There may or may not be good arguments to be made here. You might even be making them.
However, to the extent you are, you are also obscuring them through poor writing, offensive language, and generally “being a dick”. Your writing is not at the level I wish to encourage on Less Wrong, hence I will not reward it by responding to the arguments, and will punish it through downvotes.
Take a constructive approach, assume good faith on the part of the people you are conversing with, and show them the respect of laying out your arguments in a coherent fashion, and I think you might find constructive replies.
Fine, let’s start over assuming good faith:
My claim is that funding Suozzi’s cryopreservation in order to support cryonics movement-building is unethical because:
It uses her instrumentally.
It uses appeal to emotion (a fallacious debating tactic) to further a practice without any scientific support (hence to be considered a faith-based practice until proven otherwise).
Also, speaking of offensive language, I found the expressions “poster child” and “vulnerable woman in our tribe of reproductive age” much more offensive than anything I wrote, but I realize that this is subjective.