka]

.

A fertilised chicken egg is a chicken, gallus gallus domesticus. A simple biological fact.

It only mildly surprising that some have difficulty distinguishing between eggs and chickens. Perhaps close study of a hen house would clarify. The smallish oval ones are eggs and the larger mobile ones are chickens. Those confined to urban areas might gain some appreciation by visiting a supermarket and asking for assistance in finding eggs and chickens. Most grocers probably understand the difference, though they may not know which, if any, of the eggs available are fertilized.

It is quite entirely unsurprising that people engage in equivocation on the word 'chicken': it is very clear that the meaning of species is intended but emphasis on the other meaning is conducted to ridicule the argument.

Because the argument is demonstrably ridiculous. Using you as an example, you'd leave a 3 year old to die to save a number of unimplanted blastocyst 'children' to stay obedient to (what you believe is) your god. The anonymity of the internet and barbarian pride are two possible reasons a person would comfortably state such a position. I am leaning toward the former.

And somehow the Christians are the ones supposed to be irrational, those who do not treat the issue reasonably.

If the shoe fits, and all. Most Christians do not extend their apologetics to such irrational extremes.

[Paprika]

Because the argument is demonstrably ridiculous.

So you claim. But what you and others have provided are merely such assertions, claims that it is clearly ridiculous, mere jeering, or most asininely that other parents will feelbad.

Actual demonstration that it is 'ridiculous' has been, alas, lacking.

[KenRU]

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.

Indeed, yet you saw fit to call embryos 'potential life'.

I’ll connect the dots (again) since you’re having difficulty.

What I mean by “potential life� is that the fetus may never come to term and be born.

If you were paying attention, I mentioned that very early on. Then you played the semantic card (erroneously I might add) saying I dd not mean it to be alive.

Context is everything.

If you believe I think differently than you are (either intentionally or unintentionally) not getting my point.

If your word choice is poor, then you leave yourself open to being misunderstood.

Only to those who do not utilize context and are engaging in poor wordplay.

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.

That is not my argument . Try again.

I refer you to your own argument, since a sincere effort on your part is apparently not forthcoming: “If your word choice is poor, then you leave yourself open to being misunderstood.�

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 …

You asked if that was hard to understand, and you got an answer.

No, I got a non-answer. But I probably should stop expecting any kind of response without sarcasm, correct? I refer you to your own initial post starting this degradation in communication (Post: 231): “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?�

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.

Hardly mere opinion, but keep ignoring my argument for it.

You’re not making an argument. But keep thinking you are.

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?

I don't need to, as my counterquestion reveals its irrelevance.

As I’ve shown before, this logic can regress to absurdity. You opinion on what constitutes a child has been noted. If you will not engage in good faith, why are you here?

Perhaps you could try a different tactic, such as answering questions? You expect others to do so, and I have been game thus far. But I guess reciprocity is not to be expected?

Try again.

Ok, 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?

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?

See my response.

So an egg, once fertilized, is a chicken? Is that your argument?

Try this then: a farmer is selling a fully grown chicken, and a fertilized egg. How do you ask for the egg without getting the chicken?

Paprika: I’d like to buy the chicken please.

Farmer hands Paprika the live chicken.

Paprika: No, I mean the other one.

Farmer: Oh, you mean the egg.

Paprika: No, the chicken.

Farmer: I gave you the chicken.

Etc.

Now tell me you’re not playing a poor semantic game.

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?

I did not equate them. I compared them, yes, I juxtaposed them, yes, but I did not equate them. If there was any equation, I submit that the perception of the equation lies in your own mind,

No, nice try. So, you admit to trying to juxtapose two different scenarios? That seems like a bad faith attempt to have a conversation. Why compare like vs unlike?

Seems quite disingenuous to me.

Still calling BS, sorry.

If you insist.

I do.

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�?

You have hardly clarified "potential life" besides clarifying that it does not connote or denote that the referent is not living so no, I don't actually know what special meaning you imbue it with.

