Opinion of MY version of ProLife

[Person Man]

There's a clear trajectory of something with its own set of genes etc. proceeding through different developmental stages between conception and birth that manifestly isn't the case with cells that have to fuse with cells from an entirely different person first. This has never struck me as a good-faith argument. Just say that brain activity has to be present for something to be a person, or that the soul enters the body at birth along with the breath, or something.

That is implied when one's rebuttal to a pro-life argument is "sea slugs are more sentient then embryos".

I know, but why go beyond that and start piling on arguments that are much worse to boot?

The other argument was a rebuttal to a counterargument. Frankly, its pretty dumb to seperate embryos from gametes. "Gamates are okay to kill because their just a cell containing the genetic information of one person. But embryos have genetic info from 2 people. And it takes slightly fewer reactions to turn one  into a conciousness. They must be fully human!

It's a new life and a unique individual organism, biologically and genetically human. It's not dumb to see value in that. Your view of what imparts value to human life just happens to be more limited.

But until they implant, they won't necessarily grow and are in the same boat of any cell whose nucleus could be transplamted into an egg.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's a clear trajectory of something with its own set of genes etc. proceeding through different developmental stages between conception and birth that manifestly isn't the case with cells that have to fuse with cells from an entirely different person first. This has never struck me as a good-faith argument. Just say that brain activity has to be present for something to be a person, or that the soul enters the body at birth along with the breath, or something.

That is implied when one's rebuttal to a pro-life argument is "sea slugs are more sentient then embryos".

I know, but why go beyond that and start piling on arguments that are much worse to boot?

The other argument was a rebuttal to a counterargument. Frankly, its pretty dumb to seperate embryos from gametes. "Gamates are okay to kill because their just a cell containing the genetic information of one person. But embryos have genetic info from 2 people. And it takes slightly fewer reactions to turn one  into a conciousness. They must be fully human!

It's a new life and a unique individual organism, biologically and genetically human. It's not dumb to see value in that. Your view of what imparts value to human life just happens to be more limited.

But until they implant, they won't necessarily grow and are in the same boat of any cell whose nucleus could be transplamted into an egg.

A rat, a sailor, and a treasure map may all be in the same boat, doesn't mean there's no difference between them.  but it's not the same boat anyway, not even the same ocean.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

There's a clear trajectory of something with its own set of genes etc. proceeding through different developmental stages between conception and birth that manifestly isn't the case with cells that have to fuse with cells from an entirely different person first. This has never struck me as a good-faith argument. Just say that brain activity has to be present for something to be a person, or that the soul enters the body at birth along with the breath, or something.

That is implied when one's rebuttal to a pro-life argument is "sea slugs are more sentient then embryos".

I know, but why go beyond that and start piling on arguments that are much worse to boot?

The other argument was a rebuttal to a counterargument. Frankly, its pretty dumb to seperate embryos from gametes. "Gamates are okay to kill because their just a cell containing the genetic information of one person. But embryos have genetic info from 2 people. And it takes slightly fewer reactions to turn one  into a conciousness. They must be fully human!

It's a new life and a unique individual organism, biologically and genetically human. It's not dumb to see value in that. Your view of what imparts value to human life just happens to be more limited.

But until they implant, they won't necessarily grow and are in the same boat of any cell whose nucleus could be transplamted into an egg.

A rat, a sailor, and a treasure map may all be in the same boat, doesn't mean there's no difference between them.  but it's not the same boat anyway, not even the same ocean.

You took a metaphoric phrase way too literally.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

There's a clear trajectory of something with its own set of genes etc. proceeding through different developmental stages between conception and birth that manifestly isn't the case with cells that have to fuse with cells from an entirely different person first. This has never struck me as a good-faith argument. Just say that brain activity has to be present for something to be a person, or that the soul enters the body at birth along with the breath, or something.

That is implied when one's rebuttal to a pro-life argument is "sea slugs are more sentient then embryos".

I know, but why go beyond that and start piling on arguments that are much worse to boot?

The other argument was a rebuttal to a counterargument. Frankly, its pretty dumb to seperate embryos from gametes. "Gamates are okay to kill because their just a cell containing the genetic information of one person. But embryos have genetic info from 2 people. And it takes slightly fewer reactions to turn one  into a conciousness. They must be fully human!

It's a new life and a unique individual organism, biologically and genetically human. It's not dumb to see value in that. Your view of what imparts value to human life just happens to be more limited.

But until they implant, they won't necessarily grow and are in the same boat of any cell whose nucleus could be transplamted into an egg.

A rat, a sailor, and a treasure map may all be in the same boat, doesn't mean there's no difference between them.  but it's not the same boat anyway, not even the same ocean.

You took a metaphoric phrase way too literally.

Perhaps I took it too metaphorically?  Being in the same boat generally means to be in a similar position. I'm saying it isn't really a similar position, and even if it were, the question is not one of position but of substance and identity.

[JA]

Despite being very pro-choice, to the extent of opposing almost any restrictions on abortions, I have to say that your ideology is a good one. It's at least logically consistent. Although it does raise the question of whether alleviating human suffering should be a part of your philosophy as well and how best to alleviate said suffering.

[Young Conservative]

Despite being very pro-choice, to the extent of opposing almost any restrictions on abortions, I have to say that your ideology is a good one. It's at least logically consistent. Although it does raise the question of whether alleviating human suffering should be a part of your philosophy as well and how best to alleviate said suffering.

Thank you for your respect for my views. In regards to the alleviation of human suffering, it is my view that capitalism helps alleviate it, showcasing a different approach to poverty,but one still driven by the same goals that you have: to help people.