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]

.

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.

Disingenuous again? This is fast becoming a trend.

As you and the others well know, all I'm claiming is that that fertilised egg is a member of the chicken species, and therefore a chicken. Yet you equivocate to escape the force of the argument. Quite pathetic.

[Paprika]

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?)

I hardly know enough about the development of that species to comment. But why are we going off topic? The point is clear, despite people trying to derail onto chicken and then equivocate: the human embryo is a human.

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

(Speaking to the rest eg Blastcat, KenRU, Zzyzx): It's not all that hard, guys.

I still found it absurd. An fertilized chicken egg don't even class as an embryo until a few days of incubation.

Perhaps my knowledge of the avian species is not exact. Very well; my point can be easily modified: the chicken embryo is a Gallus gallus domesticus, just as the human embryo is a homo sapiens sapiens.

Are you willing to concede the point about the human embryo? Or must we explore other red herrings - perhaps sea urchins this time?

[Paprika]

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

I'd suggest sorting out your own obscuring terminology; it then doesn't need to be challenged.

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

Tut tut. Hold your horses, that's a cart before a horse. The significant difference between a human hair, a human skin tissue, or a human arm from an adult human is what, precisely? The distinction relevant to this discussion is precisely that the adult human is a human, a human organism, a member of the species while the rest are not.

A human embryo is a human organism and thus shares that same distinction that the adult human has (from the hair, tissue, arm, etc).

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?

Or it might not have been. Who knows?

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.

And I just adore "The spiritual man judges all things", especially in response to that kind of silly sniping.

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?

I don't ever recall saying that life expectancy isn't an issue. What I did note was that the number of embryos would gravely outweigh the number of toddlers (hundreds vs 1).

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

Oh, they're all humans. But in such situations where only a fraction can be attended to there is something called triage.

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?

Smearing tactics? I do not give it prime consideration because it's not the most important factor in the scenario devised - which is not to say that I don't care about suffering at all.

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

My point was that the fertilised chicken egg is a member of the chicken species and hence a chicken. Bust Nak acknowledges that. But some of you have to equivocate on the other meaning - an adult female of the species - which was clearly not intended.

But when desperate, the pro-abortionists grasp at straws. What's new?

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.

I am not. But I suppose one way to distract from your guilt is to accuse others of it.

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?

Just admit defeat. What a pathetic 'refutation' of my argument.

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.

They are both humans, as above. Next.

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.

Oh, hardly special. I've noted them in another post above: the number.

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?

The suffering would pale in importance compared to death, obviously. Next.

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 'no one' would refer to the egg as a chicken in common parlance and conversation does not refute the point that the fertilised egg is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus and is hence a chicken by species.

That’s the point. There is a grey area of when the fertilized egg can rightfully (and in practice) be called a chicken.

Do I sense the faint glimmerings of a possibility that you admit that the fertilised egg is a chicken, and can be rightfully called one?

and for humans, when does a woman lose the right to control her own body.

That silly old canard. Just as you were coming around to my point of view to. Really now - conceding isn't that bad that you must shy from it just at the point of arriva.

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.

That's quite a disingenuous comment: of course some people would consider the fertilised egg an egg. For it is one. But it is also a member of the chicken species and is thus a chicken.

[Paprika]

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

It doesn't enter into mine. The pain is negligible in comparison to the death.

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.

Says the person who resorts to mocking the conclusion of the argument from biology I presented instead of refuting it.

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?

Let us consider this newer scenario: instead of a hundreds versus one, it is one vs one. And they are both humans. I'd go for flipping a coin, as I believe I've discussed before.

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.

Thank you for retracting your point: the embryo is a person by some definitions 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?

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?

Of course most people would disagree, though certainty is quite impossible without a wide-ranging survey. You, of course, have already conducted one, I presume?

[KenRU]

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

I'd suggest sorting out your own obscuring terminology; it then doesn't need to be challenged.

You say obscuring, I say specifying. I’ll let the readers decide which is a more accurate portrayal.

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

Tut tut. Hold your horses, that's a cart before a horse. The significant difference between a human hair, a human skin tissue, or a human arm from an adult human is what, precisely? The distinction relevant to this discussion is precisely that the adult human is a human, a human organism, a member of the species while the rest are not.

A human embryo is a human organism and thus shares that same distinction that the adult human has (from the hair, tissue, arm, etc).

Never denied any of the above, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

The point of my question is how one determines what constitutes “alive� and what constitutes “a person� is grey. I don’t profess to know enough to tell someone how to handle their body. Apparently you do?

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?

