Well, maybe I misunderstood you (a common pitfall of being a dipshit), are you using 'human being' and 'person' as synonyms? Do you think that an embryo is not human?
I think rather than circling around things, please tell me what you believe and let’s go from there. I thought my initial writing was pretty clear! But if it wasn’t, please tell me where you’re coming from rather than drawing me out socratically.
Thanks Josh. I think I get how I misunderstood you. Here’s how these conversations typically go in my experience:
“The embryo is human”
“No it’s not, it’s just a clump of cells”
“It’s not just a clump of cells, it’s a distinct, genetically complete organism with human DNA which is going through the human lifecycle. It objectively belongs to the human species”
“Ok fine, it’s technically a human, but it’s not a person”
When I read your pep talk I thought to myself ‘he’s denying that embryos are human, but he’s using rhetoric (i.e. denying personhood) that people typically only use when they’re cornered on the human question.” But it seems to me that you believe that embryos are neither humans nor persons - if that's the case my initial reaction wouldn't apply to you.
So in terms of where I'm coming from, I think embryos are human. Sure, they aren’t fully developed humans, but neither are newborn infants, toddlers, or basically anyone under twenty five. Someone’s stage of development isn’t what makes someone human, it’s genetics.
If embryos are human, I think they should have the right to life. I think basing whether or not we give a human being rights based on things like age, size, development, capacities etc is arbitrary - and on a practical level, I think it takes us into the same murky waters that people swam in to find justifications for eugenics, chattel slavery, genocide etc. Any time we can say “this human isn’t really human” or “this human doesn’t deserve to live” is a time to be careful.
Good morning Josh, that comparison doesn't work because sperm cells are haploids i.e. they contain only half of the chromosomes which make up a human organism. They aren't going through the human life cycle and won't unless they fertilize an egg.
You might find my views fringe, but the science on when human life begins is long and well understood. Again, this is why so many make the pivot from "it's not human" to "it's not a person."
It's exactly the right comparison. You extrapolated to a ridiculous degree in one direction, I extrapolated to a ridiculous degree in another direction. I am not pivoting at all. I've been extremely consistent. I don't care whether your views are fringe. I am simply saying that they're wrong.
Hi Josh, not accusing you of pivoting, just pointing out that the rhetoric of personhood exists because many realize you're on the wrong side of this debate. I gave you a clear and objective set of criteria for when an organism is human. You tried to give a counter example, I showed why that counter example doesn't work, and you said 'nuh uh.'
This newsletter is not a salon. Your worldview is wildly destructive and leads to massive health crises for actual living humans (or people, I don't really draw the distinction here), and so I'm not here to like...debate you on semantics. You say an embryo is a person with rights. Fine, then a dead body is a person with rights, and cremation should be illegal. In fact you shouldn't even bury them in the ground. See how stupid this sounds to you? That's how you sound to me!
Hi Josh, thanks for continuing to engage with me even though I haven't been a pleasant conversational partner. I also respect that this is your Substack - this will be my last comment here though I'd be open to continuing in private. The last thing I'll say is that a dead person is dead. Giving them the right to life doesn't make sense because they aren't alive.
I have a PhD in Biology, and I’m really not sure why I’m entering into this internet argument despite knowing nothing I say will make a blind bit of difference. By your definition is a cancer that’s cut out of a patient a person? It’s a group of cells that’s capable of dividing and differentiating. Is a wart a person? IVF generates many multicellular bodies. Just because they arise out of fertilization does not mean all are capable of becoming a person. Which are all well known biological facts that have been ignored because decisions are being made based on beliefs not facts. If the courts really, truly wanted to reach a just decision as opposed to one convenient to the biases of judges, the well established recommendations of scientific panel of ethics would have been followed.
> the science on when human life begins is long and well understood
It isn't, actually. There's no consensus on this whatsoever and never has been. There isn't even consensus among religious traditions -- hell, even the Catholic church changed its position on the specific point at which human life begins. That's why this is a famously complex and hotly contested area of medicine, science, law, religion, and personal ethics.
Not only is there no consensus on when life begins, there is also no consensus on when it ends (hence similarly complex questions and very personal decisions on end of life matters).
One bit of consensus we do have, though, is that pretty much nobody believes an embryo should have legal rights equivalent to a person. Other than apparently you. You're right that it is a "fringe" belief and that's because it is clearly nonsense.
I say this as a woman who has both a frozen embryo and a born child who used to be a frozen embryo. You might enjoy speculating on these things in comment sections as a purely philosophical question, but the difference between the two is utterly clear to me. In a trolley problem, I'd save my daughter every time and so would quite literally any other human being ever, because we all know the difference. Consensus!
I should know better than to feed the trolls, but jeez. Are you actively organizing and fighting for a better social safety net? Medicaid expansion? Easier access to SNAP benefits? Child tax credits? Workers rights? Wealth distribution so people can afford to raise all of these embryos? Are you vegetarian? Are you anti-war? Are you outspokenly advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza? Or is it easier for you to play Theological Philosophy 101 on internet comment threads than it is to work toward a world that actually honors life and dignity?
Actually, I don't care. I know your kind and I know the answers to all of these questions for you. I would love for you to surprise me, but I don't think you will.
"...and it’s also increasingly unlikely you’ll be used to create a human being."
Embryos are human beings - that's whole point of the personhood word games you were playing earlier in the paragraph.
