Opinion of MY version of ProLife

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

So you're for universal healthcare, and for a welfare state that looks out for the poor, with  high levels of taxation on the rich to provide resources to essential services for society, that save people's lives.

Oh wait no...

If you are against killing you are pro-life.  People can argue about economic policies all they want but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not.

It is. I devote my personal time and resources to helping others, but I don't think socialism helps others. Capitalism is the single greatest system for poverty eradication in the world.

No, Capitalism supports poverty and injustice. Besides I'm not talking about socialism vs capitalism. I am talking about a decent welfare state and universal healthcare to feed the poor and hungry so they are not left downtrodden to left without hope and left to die, as the state doesn't do aything.

This is a part of a constant life ethic, a part good human morality.

You cannot separate such issues out, as much as you want to.

He believes that capitalism is the best way to do that. Stop pretending that being "prolife" requires agreeing with you on every economic policy.

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

So you're for universal healthcare, and for a welfare state that looks out for the poor, with  high levels of taxation on the rich to provide resources to essential services for society, that save people's lives.

Oh wait no...

If you are against killing you are pro-life.  People can argue about economic policies all they want but it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

It's not.

It is. I devote my personal time and resources to helping others, but I don't think socialism helps others. Capitalism is the single greatest system for poverty eradication in the world.

No, Capitalism supports poverty and injustice. Besides I'm not talking about socialism vs capitalism. I am talking about a decent welfare state and universal healthcare to feed the poor and hungry so they are not left downtrodden to left without hope and left to die, as the state doesn't do aything.

This is a part of a constant life ethic, a part good human morality.

You cannot separate such issues out, as much as you want to.

He believes that capitalism is the best way to do that. Stop pretending that being "prolife" requires agreeing with you on every economic policy.

Being pro-universal healthcare, and pro-welfare state is required yes.

Do pro-life people claim that holding a pro-choice, is contrary to contrary to supporting a life ethic yes. I believe being anti-welfare, and anti-universal healthcare is contrary to a constant pro-life ethic.

Again I mentioned nothing about socialism vs capitalism, you guys added that in. But if we're going on the topic, I believe that socialism is the more moral and just system, which should not abolish capitalism in its entirety but get rid of the anti-social natures of capitalism, for a world of equality and morality.

I mentioned nothing about socialism, in my first post.

I didn't mention socialism either. (need to go to bed desperately, so not responding in full).

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

Are you vegan?

That's kind of a good question.

No because human life is different than the lives or other animals.

An octopus sea slug has more sentience than an embryo.

[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".

[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!

[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.