It can be argued that the right to a good life supercedes the right to a life, period. But I'm not going to argue that, because in any case, the embryo has no life (it cannot live seperate of the mother, it's not an independant life, etc), so the point is moot.

'Human life' isn't an objective measure here. How I outlined it IS how 'we' (the law as it stands, science, etc) qualify it. You can't squawk down science. For that reason, too, 'potential' is not a rabbit trail. It's exactly on topic - it has been scientifically demonstrated that an embryo is a -potential- person,…

Counterpoint 1: A gestating child is not a human life as we qualify it. Up until around the ~23rd week or later, it cannot live independantly of the mother, even WITH medical intervention. It cannot think, or feel pain, it can only reflexively move (Reflexive movement is something even sponges can do. Please also note…

And you don't consider devaluing the life of a full, total person over that of a hypothetical person immoral? You're a hypocrite.

Pregnancy does deny a woman personhood, underneath your perspective. You're reducing her to be worth less than the hypothetical life inside of her - she becomes an incubator, instead of a person. I suggest you read the study again, and maybe a little about fetal development, before you equate an embryo to a thinking,…

There's always one dildo on the comments section of an election post. (It's you!)

99 problems but Mitt ain't one.

But they're not killing the consequences; There's no person being killed.

Somatic mosaic skin cells have DNA distinct from their host. They're not indicative of a person. Worst case scenario is that a human bearing them is a chimera who engulfed their fetal twin in the womb.

'wont complain about it'

Well, fuck you too.

Because a female character must always look attractive to a man. For a male character, attractiveness is optional.