No it isn't, dipshit.
Well, maybe I misunderstood you (a common pitfall of being a dipshit), are you using 'human being' and 'person' as synonyms? Do you think that an embryo is not human?
I think rather than circling around things, please tell me what you believe and let’s go from there. I thought my initial writing was pretty clear! But if it wasn’t, please tell me where you’re coming from rather than drawing me out socratically.
Thanks Josh. I think I get how I misunderstood you. Here’s how these conversations typically go in my experience:
“The embryo is human”
“No it’s not, it’s just a clump of cells”
“It’s not just a clump of cells, it’s a distinct, genetically complete organism with human DNA which is going through the human lifecycle. It objectively belongs to the human species”
“Ok fine, it’s technically a human, but it’s not a person”
When I read your pep talk I thought to myself ‘he’s denying that embryos are human, but he’s using rhetoric (i.e. denying personhood) that people typically only use when they’re cornered on the human question.” But it seems to me that you believe that embryos are neither humans nor persons - if that's the case my initial reaction wouldn't apply to you.
So in terms of where I'm coming from, I think embryos are human. Sure, they aren’t fully developed humans, but neither are newborn infants, toddlers, or basically anyone under twenty five. Someone’s stage of development isn’t what makes someone human, it’s genetics.
If embryos are human, I think they should have the right to life. I think basing whether or not we give a human being rights based on things like age, size, development, capacities etc is arbitrary - and on a practical level, I think it takes us into the same murky waters that people swam in to find justifications for eugenics, chattel slavery, genocide etc. Any time we can say “this human isn’t really human” or “this human doesn’t deserve to live” is a time to be careful.
If destroying an embryo is one step away from slavery then cum is basically the holocaust.
Good morning Josh, that comparison doesn't work because sperm cells are haploids i.e. they contain only half of the chromosomes which make up a human organism. They aren't going through the human life cycle and won't unless they fertilize an egg.
You might find my views fringe, but the science on when human life begins is long and well understood. Again, this is why so many make the pivot from "it's not human" to "it's not a person."
It's exactly the right comparison. You extrapolated to a ridiculous degree in one direction, I extrapolated to a ridiculous degree in another direction. I am not pivoting at all. I've been extremely consistent. I don't care whether your views are fringe. I am simply saying that they're wrong.
Hi Josh, not accusing you of pivoting, just pointing out that the rhetoric of personhood exists because many realize you're on the wrong side of this debate. I gave you a clear and objective set of criteria for when an organism is human. You tried to give a counter example, I showed why that counter example doesn't work, and you said 'nuh uh.'
This newsletter is not a salon. Your worldview is wildly destructive and leads to massive health crises for actual living humans (or people, I don't really draw the distinction here), and so I'm not here to like...debate you on semantics. You say an embryo is a person with rights. Fine, then a dead body is a person with rights, and cremation should be illegal. In fact you shouldn't even bury them in the ground. See how stupid this sounds to you? That's how you sound to me!
Hi Josh, thanks for continuing to engage with me even though I haven't been a pleasant conversational partner. I also respect that this is your Substack - this will be my last comment here though I'd be open to continuing in private. The last thing I'll say is that a dead person is dead. Giving them the right to life doesn't make sense because they aren't alive.
I have a PhD in Biology, and I’m really not sure why I’m entering into this internet argument despite knowing nothing I say will make a blind bit of difference. By your definition is a cancer that’s cut out of a patient a person? It’s a group of cells that’s capable of dividing and differentiating. Is a wart a person? IVF generates many multicellular bodies. Just because they arise out of fertilization does not mean all are capable of becoming a person. Which are all well known biological facts that have been ignored because decisions are being made based on beliefs not facts. If the courts really, truly wanted to reach a just decision as opposed to one convenient to the biases of judges, the well established recommendations of scientific panel of ethics would have been followed.
> the science on when human life begins is long and well understood
It isn't, actually. There's no consensus on this whatsoever and never has been. There isn't even consensus among religious traditions -- hell, even the Catholic church changed its position on the specific point at which human life begins. That's why this is a famously complex and hotly contested area of medicine, science, law, religion, and personal ethics.
Not only is there no consensus on when life begins, there is also no consensus on when it ends (hence similarly complex questions and very personal decisions on end of life matters).
One bit of consensus we do have, though, is that pretty much nobody believes an embryo should have legal rights equivalent to a person. Other than apparently you. You're right that it is a "fringe" belief and that's because it is clearly nonsense.
I say this as a woman who has both a frozen embryo and a born child who used to be a frozen embryo. You might enjoy speculating on these things in comment sections as a purely philosophical question, but the difference between the two is utterly clear to me. In a trolley problem, I'd save my daughter every time and so would quite literally any other human being ever, because we all know the difference. Consensus!
I should know better than to feed the trolls, but jeez. Are you actively organizing and fighting for a better social safety net? Medicaid expansion? Easier access to SNAP benefits? Child tax credits? Workers rights? Wealth distribution so people can afford to raise all of these embryos? Are you vegetarian? Are you anti-war? Are you outspokenly advocating for a ceasefire in Gaza? Or is it easier for you to play Theological Philosophy 101 on internet comment threads than it is to work toward a world that actually honors life and dignity?
Actually, I don't care. I know your kind and I know the answers to all of these questions for you. I would love for you to surprise me, but I don't think you will.