Or it might not have been. Who knows?

Ah, so this is how you justify being sarcastic and snide. The other guy might do it first. Got it.

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.

And I just adore "The spiritual man judges all things", especially in response to that kind of silly sniping.

Says the person who started the sniping.

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?

I don't ever recall saying that life expectancy isn't an issue

You asked why was it relevant when I brought it up. Which is it? Is it relevant or isn’t it?

What I did note was that the number of embryos would gravely outweigh the number of toddlers (hundreds vs 1).

And on a 1 v 1 comparison? Please, share your wisdom.

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

Oh, they're all humans. But in such situations where only a fraction can be attended to there is something called triage.

Please don’t make accusation of me equivocating or the pointlessness of my responses when clearly, you continue to evade my questions.

The scenario (1 toddler, 1 blastocyst and 1 90 year old terminal person) states that one can be saved and the others will die.

You seem so certain of your moral superiority in this dialogue, so please, educate the rest of us on how you would handle such a situation, and why. How do you decide?

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?

Smearing tactics?

How so? You say it is not relevant to your decision making, so, either it is a consideration or it isn’t. I submit that if you sense smearing then perhaps it is because the absurdity of your stance is bleeding through.

I do not give it prime consideration because it's not the most important factor in the scenario devised - which is not to say that I don't care about suffering at all.

Evasive. What is your prime consideration, if not suffering?

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

My point was that the fertilised chicken egg is a member of the chicken species and hence a chicken. Bust Nak acknowledges that. But some of you have to equivocate on the other meaning - an adult female of the species - which was clearly not intended.

Please find a post where is said a chicken egg is not of the species chicken. I’ll wait ….

Not yet? Surprise, I didn’t.

But when desperate, the pro-abortionists grasp at straws. What's new?

But when desperate, some resort to: reading out of context, misapplying labels to obfuscate and levelling false accusations.

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.

I am not. But I suppose one way to distract from your guilt is to accuse others of it.

The readers can decide where that shoe fits best.

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?

Just admit defeat. What a pathetic 'refutation' of my argument.

Given that you decided to equivocate labels from the get go, I’m forced to wonder why you deny it’s relevance now?

Like you said, when people get desperate and all …

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.

They are both humans, as above. Next.

They are similar in DNA only (comparing a blastocyst to a baby). What other similarity do you see?

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.

Oh, hardly special. I've noted them in another post above: the number.

Perhaps I missed your non-special reason, and you would be kind enough to post it again?

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?

The suffering would pale in importance compared to death, obviously. Next.

Still dodging the question, I see. The scenario you gymnastically refuse to confront is that if all three will die, and you can save one, which will it be and why?

Still waiting to hear why you think you have the high ground here.

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 'no one' would refer to the egg as a chicken in common parlance and conversation does not refute the point that the fertilised egg is a member of Gallus gallus domesticus and is hence a chicken by species.

Never said it did. I was pointing out that a more accurate description is available. Calling a fertilized egg an egg is more accurate than calling it a chicken. This logic applies to humans. Calling a blastocyst a blastocyst is more accurate than calling it a child.

That’s the point. There is a grey area of when the fertilized egg can rightfully (and in practice) be called a chicken.

Do I sense the faint glimmerings of a possibility that you admit that the fertilised egg is a chicken, and can be rightfully called one?

You probably should learn to read in context better so you don’t have these difficulties. I never said a chicken egg was not of the chicken species. Care to try again?

and for humans, when does a woman lose the right to control her own body.

That silly old canard.

Nice to know that you think a woman’s right to govern her own body is only a silly old canard.

Just as you were coming around to my point of view to.

Pray tell, how on earth did you ever arrive at this silly conclusion?

Really now - conceding isn't that bad that you must shy from it just at the point of arriva.

I’ve conceded nothing. It might be prudent then for you to go back to our earliest conversations and acknowledge that my stance has not changed once. Yet, here I’m faced with flawed sarcastic logic.

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.

That's quite a disingenuous comment: of course some people would consider the fertilised egg an egg. For it is one. But it is also a member of the chicken species and is thus a chicken.

But it is most accurately called an egg. If you were to eat it, you would be eating a chicken egg, not a chicken.

[KenRU]

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

It doesn't enter into mine. The pain is negligible in comparison to the death.

Since both die, death is a wash when deciding. You can alleviate suffering if you choose, but you don’t. Why? Saying both will die is evasive. Why isn’t the suffering the next factor when deciding?

Still waiting.

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.

Says the person who resorts to mocking the conclusion of the argument from biology I presented instead of refuting it.

