[zdragnar]

It's hardly a polemic when it is a question of existential importance- what does it mean to be human, when does a human begin to exist, and at what point does a human have rights?

[esarbe]

Embryos are without a question human. So is my little toe. The question is whether they are persons.

The importance of the topic doesn't make it impossible to be polemic. I can talk about a very serious topic and be polemic and I can also talk about a trivial matter and not be polemic. The question of polemic is decided by contentious rhetoric.

Equating embryos with children and abortion with murder is polemic.

[zdragnar]

The question is not are embryos human, the question is whether they are independent human life with their own rights.

I don't think it is polemic to disagree on this point, but it rationally follows that if embryos are unique life forms, which are also human, then aborting them is murder.

Personally, I don't agree with that line of reasoning either, but the argument isn't in itself polemic.

Edit: I suppose I should add that I am not treating "human" as a collective noun, the way we might talk about bread or water. "A human" is not merely a little toe, for example.

[esarbe]

>> Embryos are without a question human. [...] The question is whether they are persons.

> The question is not are embryos human, the question is whether they are independent human life with their own rights.

I think we are pretty much in agreement what the contention is about.

> [..] the argument isn't in itself polemic.

The argument itself is not polemic. No argument in itself is polemic. Polemic is defined in the language used. I'm objecting the language in which the argument is phrased;

To quote the post I originally answered to:

> "Embryo selection"—is that a euphemism for "murdering any unborn child [...]

The phrasing is polemic for reasons I pointed out before.