Opinion of MY version of ProLife

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The description opening the thread is close to what I hold to. "Last resort" is a tricky concept and not an adequate one to base a theory of war on, but I know what you are trying to get at. What to do about the legality and acceptability of assisted suicide is a question I struggle over, and seems to me a different sort of issue than the others it is sometimes put together with.  But it certainly ought not come to be normalized as just a matter of course procedure, with the danger of it possibly becoming an outright expectation for some.

Being consistently pro-life means not being satisfied with the status quo when it comes to poverty.  A large welfare state is one possible response to that, but it isn't the only one.  There's a pro-life argument to be made in favor of something so libertarian as a non-aggression principle (no initiation of force in pursuit of social goals), but one call also argue from a pro-life perspective that such a thing is not satisfactory to enable people to live as much as may be possible with a more active government.  Or it may be that what is required is some fundamental reordering of the economy in some way other than a greater dependence on government, while ways of strengthening communities, civil society, and families.  If one is honest, it requires real reflection about the social and ethical cost of any proposed political-economic policy to try for an approximation of a truly pro-life approach.

[🐒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.

[🐒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.

[🐒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.