Says the person who mocks initially.

Please show where I mocked a relevant and non-evasive answer. I’ll patiently wait….

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?

Let us consider this newer scenario: instead of a hundreds versus one, it is one vs one. And they are both humans. I'd go for flipping a coin, as I believe I've discussed before.

You have the ability to alleviate suffering. Why isn’t that relevant?

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.

Thank you for retracting your point: the embryo is a person by some definitions of the word.

Once again, you need to read in context better. Please show where I ever said that an embryo is not a person by some definition of the word. Once again, I’ll wait patiently…

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?

Of course most people would disagree, though certainty is quite impossible without a wide-ranging survey. You, of course, have already conducted one, I presume?

I started this point by saying it was anecdotal. But, please, feel free to try to morph it into a meaning I was not trying to convey.

[Paprika]

Never denied any of the above, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

So you admit that the human embryo is a human?

The point of my question is how one determines what constitutes “alive� and what constitutes “a person� is grey. I don’t profess to know enough to tell someone how to handle their body. Apparently you do?

In some matters, yes, and so do others. For example, suicide is a crime in many jurisdictions (but but but bodily self-autonomy!!!!)

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?

Or it might not have been. Who knows?

Ah, so this is how you justify being sarcastic and snide. The other guy might do it first. Got it.

My dear fellow, I point out a simple fact: "it might not have been". Any 'justification" you derived from that is merely a figment of your own imagination.

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.

And I just adore "The spiritual man judges all things", especially in response to that kind of silly sniping.

Says the person who started the sniping.

If you say so.

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?

I don't ever recall saying that life expectancy isn't an issue

You asked why was it relevant when I brought it up. Which is it? Is it relevant or isn’t it?

I've pointed out that life expectancy is negligible and irrelevant when it's hundreds vs 1. When it's 1 v 1, it's relevant: see triage.

What I did note was that the number of embryos would gravely outweigh the number of toddlers (hundreds vs 1).

And on a 1 v 1 comparison? Please, share your wisdom.

Keep reading.

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

Oh, they're all humans. But in such situations where only a fraction can be attended to there is something called triage.

Please don’t make accusation of me equivocating or the pointlessness of my responses when clearly, you continue to evade my questions.

My dear fellow, if you knew anything about triage you should know that an immediate corollary of my statement is that the 90 year old will not be prioritised, and the blastocyst vs toddler is resolved by the judgment based on the specific situation on which has the highest chance of survival. You are answered; but somehow I need to spell everything out.

The scenario (1 toddler, 1 blastocyst and 1 90 year old terminal person) states that one can be saved and the others will die.

You seem so certain of your moral superiority in this dialogue, so please, educate the rest of us on how you would handle such a situation, and why. How do you decide?

See triage.

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?

Smearing tactics?

How so? You say it is not relevant to your decision making, so, either it is a consideration or it isn’t. I submit that if you sense smearing then perhaps it is because the absurdity of your stance is bleeding through.

Hardly, it is merely your hostility that seeps through.

I do not give it prime consideration because it's not the most important factor in the scenario devised - which is not to say that I don't care about suffering at all.

Evasive. What is your prime consideration, if not suffering?

Disingenuous: it's hardly evasive: I was explaining precisely why it was not given prime consideration in response to your question. Now you ask what is my prime consideration, and call me evasive for not answering the question before you asked.

Oh, if it's 1v1 it would be about survivability, of course.

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

My point was that the fertilised chicken egg is a member of the chicken species and hence a chicken. Bust Nak acknowledges that. But some of you have to equivocate on the other meaning - an adult female of the species - which was clearly not intended.

Please find a post where is said a chicken egg is not of the species chicken. I’ll wait ….

Not yet? Surprise, I didn’t.

When did I say you did? I merely said you equivocated: have you forgotten so quickly your scenario about a layman?

But when desperate, the pro-abortionists grasp at straws. What's new?

But when desperate, some resort to: reading out of context, misapplying labels to obfuscate and levelling false accusations.

What a great self-description. Not sure I can have put it better myself.

Given that you decided to equivocate labels from the get go, I’m forced to wonder why you deny it’s relevance now?

Hardly. The embryo remains and is the child of its parents. We've been through this many times.

They are similar in DNA only (comparing a blastocyst to a baby). What other similarity do you see?

They not only contain human DNA, they are both humans, human organisms (unlike skin tissue, hair, or a limb).

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.

Oh, hardly special. I've noted them in another post above: the number.

Perhaps I missed your non-special reason, and you would be kind enough to post it again?

"the number".

