1. Red Herring, Straw man. Please do not commit a red herring and a straw man by arbitrarily assuming that it would "require gods or souls" without providing a

1. Red Herring, Straw man. Please do not commit a red herring and a straw man by arbitrarily assuming that it would "require gods or souls" without providing any logical reason as to why it would. 2. Combinatorics, Not Morality. Genetic uniquness is the complete antithesis of a "moral, supernatural, superstitious, spiritual" judgement - it is instead a cold hard evolutionary reason - see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5393246 in these comments for why. In fact, you later support this - as noted below. 3. Pain, Fear, Death, and your Contradiction. You assert that "oppressing and killing humans" is bad. Then you invent a new criteria - not based on oppressing and killing humans, but just whether they know they are being killed and oppressed. This has the following errors: A. It contradicts your objective criterion of information. (Because it logically has to, as seen by 2) B. It is more subjective, because it depends upon the human being aware of their oppression/death. C. Not all humans are aware of their oppression or death (gunshot from behind) - your standard would then mean it is okay to let all those people be oppressed and die. I do not think that was what you were going for. (Note: this sounds like a ridiculous argument, and it is because I'm intentionally pointing out the rational absurdity of your vague criterion.) D. You then conveniently "oppress" a human embryo by assuming that it is indifferent to dying - despite that its biological function is to keep itself alive (whether conscious or not). E. Yes, so per your very own criterion, there would be no problem with defining that line as "0 days after conception" - so why not? Better safe than sorry.