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 IтАЩm really not sure why IтАЩm entering into this internet argument despite knowing nothing I say will make a blind bit of difference. By your definition is a cancer thatтАЩs cut out of a patient a person? ItтАЩs a group of cells thatтАЩs 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!
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 wasn't arguing with you. I was making fun of you.
I have a PhD in Biology, and IтАЩm really not sure why IтАЩm entering into this internet argument despite knowing nothing I say will make a blind bit of difference. By your definition is a cancer thatтАЩs cut out of a patient a person? ItтАЩs a group of cells thatтАЩs 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!