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?

The suffering would pale in importance compared to death, obviously. Next.

Still dodging the question, I see. The scenario you gymnastically refuse to confront is that if all three will die, and you can save one, which will it be and why?

I said I'd follow triage.

Still waiting to hear why you think you have the high ground here.

I don't approve of the organised slaughter that has killed many times the Holocaust? (Wait for it, someone's gonna yell "Godwin" and claim that this my reference magically falsifies everything I've said).

Calling a fertilized egg an egg is more accurate than calling it a chicken. This logic applies to humans.

Do you admit that it is a member of the chicken species?

That’s the point. There is a grey area of when the fertilized egg can rightfully (and in practice) be called a chicken.

Do I sense the faint glimmerings of a possibility that you admit that the fertilised egg is a chicken, and can be rightfully called one?

You probably should learn to read in context better so you don’t have these difficulties. I never said a chicken egg was not of the chicken species. Care to try again?

Evasive. Still waiting for you to admit or deny it.

and for humans, when does a woman lose the right to control her own body.

That silly old canard.

Nice to know that you think a woman’s right to govern her own body is only a silly old canard.

But of course: see above on suicide.

Just as you were coming around to my point of view to.

Pray tell, how on earth did you ever arrive at this silly conclusion?

See above.

Really now - conceding isn't that bad that you must shy from it just at the point of arriva.

I’ve conceded nothing. It might be prudent then for you to go back to our earliest conversations and acknowledge that my stance has not changed once. Yet, here I’m faced with flawed sarcastic logic.

As I've said, you were on the verge of conceding, but you turned back. Try rereading what I wrote.

But it is most accurately called an egg. If you were to eat it, you would be eating a chicken egg, not a chicken.

Do you admit that it is a member of the chicken species?

Do you admit that the human embryo is a member of the human species?

[Paprika]

It doesn't enter into mine. The pain is negligible in comparison to the death.

Since both die, death is a wash when deciding. You can alleviate suffering if you choose, but you don’t. Why? Saying both will die is evasive. Why isn’t the suffering the next factor when deciding?[/quote]
Why is suffering a factor? Because (presumably) you think it is an evil. But death is the greatest one in this scenario, so the temporary suffering is negligible compared to it; it's a choice between two great evils with the minor one being (I repeat myself) negligible in comparison.

Why should suffering be the next factor?

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.

Says the person who resorts to mocking the conclusion of the argument from biology I presented instead of refuting it.

Says the person who mocks initially.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with mocking in itself. There's something wrong in only mocking while putting on airs that one is actually rationally addressing the arguments presented.

Please show where I mocked a relevant and non-evasive answer. I’ll patiently wait….

You mean the argument about the fertilised chicken egg being a member of the chicken species, which you mocked with the layman story?

But you already know this.

You have the ability to alleviate suffering. Why isn’t that relevant?

Why should it be a prime factor in the deliberation?

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.

Thank you for retracting your point: the embryo is a person by some definitions of the word.

Once again, you need to read in context better. Please show where I ever said that an embryo is not a person by some definition of the word. Once again, I’ll wait patiently…

"The other doesn't feel pain and is not a person by all definitions of the word." (Bold emphasis mine, just to help you).

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.

It demonstrates my aversion to discuss some red herrings, yes, which is only natural.

Or do you admit this?

Of course most people would disagree, though certainty is quite impossible without a wide-ranging survey. You, of course, have already conducted one, I presume?

I started this point by saying it was anecdotal. But, please, feel free to try to morph it into a meaning I was not trying to convey.

Precisely: you can't even demonstrate "most people would blah blah blah" yet press me to admit something you can't even prove. How asinine.

[ecco]

Consider this scenario:

• A house is burning
  Inside the house are three "entities"
  • a fertilized embryo
    a three year old human
    a ninety year old woman
  Outside the house are two people who know that only one of the entities can be saved

Which one do they save?




None.




The house burnt down while they debated which one to save.

[Zzyzx]

.

As you and the others well know, all I'm claiming is that that fertilised egg is a member of the chicken species, and therefore a chicken.

Is an unfertilized chicken egg a member of the chicken species?

If one cooks and eats a fertile egg have they killed a chicken?

If you correctly maintained that a fertile chicken egg contained genetic material necessary in the reproductive process of that species I would have no objection.

Yet you equivocate to escape the force of the argument. Quite pathetic.

Readers will decide which arguments are "pathetic". This thread already has over 6000 views with 385 posts upon which to evaluate the merits of what is presented. I wonder how many accept a contention that "an egg is a chicken".