As I said above, I was quite clear multiple times. Are you still claiming this now?

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?

A fertilised chicken egg is a chicken, gallus gallus domesticus. A simple biological fact.[/i]

See example above. You’ll note how in practice your equivocation fails.

[Paprika]

I’ll connect the dots (again) since you’re having difficulty.

What I mean by “potential life� is that the fetus may never come to term and be born.

Which at best unintentionally confuses the question because the fetus is living even though it hasn't been born yet.

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.

That is not my argument . Try again.

I refer you to your own argument, since a sincere effort on your part is apparently not forthcoming: “If your word choice is poor, then you leave yourself open to being misunderstood.�

It's a truism, not an argument. Now, I have not claimed that what is alive must be protected, but you insist on this strawman, so I'll have to leave you to it.

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 …

You asked if that was hard to understand, and you got an answer.

No, I got a non-answer. But I probably should stop expecting any kind of response without sarcasm, correct? I refer you to your own initial post starting this degradation in communication (Post: 231): “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?�[/quote]
Well, since you seem to like to copy my replies, next time you could just say 'it is hard [for me] to see' then we can proceed from there.

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.

Hardly mere opinion, but keep ignoring my argument for it.

You’re not making an argument. But keep thinking you are.

There is none as blind as those wilfully so.

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?

I don't need to, as my counterquestion reveals its irrelevance.

As I’ve shown before, this logic can regress to absurdity. You opinion on what constitutes a child has been noted. If you will not engage in good faith, why are you here?

Perhaps you could try a different tactic, such as answering questions? You expect others to do so, and I have been game thus far. But I guess reciprocity is not to be expected?

Your question, as I've shown at least twice, is irrelevant - what does the rate of fetuses making it to term matter to anything? Insist, if you must, on red herrings; but you won;t get anywhere.

Try again.

Ok, 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?

I acknowledge that the chance of miscarriage is high. Perhaps you will tell us the point of all that? Is the fetus less human because it may not survive?

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?

See my response.

So an egg, once fertilized, is a chicken? Is that your argument.

Try this then: a farmer is selling a fully grown chicken, and a fertilized egg. How do you ask for the egg without getting the chicken?

Paprika: I’d like to buy the chicken please.

Farmer hands Paprika the live chicken.

Paprika: No, I mean the other one.

Farmer: Oh, you mean the egg.

Paprika: No, the chicken.

Farmer: I gave you the chicken.

Etc.

Now tell me you’re not playing a poor semantic game.

Aren't you tired of equivocation by now? That a layman may not grasp that 'chicken' can also denote the species - so what? Show us what brilliance must lie behind all this equivocation.

No, nice try. So, you admit to trying to juxtapose two different scenarios? That seems like a bad faith attempt to have a conversation. Why compare like vs unlike?

Seems quite disingenuous to me.

Juxtaposition is "to place (different things) together in order to create an interesting effect or to show how they are the same or different". The two situations are different, and I placed them together to show how they are the similar.

Still calling BS, sorry.

If you insist.

I do.

If you must claim more insight into my action in a hypothetical scenario than I possess, I'm sure you have your special reasons.

As I said above, I was quite clear multiple times. Are you still claiming this now?

It's quite transparent now that you're calling a fetus/embryo 'potential life' despite the fact that they are already living because you place much emphasis on the fact that it may not survive until birth. I'm sure in time you'll explain why that's so important and relevant.

See example above. You’ll note how in practice your equivocation fails.

By practice you mean that a layman would likely not grasp that 'chicken' can also denote species. Horrors!

[KenRU]

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?

Common sense. The morals of any humane parent. The fact that it is in no way capable of feeling pain when the child clearly can. Need I go on?

1v1 shows the absurdity of this argument.

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

One feels pain, and is a person by all definitions of the word. The other doesn't feel pain and is not a person by all definitions of the word.

If you want anecdotal evidence as well, try asking any parent this question.