vermontaltaccount t1_it2u6dt wrote on October 20, 2022 at 3:09 PM

Reply to comment by kraysys in Why I'm voting yes on Prop 2 & 5 by ButtonFactoryJoe

>The clear consensus in biology is that a distinct human life is formed at the point of conception with the formation of the zygote.

Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

>You claimed multiple times that science says life does not begin at conception. That is simply a false claim.

I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant at a scientific level.

> which implies that this is your primary reason.

I've also talked in depth about how it's difficult to really elaborate on the full extent of the issue because of how complex it is. I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

>As an aside, I appreciate your reflexive downvoting of my comments, really leads me to believe you're acting with intellectual honesty and in good faith here.

I am not downvoting you.

kraysys t1_it2uzta wrote on October 20, 2022 at 3:14 PM

> Plant life also begins at a seed, and I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground either, because it doesn't have a brain.

Sure, but you made an argument with regard to life generally. Most people can distinguish between moral claims around plant life and human life. I also don't think it's unethical to pull an undeveloped seed out of the ground early; not because of a brain or lack thereof but because it's not a human life -- and plants and humans are not morally equivalent.

> I'll admit my wording in my original post is fairly simplified, but I think I've elaborated enough in subsequent posts to detail what I meant.

Yes it was, and no I don't think you have anywhere actually. You made a clear claim multiple times around what the supposed scientific consensus was, and in fact the scientific consensus is the exact opposite of what you claimed.

> I have a job not related to politics so the amount of time I spend on reddit threads explaining minute details of my arguments is minimal. Ultimately, yes, it is my primary reason, and I do have other reasoning.

Haha same, I understand that. But as a primary point it seems to me to be deeply flawed insofar as you've only really made a moral argument because the science-life argument you led with is flatly false.

> I am not downvoting you.

Good to know, thanks. Happened a few times quickly after I made a comment responding to you so I assumed -- but you know what they say about assuming!