this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
593 points (97.7% liked)

Brand New Sentence

210 readers
841 users here now

Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.

  1. Be cool to each other.
  2. Post title must be the sentence.
  3. Link for context if possible.
  4. Tag NSFW where applicable.

I'm looking for another mod, someone chill. DM me if you're interested.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pyre@lemmy.world 23 points 14 hours 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 11 points 12 hours 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 14 points 11 hours 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 4 points 11 hours ago

Ooh yeah makes sense

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world -5 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours 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 15 points 12 hours 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.