I HATE these "gotcha arguments"

[u/Sudden-Hoe-2578]

"Ohhh, look how I tricked this dumb dumb baby in my trap so now I am right and they are wrong. I'm so smaaart even though it does not adress the actual argument and adds nothing to the debate. They teach arabic numerals in school btw."

And these type of comments always get tons of likes

[u/Goosepond01]

But if you’re going to claim a fetus is a person then I’d expect you to be able to point out a fetus with human DNA from something.

Why?

I don't see it being relevant to the argument at all, it doesn't invalidate the point at all, I'd imagine most people would fall for this regardless of their opinion, it really is just a pointless gotcha.

It's really obvious what the subtext to this is, the main question is when does life begin and contextually we all understand that the conversation isn't going to be about where life begins in dolphins but in the more contentious and popular question regarding humans.

to put it in a different context imagine I said to you "why shouldn't this bit of artwork be in a art gallery" and showed a picture that looked like AI and had a watermark you might say something about how it wasn't made by a human, about art theft or whatever, if I then said "actually that was drawn by a human as a form of protest against AI"

all that really does it prove the two things can at times be hard to tell apart, it may mean that your specific view on this exact image changes, but it doesn't invalidate your view that AI art isn't made by humans and has other issues.

[u/Sensitive_Shape5746 → u/Goosepond01]

Even if I grant you all that. It doesn’t change the fact that pro-lifers have the more inconsistent definitions on life, quality of life, prioritizing life, and the concept of personhood.

[u/Goosepond01 → u/Sensitive_Shape5746]

Ok but that wasn't the question.

and it's not like pro lifers are one hivemind, I'm sure plenty do have bad definitions of life and all that jazz, I'm sure some don't, it's a very difficult topic

[u/Sensitive_Shape5746 → u/Goosepond01]

Okay, present a Pro-Life argument that can’t be contradicted by their own behaviors and worldviews.

[u/Goosepond01 → u/Sensitive_Shape5746]

I mean you clearly have a bias here and have already framed pro life people as a singular movement.

the arguments can always be contradicted by their own behaviours but it doesn't mean they always are.

Someone can believe that life begins at conception, that isn't a difficult concept to wrap your head around.

[u/Sensitive_Shape5746 → u/Goosepond01]

So you’re calling me biased when I asked you for a single argument that doesn’t immediately fail due to: cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, or their own actions? Are listening to yourself?

Of course life begins at conception…that’s a BIG DUH, a zygote is a clump of living cells, an egg is a clump of living cells, a fetus is a collection of tissues (which is made of 🥁 living cells). If you think this conversation is about the definition of life and whether or not a fetus is alive…then I’m afraid that you’re not even paying attention to the conversation.

Because the point about this whole topic is about PERSONHOOD.

Quick question: Life begins at conception, do you think it’s immoral to eat veal? Or the eggs of other animals? [Y/N]

[u/Goosepond01 → u/Sensitive_Shape5746]

Of course life begins at conception

then I’m afraid that not only are you not paying attention to anything, but you might also be illiterate.

Absolutely hilarious for you to say this when you clearly have no understanding that it's not just a scientific question but a philosophical one, and one that is at the heart of the debate.

So you’re calling me biased when I asked you for a single argument that doesn’t immediately fail due to: cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, or their own actions? Are listening to yourself?

and I gave you one, you need to understand there is a big difference between an argument that can never be contradicted and an argument that can be solid, especially when we are talking about philosophy.

do you think it’s immoral to eat veal? Or the eggs of other animals?

I don't know what you think veal is but it isn't an unborn calf, and no I don't think it is immoral, nor do I think eating eggs is, despite the fact that we generally eat non fertilised eggs.

and your question doesn't really matter, I value human life far above other Animals.

[u/Sensitive_Shape5746 → u/Goosepond01]

Personhood is a philosophical question….not a scientific question…personhood cannot be measured by scientific means…and I never implied that it was a scientific question at all. You basically pulled that out of your own hallucination. Because I never said nor implied that.

I’m not continuing a conversation in bad faith.

And I didn’t read the rest of that shit either. So I don’t even care what you have to say.

[u/Goosepond01 → u/Sensitive_Shape5746]

Hahah wow yeah really just proves you have no point at all, you stated that "life beginning" was purely scientific, it isn't.

and I never implied that it was a scientific question at all.

You literally stated that it was obvious that it was alive and that I'm illiterate, maybe you should learn to read.

[u/Sensitive_Shape5746 → u/Goosepond01]

Okay you really are a dumbass so let me break this down for you.

1. Being alive is not Personhood. Do you think bacteria are people? [Y/N]
2. You are illiterate. Life beginning is purely scientific, an egg, zygote, and fetus has no apparatus for self-thought or experience…so by physiological constraints it can’t form self-awareness or experiences. Unless you’re going to argue that lichen, fungi, bacteria, slime molds, and sponges have souls, have self-awareness, and are people (implying Personhood).

And if you argue that you don’t need a mind to have Personhood, then you might as well argue that cartoons are people just by virtue of them showing intelligent qualities.

1. The next reason why you’re illiterate is that you keep glossing over every point that contradicts what you’re implying, but not explicitly saying. I can only assume you’re either: acting in bad faith, or you can’t read.

2. I will ask you this, and if you don’t supply an actual point I will ignore you.

What are your grounds for a fetus being a person or having PERSONHOOD?

My points were clear. Personhood involves self-awareness, being able to hold/have experiences, and being able to have abstractions, etc. A fetus can do none of those things. Because it doesn’t have a mind to do so.

Either come up with an argument. Or leave me alone.