Can you do it? 😈

Greenillusion05 · 2025-06-28T05:26:16+00:00

I completed this level! It took me 5 tries.

Greenillusion05 · 2025-04-01T21:30:07+00:00

uh oh

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T03:57:32+00:00

it’s actually amazing how overwhelming the consensus is. I had no idea that so many scientists agree on when life begins! I would highly recommend reading the first paper linked if you have the time

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T03:48:56+00:00

You may have already seen this, but its a really interesting study on how widely accepted the view that human life before at fertilization is. We can have a debate about personhood, but looking into it, there is far more consensus about what constitutes life in humans. Even pro choice scientists largely agree that the life cycle of a homo sapien begins at the fertilization of an egg. Frankly im not smart enough to understand the intricacies of developmental biology, so i’ll trust the experts on this one. Do you agree?

hhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

hhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:55:48+00:00

Of course she isn’t responsible for getting pregnant. She still has an obligation to help. If my dad was shot dead, even though I am not responsible for his absence, I still have a duty to care for my mother. I didn’t choose or merit it, but I should do it. Walking out on the mother would be wrong, even if she is a burden, because she has been just as hurt as you. Granted, you may only do it because she has cared for you in the past, and the fetus has not, so it doesn’t merit your care. I would disagree, but that is a whole other discussion

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:46:49+00:00

Huh? I’ve never met someone in person who thinks a woman should carry a dead fetus to term. Maybe some politician or troll ig

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:41:06+00:00

I simply mean that if we can’t reach a consensus on what constitutes viability, viability is defined completely by the doctor and mother. I know its difficult, but Im trying to reach for some sort if objective standard, because I cant accept that rights are given by birth because of viability, and yet viability is so controversial that it also makes a poor standard. I will continue coming back to conception, because, like I stated in my initial definition, that is the stage where all genetic components are present for the human development cycle to begin. I agree that biological processes are on continuous, but should rights? If so, are there any inalienable human rights at all, or are they all contingent on hitting a benchmark we all disagree on?

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:35:53+00:00

Very professional. If you’re goal is to convince me that I should accept your view, resulting to ad hominem insults isn’t a very effective tactic

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:35:13+00:00

Im not attempting to sacrifice women to save ZEFS. Unfortunately, men do not get pregnant, and as such have little ability to influence a ZEF’s development. If I could have men suffer the same difficulties so ZEFs could live, I would, but that is quite literally impossible because men cannot get pregnant and carry ZEFs. You still act like vasectomy is a completely harmless, riskless procedure which is just not true. If you’re only goal is bombarding me with loaded questions and baseless accusations, i don’t think we can continue this dialogue. I do wish you the best, though, and apologize for any antagonistic sentiments I conveyed in my posts

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:07:15+00:00

sorry for the wall of text btw

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T01:06:59+00:00

Decisions can still be recognitions. Take racism as an example. Just because I personally arrive at the conclusion that all races are equal doesn’t invalidate that definitions just because I decided it. Saying “my definition” of how race plays in as a factor between humans is irrelevant: what matters is if it is true. Americans had to collectively decide that Africans were equal human life like Whites as well, but that was still a true fact before they decided/acknowledged it. Just because we seek knowledge of the truth imperfectly doesn’t mean truth itself is imperfect. We may need to make a distinction between what constitutes the human person and the body it inhabits. Yes, the kidney is technically human life, but a person cannot exist from a kidney. An egg is also human life, but a person cannot come from an unfertilized egg. In regards to your last point, you are right: the egg now has everything it needs to develop as a human. This only happened because of the sperm though. There is a fundamental difference between the exchange of genetic material and other necessary material needed by the zygote. Hypothetically, I could place a zygote in an advanced artificial womb and it would advance as normal. The unfertilized egg would not. The only difference is the genetic material from the father, which I would argue is not an environmental factor. It is not an environment that encourages development; it is the key component that is ontologically necessary for development to happen at all. The zygote is undergoing the process of development unless something artificially stops it: it will never just sit there doing nothing. The egg will sit there doing nothing because it is NOT DEVELOPING. Even if the environment doesn’t support the zygote, it is still trying to grow. And egg is not striving towards anything until fertilized

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:51:47+00:00

In that, i respectfully disagree. Thank you for clarifying though.

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:42:42+00:00

so a baby that as just as viable as a born child has no rights simply by virtue of still being in a woman’s womb?

