An argument for preserving frozen persons

by David Pizer

Looking for a way to get your friends and loved ones signed up?

The main argument in the abortion debate now is not whether it is good or bad to kill a baby human (fetus, zygote or embryo?), most people agree that it is bad to kill a baby human, but they argue about what is a baby human. At what stage of pregancy does this tissue become a human?

The most convincing point that anti-abortionists have come up with so far is that if you don't know at what stage the zygote-embryo-fetus becomes a person, then you should not kill it at any stage. They give the argument that if you were out hunting and its the last day of the season and you really wanted/needed to kill a deer, and you saw something moving in the bushes, but you could not be sure whether it was a deer or a human, you would agree that you should not shoot at it because it *might* be a person.

So you should not kill (abort) a zygote-embryo-fetus because it might be a person.

Many of our fellow humans (non-immortalists) think that frozen bodies are probably just dead bodies and not really persons. You can't get them to agree that frozen bodies are persons, but you might be able to get them to agree that frozen bodies might be people.

Or in case of potential efforts to get them unfrozen, (should that even happen again), we might think about not trying to convince them that these frozen bodies are persons, (it might be too big a leap for having any chance of persuading them), but just to agree that these frozen people might be persons.

Even agreeing that a zygote-embryo-fetus might be a person often is enough to convince a person not to have an abortion. This might be a position that those of you who are trying to convince friends and loved ones to get signed up will want to experiment with.