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]

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?

Yes, because these, in and of themselves, do not constitute any rational argument.

It really doesn't look like you have any. But for the moment I'm still willing to hear you out to see if you can finally come up with anything substantial.

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.

This is not an argument. One also notes that pro-life perspectives would consider the embryo a person, so clearly it is a person by some definition of the word.

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

How does this demonstrate absurdity of the argument? Merely that they would think it is absurd?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 363 by 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].

Let's try that and see how it works for you.

Let's take the human brain, for example. A human brain.
It's an element of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

Is it an individual?
Are human brains one of the elements you want to call an individual?
This is where your semantics gets you.

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

No, you are NOT addressing the biology first, you are addressing semantics first.
You are arguing about what to CALL an embryo. That's discussing labels for things not discussing BIOLOGY.

Semantics is the study of meaning in language.
Biology is the study of life and of living organisms.

You are talking about words, what to call an embryo. You want to CALL an embryo a homo sapiens sapiens, you want to call it a member, an individual, an offspring, a child, a baby, a young person.. whatever.

A human brain is a brain that is human. Ergo, using your semantic argument, it's a human individual. A human brain is a distinct, indivisible entity. A human homo sapiens sapiens brain is a single thing, being, instance, or item. THIS is biology, in your view. This is where your use of semantics gets you.

So, a brain is a person.
Then, so is a foot. So is the heart. So is the lung. by that definition.

The lung is not the heart NOR the brain NOR a toe nail. It's distinct. It's separate FROM all other parts. Using your semantic argument, it's a member of the human race.

NO but it's not, is it? We don't think that human lungs are members of the human race?
Why is that?

Your semantics got you to a very weird place.
Your semantics are failing your argument.
Drop the semantics.. PICK ONE LABEL, and STICK WITH IT.

Now, IS a human embryo A MEMBER of the human race?
I say NO, not YET.

YOU SAY YES.
Can you say why, OTHER than by changing the words around?
Changing words around is using SEMANTICS, and you CLAIM to be using BIOLOGY.

What does BIOLOGY say about your conclusion?
Biology doesn't AGREE with your conclusion.That's the REASON abortions are LEGAL in so many places now, it's because of the BIOLOGY and NOT semantics. Semantics might get you somewhere else. The way you use the semantics here, it get's you to saying that brains are people because they are of the same SPECIES.

3) Biologically, the embryo is a homo sapiens sapiens

Wrong. in biology, the embryo is OF the species homo sapiens sapiens. When biologists take a bone and figure out what species it is they don't say that it's "A" chicken.. They say its the BONE of a chicken. If a clever biologist holds an egg and he has figured out it's specie, he doesn't say that it's a BIRD, he says that the egg is FROM a bird of a certain species.

He would say that THE EGG IS OF the species chicken, and he wouldn't say "THIS IS A CHICKEN". Our very clever biologist can tell the difference between a chicken and an egg. Or a chicken and a chicken bone..

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.

Semantics can be VERY confusing and difficult. I can fully understand and appreciate your frustration. Hopefully, we can quickly clear the semantic difficulties and address your biological argument. It's no good to fail an argument due to semantic confusion.

I am sorry that you feel you should not continue the discussion.
We seem to have bogged down in semantics.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 361 by Paprika]

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.

Wait, it's the atheists who equivocate on the meaning of the word chicken? And all along I thought some theist was saying that a chicken was an egg.

An egg is still an egg and a chicken is still a chicken, though.
It's story time, boys and girls, so popcorn UP.

This might be happening in a location near you !

Farmer has a chicken and some eggs to sell and by the way, this isn't at ALL the same story as Kenru's story. This is SO original that it makes my teeth hurt.
Nothing to DO with Kenru.. just sayin'

It's an atheist farmer so we MIGHT expect some equivocation.
Some non-equivocating theist come up and asks to buy a chicken.
The equivocating atheist farmer says something like this:

Equivocating Atheist Farmer : "Here you go."
Non-equivocating Theist : "No, I asked you for an egg. "
Equivocating Atheist Farmer :" Listen here, son, I'm quite sure you said "chicken".
Non-equivocating Theist : "Same thing", I just want the other one."
Equivocating Atheist Farmer : "Huh? .. looks confused.. you mean THIS chicken?" ( he holds up the egg )
Non-equivocating Theist : "Yes, that's the chicken I'm talking about. It's the small one."
Equivocating Atheist Farmer : "Anything else, sir?"
Non-equivocating Theist : Yes, I'd like to buy also a chicken, but this time a small one."
Equivocating Atheist Farmer : Holds us a chicken and an egg.. "Which one?"
Non-equivocating Theist : "Both, of course".. The two are the same thing, so two is one."

