this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
687 points (97.4% liked)

Brand New Sentence

386 readers
386 users here now

Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.

  1. Be cool to each other and follow the lemmy.today instance rules.
  2. Post title must be the sentence, or relevant portion of the sentence if it's very long.
  3. Link for context if possible.
  4. Tag NSFW where applicable.
  5. This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. Direct implications of harm (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) will be moderated at our discretion.

founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago (2 children)

that's a good steelman. but this is why I think the better argument is Hasan's usual hypothetical about this: there's a fire in a hospital and you can only get into one of the rooms in time to save some people. do you go into NICU where you could save a couple babies or to the IVF section where you can save thousands of embryos?

[–] plutopos@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This hypothetical is great as it forces them to admit born babies are more important than embryos, but it doesn't prove embryos are not alive

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

it's not about them being alive; embryos are alive, that's not even disputed. it's about whether the life is a person. if you think the babies are more important you're already conceding the embryos don't have personhood, or at least not to the degree that babies do.

either case they shouldn't have the same rights as actual people. if you think an embryo is a person then you can't choose the couple babies over so many people. or if you do it's still going to be fun hearing you try to justify it without conceding.

[–] plutopos@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

Ooh yeah makes sense

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

In a fertility crisis with aging population (e.g as bad as upside down population pyramid) people might save the hundreds of embryos

Edit: I didn't notice that you said babies the first time i read that tbh. Lol.

Yes even a eugenicist would say the babies are more valuable than embryos because you can see that they're healthy, whereas with an embryo it's unproven.

Many would also prioritise them because they have reached consciousness so there is "suffering cost" at play.

Doesn't prove that embryos aren't life though, as another commenter said.

[–] applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 23 points 2 months ago

theres no fertility crisis, its an economic crisis. greedy rich people are ruining the world and making existing unaffordable so no one can afford to have babies.