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]

[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.

Just incidentally, some have argued it is acceptable for newborns to be killed. Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that 'personhood' is very very subjective.

[Paprika]

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 isn't, but I gather desperation is such a great motivator for people to misrepresent that argument.

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

Or whining, like making quotes that don't actually establish anything.

[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.

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.

I'm sorry to say that a baby is a person, and not a potential person.

[Bust Nak]

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

The word "admit" implies that it is a fact that human embryos, as organisms are human beings. That is not my position at all. To say "I do not admit" is to conceding too much.

[Paprika]

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

The word "admit" implies that it is a fact that human embryos, as organisms are human beings. That is not my position at all. To say "I do not admit" is to conceding too much.

So if you don't agree, I do wonder what reason you have for disagreeing with the chain of logic I have presented. Before we move on to anything else such as 'the personhood debate', I would appreciate it very much if we clear up this very important point of dispute.

[Bust Nak]

So if you don't agree, I do wonder what reason you have for disagreeing with the chain of logic I have presented. Before we move on to anything else such as 'the personhood debate', I would appreciate it very much if we clear up this very important point of dispute.

It's like I said eariler, the reason is an a priori rejection of embryo is a person, an egg a chicken, or an acorn an oak.

[Paprika]

So if you don't agree, I do wonder what reason you have for disagreeing with the chain of logic I have presented. Before we move on to anything else such as 'the personhood debate', I would appreciate it very much if we clear up this very important point of dispute.

It's like I said eariler, the reason is an a priori rejection of embryo is a person, an egg a chicken, or an acorn an oak.

So let me get this straight: you disagree with the conclusion of my argument not because you can find any flaw in it but because it contradicts with a preexisting belief you hold - that the embryo is not a person - which you are not even willing to demonstrate is true?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 455 by Paprika]

So let me get this straight: you disagree with the conclusion of my argument not because you can find any flaw in it but because it contradicts with a preexisting belief you hold - that the embryo is not a person - which you are not even willing to demonstrate is true?

You have the preexisting belief - that the embryo IS a person.

The only difference is that people who are pro-choice don't follow an old superstition in order to arrive at their conclusions. They can use logic and science.

1) Science is not with you,
2) and the Bible isn't a rational way to know what is true or false about nature.
3) Let's assume that both sides use good logic.


That's still two strikes against the anti-abortion side.

Two to one against the pro-life position in here. Oh, and i am not sure if you still consider an egg is a chicken and an acorn is a tree. That would undermine your logic, too. But let's concede that your logic is fine for the moment. You can't seem to grasp what people are telling you about your logic, or accept it ...there is no use going there with you.

And that is why abortions are legal in so many jurisdictions. Logic and science rules the day, fortunately, and NOT ancient superstitions nor faulty reasoning.

[Bust Nak]

So let me get this straight: you disagree with the conclusion of my argument not because you can find any flaw in it but because it contradicts with a preexisting belief you hold - that the embryo is not a person - which you are not even willing to demonstrate is true?

No, that's not what is happening. I disagree with the premises of your argument and concluded your conclusion unsound.

[Paprika]

So let me get this straight: you disagree with the conclusion of my argument not because you can find any flaw in it but because it contradicts with a preexisting belief you hold - that the embryo is not a person - which you are not even willing to demonstrate is true?

No, that's not what is happening. I disagree with the premises of your argument and concluded your conclusion unsound.

At one point you claimed that my premise that embryos were organisms was 'mere opinion', then later conceded the point when proven false.

What do you still disagree with? And why? In what way is my conclusion unsound?