Ok, ADMITTEDLY, this is a purely HYPOTHETICAL conversation.

And maybe a LITTLE passing similarity with Kenru's story that this has nothing at all to do with, so why did anyone even bring THAT up?

[Hamsaka]

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.

It's not a claim -- I'm speaking to a demonstration, yours in this same thread, to be exact. It is not 'lacking' in any sense of the word, your speech was plain and direct. You said what you would do, given the circumstances; you would choose 'the many' over the one. You dismissed relevant information that distinguish a 3 year old child from a bucket of unimplanted human embryos. You did not dismiss liberal/progressive rhetoric; you dismissed the tangible, real distinctions that matter very much, even to you, although admitting that would undermine the ridiculous nature of your position.

I don't 'jeer' or make fun of parents who will 'feelbad' that you left their 3 year old child to die a horrible death. That may be a projection, on your part. It could also be an admission that you've exhausted your own ability to defend such a patently ridiculous and obscene position. Or, you really wouldn't save a bucket of embryos, you'd grab the 3 year old and save him, which is what I believe the most devout Biblical literalist/conservative/fundamentalist would do.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

It would not seem as though theistic position would be involved in the ability to distinguish between a chicken and an egg. As a resident of a major poultry and egg producing area of rural Bible Belt I observe that everyone here seems quite able to make that distinction whether Christian or not.

Perhaps in attempting to defend an awkward debate position one must insist that an egg is a chicken. Often it seems as though defending illogical positions results in strange contortions and departures from reason -- an acorn is an oak tree and a seed is a tomato.

[Bust Nak]

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.

At least you are consistent. How about if I swap out egg for acorn and chicken for an oak, is an acorn an oak (as opposed to an oak tree, a mature member of that species?)

That a layman may not grasp that 'chicken' can also denote the species - so what?

As the person who made the comparison, I understood that chicken refers to the species the same way human refers to our species, the same way oak refers to the species, I still found it absurd. An fertilized chicken egg don't even class as an embryo until a few days of incubation.

[KenRU]

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.

I stated this very early on in our conversation. I understand you have multiple conversations going on here, and that can prove challenging.

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.

Or, you could spell out your position for me. Differentiate what forms of “alive� 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 …

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?�

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.

Perhaps you should have followed your own advice and this part could have been avoided?

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.

Agreed. I’m also particularly fond of: “Judge not, that ye not be judged..� One of my favorites.

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.

For one, it illustrates that you would ignore a two year old in a burning building and save two blastocysts in a jar instead.

Think of it this way: if life expectancy and potentiality isn’t an issue for you then let’s throw another monkey wrench into the equation:

The burning building now has one blastocyst in a jar, one two year old and a terminal 90 year old person. You can only save one. What do you do?

Does the terminally ill 90 year old warrant the same attention (in your eyes) as the blastocyst?

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?

No, it is not less human. It is relevant, though, because the child is an entity that can feel pain and suffering. The cells cannot.

I’m concerned about the suffering of an individual. Why aren’t you?

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?

Sorry, you’re the one guilty of equivocation. Hence the chicken and egg difficulties. I’m not equating them, you are.

That a layman may not grasp that 'chicken' can also denote the species - so what?

It is relevant to show that you are guilty of equivocating.

Show us what brilliance must lie behind all this equivocation.

It shows that the delineation of where life begins is not black and white for everyone. And, that our language reflects this. I thought that was what we are talking about.

By the way, the above example is not a layman issue, as no one would ask for a chicken when wanting the egg. Perhaps except you?

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.

They are not similar, though are they? One can feel pain and suffer while the other cannot. Not to mention the tremendously different stages of development that span between the two. That is your hurdle, not mine.

