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?

[Haven]

Ah, another abortion thread.

How interesting. What's the point about this again? It's not like the SPCA is protesting against eating chickens in general, so why should there be a report against eating fertilised chicken embryos?

Many people hold the position that it's unethical to consume any animal products (including milk, eggs, meat, etc.) because animals aren't ours to use. I don't see why it should make a difference if the egg is fertilized or not or if a chicken fetus constitutes a "chick." Milk certainly isn't "a cow" but people who oppose animal exploitation don't drink it because they believe that animals don't exist for our use and to take anything from an animal is theft.

As for abortion, again the relevant issue isn't whether or not a fetus is human (of course it is), but whether a pregnant person has the right to autonomy over their own body. If they do, then it doesn't matter whether or not a fetus is human, the pregnant person still has the right to abort as long as the fetus remains in their body.

[KenRU]

Paprika,

If you don’t mind, I’m removing the pointless bickering and paring this down to just one issue I’d like to discuss. If you feel I haven’t already answered all of your questions, please let me know and I will respond promptly.

I’ve no interest in a sniping contest with you (or anyone else) so I’m trudging forward in good faith and with good intentions. One of the reasons I come to this debate forum is to have my own value system challenged. If I find f it can’t withstand scrutiny, then I should (and have) reexamined said values. Another reason I am here is to learn other people’s positions on various topics and learn why they believe what they do. Sniping and sarcasm doesn’t lend itself very well to learning, so I’m trying to reset the game, so to speak, and try to have a civil dialogue.

I’m game if you are.

That being said:

Questions you may feel I haven’t clearly answered:

Yes, a blastocyst is of the human species. But no, I do not believe it is a human being.
Yes, a fertilized chicken egg is of the chicken species. But no, I do not believe it is a chicken.

Hopefully that has answered your questions.

As for the Who Will You Save Scenario, I’m a bit confused by your answers. In one instance you say you will flip a coin (blastocyst vs two year old), but in the other (90 year old, 2 year old and blastocyst) you say triage is in order. Why does triage (which prioritizes based on survivability) apply to one scenario, but not another? If you apply triage to the 1v1 comparison, the baby should be saved. I’m not following your logic.

These are honest questions from me and should not be read with any hostility, scorn or mocking tone. I’m hoping for a civil discussion. Hopefully you are as well.

-All the best,

[Bust Nak]

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.

The point is clear, what isn't clear, is whether it is true or not.

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?

No, I reject the claim that a human embryo is a human, the same way I reject the claim that the chicken embryo is a Gallus gallus domesticus.

The chicken embryo is not a Gallus gallus domesticus, just as the human embryo is not a homo sapiens sapiens.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 401 by Bust Nak]
Very good, you disagree. Perhaps you might want to explain why?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 402 by Paprika]
Quite simply because an embryo isn't an individual or a member of the species.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 403 by Bust Nak]

How is an embryo not a member of the species? I understand that it's not a person, but how is it not a member of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Is it just that it's not an individual?

Keep in mind that I agree with the pro-choice position.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 404 by Haven]

[Replying to post 403 by Bust Nak]

How is an embryo not a member of the species? I understand that it's not a person, but how is it not a member of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Is it just that it's not an individual?

Keep in mind that I agree with the pro-choice position.

It's not a full member, it's an applicant. It's not an individual in the sense that it's a person .. it's not a chicken, it's an egg. It's not an oak tree, it's an acorn.

An embryo is only POTENTIALLY a person.

Member of the species, an individual of the species are two SYNONYMS of "person".
It's faulty because using "member" or "individual" or "offspring " or "baby" or "child" sneaks in personhood.

So, if the meaning of "member of the species" actually means PERSON.. then we are actually saying "a person is a person"... But ONLY by playing around with words.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 405 by Blastcat]

There's a difference between "person" and "human" (the first is a philosophical classification, the second is a biological classification). Something can be a person without being human and vice versa. An embryo has human DNA, it should be considered human, although not a philosophical person (since it has no sentience or consciousness).

Furthermore, why should species membership be considered a morally relevant attribute? I think it has zero relevance whatsoever--it's irrelevant what species X belongs to; what's relevant is whether X has the capacity for sentience.

[Clownboat]

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?

It seems to me that you are at war with the English language.
If I want scrambled eggs, I don't ask for scrambled chickens and neither do you. Your defense is so weak IMO that you must obfuscate words in order to even attempt to have a point.

We all should know by now what an embryo is, just like we all know what scrambled eggs are. Your argument is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

I could grant that you are correct, but I would probably also hand you a helmet while doing so.

I'm off to go order an egg sandwich. Which of course means I'm ordering a chicken sandwich, or does it? How would you even know when I refuse to use accurate words?

If an egg is a chicken and an embryo is a human? What kind of sandwich am I off to go buy? If I was not at war with the English language here in order to try to have a point, I would use the word that best describes what I'm talking about.

I submit that you would prefer to use words that do not best describe what is being discussed. All so you can put forth an emotional argument about killing human babies.

Off to go buy my chicken species sandwich.

[Bust Nak]

How is an embryo not a member of the species? I understand that it's not a person, but how is it not a member of Homo sapiens sapiens?

Is it just that it's not an individual?

The same way human hair or human bone are not members of Homo sapiens sapiens; "an individual of" and "a member of" are pretty much different way to convey the same idea.

Furthermore, why should species membership be considered a morally relevant attribute? I think it has zero relevance whatsoever--it's irrelevant what species X belongs to;

Species membership implies person-hood, that has everything to do with moral worth.