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?

[Bust Nak]

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.

There are scientists arguing otherwise, there is active debate in medical/scientific ethics. I would only go as far as to admit it's their professional opinion.

[Paprika]

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.

There are scientists arguing otherwise

So you assert. But without any evidence to demonstrate that any significant disagreement is occurring amongst the experts, we shall take the definitions by many dictionaries - that don't mention any controversy at all - as settled fact. Dictionaries are, of course, authorities on the meanings of words.

Do you have anything more than mere assertions?

[Bust Nak]

So you assert. But without any evidence to demonstrate that any significant disagreement is occurring amongst the experts, we shall take the definitions by many dictionaries - that don't mention any controversy at all - as settled fact. Dictionaries are, of course, authorities on the meanings of words.

Do you have anything more than mere assertions?

Just type in "embryonic research ethics" into google and you'll find endless papers on the debate on this issue, this is a particular hot topic now due to stem cells research.

[Paprika]

So you assert. But without any evidence to demonstrate that any significant disagreement is occurring amongst the experts, we shall take the definitions by many dictionaries - that don't mention any controversy at all - as settled fact. Dictionaries are, of course, authorities on the meanings of words.

Do you have anything more than mere assertions?

Just type in "embryonic research ethics" into google and you'll find endless papers on the debate on this issue, this is a particular hot topic now due to stem cells research.

There is, as we all know, considerable debate on whether and how embryos can be used for research. But that is not the point as disagreement.

As to what embryos are: as my sources have shown, there is no controversy: they are human organisms.

You claim professional disagreement and dispute on whether embryos are organisms; again I must ask you to support that claim.

[Bust Nak]

So you assert. But without any evidence to demonstrate that any significant disagreement is occurring amongst the experts, we shall take the definitions by many dictionaries - that don't mention any controversy at all - as settled fact. Dictionaries are, of course, authorities on the meanings of words.

Do you have anything more than mere assertions?

Just type in "embryonic research ethics" into google and you'll find endless papers on the debate on this issue, this is a particular hot topic now due to stem cells research.

There is, as we all know, considerable debate on whether and how embryos can be used for research. But that is not the point as disagreement.

As to what embryos are: as my sources have shown, there is no controversy: they are human organisms.

You claim professional disagreement and dispute on whether embryos are organisms; again I must ask you to support that claim.

Alright, I concede. Having read a few of the papers that turned up with that search, none are as explicit as I thought. They talk of person-hood and moral worth without denying that embryo are organisms. The closest thing I found was a mention of a book titled The Case Against Perfection by Sandel where it was argued that organisms come to be gradually rather than at a determinate time, some time after the embryonic stage.

It is a biological fact that embryos are organisms, acknowledged by authorities in the field.

[Paprika]

It is a biological fact that embryos are organisms, acknowledged by authorities in the field.

Thank you.

Therefore, since human embryos are human organisms, they are members of homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore human embryos are humans.

[dianaiad]

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

Moderator Comment

Please refrain from making negative personal comments about the poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

It is a biological fact that embryos are organisms, acknowledged by authorities in the field.

Thank you.

Therefore, since human embryos are human organisms, they are members of homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore human embryos are humans.

A level of development is required before it qualify as members. It still makes no sense to call an chicken egg a member of any species.

[KenRU]

For what it's worth: this is the definition of "human being" (from Oxford Dictionaries):

noun
"a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Bold added by me.


At what stage can a blastocyst be distinguished from other organisms by: superior mental development, etc?

Seems to me, that it will (or potentially) have that distinguishable trait. But it currently does not.

It is fair to argue that a blastocyst, by the above definition, is not a Human Being - yet.

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a blastocyst to be considered a human being. Some allow for it (definition wise), others don't.

Clearly, within dictionaries, it is certainly no established fact that a blastocyst is a human being.

[PghPanther]

When Christianity was the dominant world view in Europe you could be burned at the stake for not believing or challenging that view.............

Today Christianity takes a back seat to the dominant world view of applied technology through the discoveries of the scientific method.........and they smile and use the benefits of all that which they would have burned people at the stakes for claiming when they used to control the developed world.

Now tell me how noble Christianity is...........