(March 28, 2025 at 1:05 am)TheWhiteMarten Wrote: The crux of my argument is derived from the problem you described; that unending grey zone of human opinion and the philosophical defenses of them simply cannot be used as a basis for legal doctrine - unequivocally so when the topic at hand is human rights.
We thus then can only turn to one source - science.
The notion that a fertilized cell is human in any but the most rudimentary and reductionists sense is the entire point; *all* humans, even those at the most earliest stages of their development, deserve the basic human right of life.
That isn't scientific, kindly stop pretending otherwise. The notion that a single cell deserves the same rights as a fully developed human and that those rights should override the mother's is utterly preposterous. Let me give you a quick example. There's a fire in a fertility clinic and you're the only one who can possibly do anything to help. You have the choice of either (1) saving two infants in room A, (2) saving 20 single-celled cryogenically preserved embryos in room B, or (3) fuck them all, I have internet arguments to win!
Quote:I am again perplexed by this idea that women are so fundamentally ignorant of sexual intercourse that they don't understand the risks of pregnancy and how it always somehow devolves into, "Men bad, hurt men."
I'm equally perplexed that men can't figure it out but I'm certain that castrating a few will solve the problem. Think of the babies it could save!