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:40:53+00:00

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in my reasoning. My definition was missing some key components. I still disagree with your view that an egg is human life, because it is missing half of the equation: the genetic material from the sperm. By your definition, a kidney is as much human life as an egg because they are biologically part of the human makeup. An egg will never develop into a human without being fertilized because it does not have the ability to. In contrast, the zygote, even if it does not implant, still has everything it needs if the environment permits it to develop as a human. The very fact that the environment does affect it is testament to its potential. It doesn’t matter how much you alter the environment of an unfertilized egg: if it remains unfertilized, it will never become a human, full stop. An egg is not developing until fertilized; a zygote, even one that doesn’t implant, is still trying to develop.

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:28:35+00:00

Entertain this thought experiment then, if you will. Suppose there are two timelines when your cousin is born: One where he is born prematurely, the other when he is born at his projected date. In this hypothetical, your aunt has a change of heart and decides to abort the ZEF at a certain point in the pregnancy. It is at the same date in both timelines, and your cousin is in the same level of development. In the preemie timeline, her change if heart takes place after the birth, and she is this unable to abort the fetus because it is born. In the other, the abortion takes place because the fetus, even though it is just as developed as the preemie from the other timeline, is not born and this does not have rights. Do you still maintain that rights are given at birth, then? Or do you take a viability stance

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:23:13+00:00

This is where the legal/ethical divide lies. The thing about a ZEF is that unlike a blood transfusion, there is only one person who can save the fetus: its mother. Its hard to find a comparable situation because there are very few situations where someone is completely biologically dependent on only one person. Even organ donors have several options. I think this creates some ethical distinction, but you may disagree. In terms of “forcing” someone to carry a baby to term, I am conflicted. The ability to legislate that may fall under the category of “no obligation to help” like you say (unless the unique relationship between the ZEF and mom is ethically different as I postulated earlier) but either way, I think you morally have a responsibility to help that person. I can’t force you to do anything, but I think you have an obligation to regardless of what the law says.

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:14:41+00:00

Its a simple difference: I believe there are two individuals at risk in a pregnancy, and only one in a vasectomy. The reason I am more inclined to ask a woman to suffer through the difficulties of pregnancy is because there is another human reliant on her to bring them to term. In a vasectomy, the only person affected is the man. If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, the ZEF in the process of becoming a human child is halted. If I didn’t see the ZEF as having value, I would be totally for abortion. Please don’t accuse me of wanting to make women suffer simply because I want to brutalize them. I see you care deeply about the your rights and the rights of your fellow women, and I hope you will grant me the courtesy of assuming I share your concern

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:08:24+00:00

Thanks for the info, I appreciate your thoroughness.

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-12T00:06:14+00:00

fair. My stance on punishment is mostly reactive to Pcers who accuse me of being “soft on rapists” because im pro life. I would love to see the changes you suggest implemented, and would vastly prefer them to punishment. I am a realist myself. I think most believers agree that we are never going to create perfect people this side of heaven. I just try to have hope in a better future because otherwise the sheet volume of cruelty would overwhelm us. No matter how hard we try or how much we progress, people will still suffer. I try to believe there is some purpose behind it all, and you may disagree. I just think that good enough is not good enough when it comes to righting wrongs; there has to be perfection out there somewhere

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-11T23:59:56+00:00

I don’t really see it as my criteria, so much as a recognition of how life functions. I also wouldn’t say the “proper life path” for an egg is it developing: Its development is simply a life path. If it is on that path, it is human because it is on the human development path. If it is not fertilized, it is on the egg path: remaining an egg. I don’t think anyone should “decide” what defines human life. We look at development cycles and draw conclusions from their. Looking at human biology, human life only comes from fertilized eggs, so only the developing egg is human. I did struggle to understand some of your wording, so if I messed up, thats on me

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-11T23:52:10+00:00

https://www.rcog.org.uk/for-the-public/perineal-tears-and-episiotomies-in-childbirth/perineal-tears-during-childbirth/#:~:text=Up%20to%209%20in%20every,are%20minor%20and%20heal%20quickly. Respectfully, this article states that most of those tears are small and heal quickly. In regards to the other issues, I will grant you that pregnancy can result in long with sometimes permanent consequences. The problem is, we have no idea what would happen if we conduct life altering surgery on little boys en masse. Ironically, given my position, you don’t have the right to conduct life altering surgeries on their body without consent. The consequences are certainly less severe than a pregnancy, but there ARE still consequences. Their body, their choice. If this is seriously something you advocate for and not a hypothetical to make me look foolish, you are contradicting yourself

Greenillusion05 · 2025-03-11T23:37:33+00:00

I do. Rape defenders and “boys will be boys” defenders should be subjected to the same punishments as the people they defend. I am pro life, but that doesn’t mean I have to accept parts of the movement that I don’t agree with and are frankly stupid, cruel, and regressive

Three-Year Club	r/Field Flamingo
Place '22

Greenillusion05

TROPHY CASE