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]

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.

OK, that makes sense.

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

Only under a speciesist definition of personhood, which is bigoted (irrationally biased based on an irrelevant trait) by definition.

There's nothing about belonging to a certain species that makes X more deserving of moral worth than a member of another species (just like there's nothing relevant about belonging to a certain gender, race, or sexual orientation that makes someone more deserving of moral worth than a member of another gender/race/orientation). The only relevant criteria are the attributes that a being possesses: things like sentience, consciousness, the ability to feel desire, and so on. Species membership is irrelevant.

A dog has far more moral worth than a fetus, because a dog is sentient while a fetus is not.

In my opinion, the definition of "personhood" should be extended to the vast majority of animals (including humans) alive today, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Clownboat]

And who are these people that we should take so seriously?

One thing I can say with utmost certainty is that 'these people' are not embryos.
To call them human embryos would be confusing wouldn't it?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 409 by Haven]
It's not about which species is worth more, but what is worth more inside a particular species. What I said is silent on whether what moral worth a dog has in relation to than a human fetus, but is a comment on what moral worth a dog/cat/human has in relation to the respective fetus of the same species.

[Blastcat]

[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.

agree both points

[Paprika]

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 have taken care to distinguish between the two meanings of chicken.

It is others who, deliberately or otherwise, confuse them and then accuse me of confusing them. Addressing the argument presented, of course, is too much for them.

[Paprika]

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

Unfortunately for you, the embryo isn't like hair or a limb (I've already addressed this claim multiple times) because the embryo is, in and of itself, a separate organism.

[Bust Nak]

Unfortunately for you, the embryo isn't like hair or a limb (I've already addressed this claim multiple times) because the embryo is, in and of itself, a separate organism.

Don't present this as a settled fact, that's your opinion, granted shared by many including pro-life doctors. Others disagree, the embryo is like hair or a limb in the sense that the embryo is not, in and of itself, a separate organism.

[Paprika]

Unfortunately for you, the embryo isn't like hair or a limb (I've already addressed this claim multiple times) because the embryo is, in and of itself, a separate organism.

Don't present this as a settled fact, that's your opinion, granted shared by many including pro-life doctors.

Hardly mere opinion. This page gathers definitions from many medical dictionaries:

a new organism in the earliest stage of development.

1. An organism in the early stages of development.

1. in animals, those derivatives of the zygote that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid growth, i.e., from the time the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.
2. in humans, the developing organism from fertilization to the end of the eighth week.

1. An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
2. An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

1 any organism in the earliest stages of development.

These are but the first five dictionaries referred to.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 416 by Paprika]

I've already acknowledge that it was an popular opinion shared by many pro-life doctors.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 416 by Paprika]

I've already acknowledge that it was an popular opinion shared by many pro-life doctors.

Quite, but not just mere opinion, and not just by pro-life doctors.

Admit it: it is a biological fact acknowledged by authorities in the field.