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.

My reasons for calling BS are quite obvious. I’m sure you have your special reasons for callously ignoring the kind of horrific suffering a toddler would experience when burning to death while you grab the bucket of blastocysts.

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.

I have many reasons (specific to our burning building scenario). I’ve already explained some above. Perhaps you can shed some light on why you feel that the ability to suffer and feel pain isn’t part of your equation?

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!

Lol, everyone can grasp that the egg comes from the chicken and the relevant species labels. Our problem stems from your unwillingness to acknowledge that no one refers to the fertilized egg as a chicken.

That’s the point. There is a grey area of when the fertilized egg can rightfully (and in practice) be called a chicken. And for humans, when does a woman lose the right to control her own body.

In the analogy above, you can’t even buy the chicken egg without getting the chicken, yet you want to stubbornly call a blastocyst a child all the while not acknowledging some people see the fertilized egg as just that – an egg, and be correct also.

[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?

Yes, because these, in and of themselves, do not constitute any rational argument.

I love this logic. Either the blastocyst cells die, or the toddler dies. But feeling pain shouldn’t enter our equation?

Please explain this logic to me.

It really doesn't look like you have any.

From where I’m sitting, it certainly looks like it is you that is without a rational argument.

But for the moment I'm still willing to hear you out to see if you can finally come up with anything substantial.

Sure, in the burning building scenario, one creature will die. One will feel suffering while the other will not. I choose to cause the least suffering possible. What do you choose and why?

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.

This is not an argument.

It is the only criteria that I can see that matters in the burning building scenario. What else should matter?

One also notes that pro-life perspectives would consider the embryo a person, so clearly it is a person by some definition of the word.

Agreed. Which is why in the very beginning of our conversation, I submitted that both perspectives should be respected with civility as neither can be definitively wrong or right. You seemed to argue otherwise.

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

How does this demonstrate absurdity of the argument? Merely that they would think it is absurd?

It demonstrates your unwillingness to admit that most people who have empathy would disagree with your action in the burning building scenario.

Or do you admit this?

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 370 by Blastcat]

Let's take the human brain, for example. A human brain.
It's an element of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

It's not an element of the set of homo sapiens sapiens, because a brain is not a human.

It is an individual of homo sapiens sapiens; a technical term would be 'organism'.

Biology doesn't AGREE with your conclusion.

Actually it does: it is a simple biological fact that a human embryo is a human organism, and is a human.

Wrong. in biology, the embryo is OF the species homo sapiens sapiens. When biologists take a bone and figure out what species it is they don't say that it's "A" chicken.. They say its the BONE of a chicken. If a clever biologist holds an egg and he has figured out it's specie, he doesn't say that it's a BIRD, he says that the egg is FROM a bird of a certain species.

He would say that THE EGG IS OF the species chicken, and he wouldn't say "THIS IS A CHICKEN". Our very clever biologist can tell the difference between a chicken and an egg. Or a chicken and a chicken bone..

That's because a bone isn't an organism, or an individual of the species, while the embryo is.

[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.

It's not a claim -- I'm speaking to a demonstration, yours in this same thread, to be exact. It is not 'lacking' in any sense of the word, your speech was plain and direct. You said what you would do, given the circumstances; you would choose 'the many' over the one. You dismissed relevant information that distinguish a 3 year old child from a bucket of unimplanted human embryos. You did not dismiss liberal/progressive rhetoric; you dismissed the tangible, real distinctions that matter very much, even to you, although admitting that would undermine the ridiculous nature of your position.

I don't 'jeer' or make fun of parents who will 'feelbad' that you left their 3 year old child to die a horrible death. That may be a projection, on your part. It could also be an admission that you've exhausted your own ability to defend such a patently ridiculous and obscene position. Or, you really wouldn't save a bucket of embryos, you'd grab the 3 year old and save him, which is what I believe the most devout Biblical literalist/conservative/fundamentalist would do.

As above, nothing has been demonstrated as 'ridiculous' about my position, only people falling over themselves to claim that it is so and mocking and jeering. It's getting rather tiring, but I can still bear with the rabble.