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]

Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person.

Golly. An embryo is a human organism, therefore a member of the species Homo sapiens, and according to your reference it is therefore a human being and a person. So the reference you provide actually supports my point and contradicts your view.

Alternatively, An embryo is a human organism, but not a person and according to your reference it is therefore not a member of the species Homo sapien. So the reference supports my point and contradicts your view.

What now? You've already conceded that the human embryo is a human organism. Therefore it is a member of the human species.

The premise that a human organism implies it is a member of the human species needs proving.

Oh, and I'm still hoping you will elaborate on the earlier claim that "a level of development is required".

As in what level of development? Sentience for example.

[Paprika]

Human being: any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens. a person.

Golly. An embryo is a human organism, therefore a member of the species Homo sapiens, and according to your reference it is therefore a human being and a person. So the reference you provide actually supports my point and contradicts your view.

Alternatively, An embryo is a human organism, but not a person and according to your reference it is therefore not a member of the species Homo sapien. So the reference supports my point and contradicts your view.

What now? You've already conceded that the human embryo is a human organism. Therefore it is a member of the human species.

The premise that a human organism implies it is a member of the human species needs proving.

Back to the dictionary!

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Oh, and I'm still hoping you will elaborate on the earlier claim that "a level of development is required".

As in what level of development? Sentience for example.

That needs proving as well.

[Bust Nak]

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Doesn't say anything about membership.

That needs proving as well.

Person-hood is for philosophy and beyond the scientific discussion.

[Paprika]

Doesn't say anything about membership.

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

That needs proving as well.

Person-hood is for philosophy and beyond the scientific discussion.

So your claim that "a level of development is required" remains unsupported.

[Bust Nak]

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Yes, it says organisms.

So your claim that "a level of development is required" remains unsupported.

Right, are you ready to move onto the person-hood debate?

[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."


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

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

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

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn 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 newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

Correction, I am arguing that by the Oxford definition, it is reasonable to assert that a blastocyst is not a Human Being. Just as it is equably reasonable to assert it can be considered a Human Being when using other dictionaries.

I used those 3 criteria as an example. That doesn't mean that I ignored the rest of the definition, nor does it give you the license to ignore the rest of the definition to argue your point.

What we do have, then, is the definitions of "Human Being" and "Child".

The full definition of Human Being (if it is to be understood and used - without circular logic) shows that a blastocyst can reasonably not be called a Human Being.

I have shown you the definitions (from Oxford) for "Human Being" and "Child" to show that it is reasonable and accurate.

Perhaps it would be time to acknowledge this?

Hardly.

By that same definition many children are not human beings. Are you willing to acknowledge this?

You're not using the definitions provided by Oxford Dictionary correctly. They are listed above. Using the definitions provided for Human Being, a child is one of the conditions. Using definition 1.1, a child is defined as a son or daughter of any age.

So, if the son or daughter has an age, they are consider a Child. Therefore, a Human Being. End of story. What age is a blastocyst? I'm pretty sure using a negative number would not make your case for you.

I can't see why you are having difficulty admitting this. The definitions are there for you to read.

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

Say what you will, but that does not take away from the fact that your argument is literally, like attempting to claim that that scrambled eggs are just scrambled chickens.

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.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser - Socrates

[Wootah]

[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.

A baby is only a POTENTIAL person as well. I defy anyone to find a 'person' in a baby that can be compared to a person as an adult.

[Paprika]

1. A biologic division between the genus and a variety or the individual; a group of organisms that generally bear a close resemblance to one another in the more essential features of their organization, and breed effectively producing fertile progeny.

1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding.

Yes, it says organisms.

So your claim that "a level of development is required" remains unsupported.

Right, are you ready to move onto the person-hood debate?

I'm waiting for you to admit that human embryos, as human organisms are homo sapiens sapiens/humans.

[Paprika]

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."


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

Newborns and children at certain early stages of development do not have the power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

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

Definitions obviously vary. Other dictionary definitions of Human Being allow for a newborn 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 newborn is a human beings.

The definition also uses the words Man, Woman and Child to qualify its meaning.

So, let's define child (from the same source):

1) A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

We can't use this definition because it uses our original words we were seeking to define (Human Being). So, let's go to Oxford's 1.1 definition.

1.1) A son or daughter of any age.

Children have no age before birth.

So, no. The Oxford Dictionary is not referring to newborns or children of an early age. The word "child" in its definition makes this clear.

What do we have? You argued that the definition of a 'human being' by that dictionary is that three criteria must be satisfied: "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." You argued that since blastocysts are not "distinguished from other animals by superior mental development", they are not human beings.

By that same logic, since many children are not "distinguished from other animals by... power of articulate speech, and upright stance", they are not human beings.

Correction, I am arguing that by the Oxford definition, it is reasonable to assert that a blastocyst is not a Human Being. Just as it is equably reasonable to assert it can be considered a Human Being when using other dictionaries.

I used those 3 criteria as an example. That doesn't mean that I ignored the rest of the definition, nor does it give you the license to ignore the rest of the definition to argue your point.

What we do have, then, is the definitions of "Human Being" and "Child".

The full definition of Human Being (if it is to be understood and used - without circular logic) shows that a blastocyst can reasonably not be called a Human Being.

I have shown you the definitions (from Oxford) for "Human Being" and "Child" to show that it is reasonable and accurate.

Perhaps it would be time to acknowledge this?

Hardly.

By that same definition many children are not human beings. Are you willing to acknowledge this?

You're not using the definitions provided by Oxford Dictionary correctly. They are listed above. Using the definitions provided for Human Being, a child is one of the conditions. Using definition 1.1, a child is defined as a son or daughter of any age.

So, if the son or daughter has an age, they are consider a Child. Therefore, a Human Being. End of story. What age is a blastocyst? I'm pretty sure using a negative number would not make your case for you.

I can't see why you are having difficulty admitting this. The definitions are there for you to read.

Nonsense. By the definition that you're using, not any child is a human being, but the child must also possess "...power of articulate speech, and upright stance."

Your definition, not mine, and it's rather clear why you're stumbling at this point.