Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

You seriously think that if we have a choice between saving you and a child, and pick the child that means you have no value and thus we can kill you?

If you really believed that life begins at conception, you would be morally obligated to save a thousand rather than one. It's as simple as that.

Not exactly. The reality is that some life has more moral value than others. An embryo is alive. It is genetically human. The only way to insist that the embryos must be saved is if you truly believe that they have equivalent value - ie, an embryo is a person - to the child. If you truly believe that, then you are morally obligated to save the embryos. However, I still maintain that there are very few people who, when faced with this choice, would honestly make that determination.

 

[Chuz Life]

Amazing , the lengths that pro aborts will go to rationalize their denial of prenatal children's rights and humanity.

Do you ever think to consider how a couple who spent tens of thousands of dollars for those embryos in that container might act in your situation? If they elected to save their own embryos, would their "values" matter any more or less to you?

The whole thing is a false dilemma. For one, most people wouldn't know if the container of embryos is even full or empty. . . Or if it's too late to save any of the embryos inside. So, of course, most people are going to try to save the one that is screaming for help.

If you could show how the Constitution meant anything about which lives are valued more when it said "all persons" have a right to the "equal protections of our laws?" Your stupid exercise might have been more worthy of consideration.

 

[Avatar4321]

Another hypothetical that sheds light on this one.

Would you let your own child die to save 1,000 other children? We all value some lives over other lives for various reasons, and it doesn't make the ones led valued any less human.

Lets put it another way. Would you accept an inconvenience knowing that it would save tens of thousands of lives every year? All you have to do is accept a restrictor on every automobile that would prevent it from traveling over 25 mph. You wouldn't do that, because you value being able to drive fast more than the lives lost due to high speed collisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except you're referring again to relative value. Are you suggesting that a stranger should have the authority to dictate the relative value of a fetus to a pregnant woman? Is so, then, by what moral, or ethical authority should they have that right?

Literally, the only question to be resolved is whether or not a pre-born baby is a living human being. If so considered, then no one should have the right to violently end his/her life. Yes, as I demonstrated, human life does hold relative value, but we all agree it is wrong to deliberately end that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That was my first thought as well but I have been astounded at how many christians said they would choose the embryos.

IMO, that's horrifying. But it also gives us a good idea of how some feel about children as opposed to fetuses. Fact is, pro-lifers are actually just pro-birthers.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Why are obvious flame threads, moronic, idiotic obvious flame threads like this allowed to stay?

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument failing. That doesn't change the truth that 1) it's been answered honestly and 2) there is no logic in your argument

Deflecting from the argument does not equate the argument failing. It ini fact is having the exact result that I said it would. That rather makes it a success.

Addressing the flaws of the argument isn't deflecting from the argument. It's facing it head on. Poisoning the well on the other hand...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

Except there is no thought involved

 

[Avatar4321]

Why are obvious flame threads, moronic, idiotic obvious flame threads like this allowed to stay?

Addressing the flaws of the argument isn't deflecting from the argument. It's facing it head on. Poisoning the well on the other hand...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

No it's not, it's a blatant "you picked wrong b/c there's not right answer' bullshit line.

I save the kid.

YOUR EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU DIDN'T SAVE THE EGGS.

I save the eggs

YER EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU LET THE KID DIE



this is not a new question of leftist murderers, this is an old one from an email that is making the rounds again.

Actually, that isn't the point at all. The only moral, and ethical choice, unless you are sincere in your contention that an embryo has the same moral equivalency as a child, is to save the child. The thing is, I don't believe that you do believe that. This doesn't make you "evil", or force you to be "pro-choice". The only thing it means is that you have to come to terms with the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a child, or a baby. You are anti-abortion? Fine. Find an argument that doesn't require you to rely on a dishonest, irrational position.

Except in a fight or flight situation you will be making decisions on emotions not morality

 

[Avatar4321]

Op: No honest person will answer this

Tons of responses

Op: Your lying or you didn't answer or I'm just going to ignore it

There you go again, making shit up, and mocking a point I never made. Please quote for me where I sad not person will honestly answer the question. Or, at least, please quit lying about things I have said.

In the op. Keep up please

Please quote it., Quote where I specifically said "no person".

The title...

 

[Avatar4321]

You seriously think that if we have a choice between saving you and a child, and pick the child that means you have no value and thus we can kill you?

If you really believed that life begins at conception, you would be morally obligated to save a thousand rather than one. It's as simple as that.

No it isnt

 

[OKTexas]

Go ahead rationalize killing over 50 million human infants in the womb by ripping their limbs off you blood thirsty liberal deviants.

As I said, cannot answer the question, as it destroys this silly argument.

Actually you destroyed your own argument by trying to draw a false equivalents of a child in the womb compared to a frozen embryo in a test tube. Saving the living child in your scenario is not equivalent to actively preforming an abortion.


.

It is not his "own" argument. He stole it from someone else, without attribution. He's as dishonest as they come!

LOL! Yeah! So that makes it invalid, right?!?! LOLOLOLOLOL! Oh. Wait... except it doesn't. It is still a question that you cannot answer, and so you have to deflect. Well, shit. I guess I was right all along...

You or the guy you stole the question from? But an embryo in a test tube is NOT VIABLE until it's implanted and attaches to the uterine wall. So both of you FAIL.


.

What's wrong child, you got no response to this one. What happened to you responding to everyone who answered your stupid question?


.

 

[Czernobog]

Amazing , the lengths that pro aborts will go to rationalize their denial of prenatal children's rights and humanity.

Do you ever think to consider how a couple who spent tens of thousands of dollars for those embryos in that container might act in your situation? If they elected to save their own embryos, would their "values" matter any more or less to you?

Agh, but you see, you're just making my case for me. The embryos have relative value, and the only person who has the right to determine the weight of that relative value is the person who owns the embryo. Not me. And not you.

The whole thing is a false dilemma. For one, most people wouldn't know if the container of embryos is even full or empty. . . Or if it's too late to save any of the embryos inside. So, of course, most people are going to try to save the one that is screaming for help.

Again, you are trying to change the parameters, in order to avoid making the obvious moral choice.

If you could show how the Constitution meant anything about which lives are valued more when it said "all persons" have a right to the "equal protections of our laws?" Your stupid exercise might have been more worthy of consideration.

No need. This is only a relevant question, if you insist that an embryo is a person. If you insist that, then you should have no problem sating unequivocally that you would choose to save the 1,000 children over the single child. You see, you keep trying to insist that an embryo is a person, when the whole point of the thought experiment exposes the reality that you don't.

 

[Czernobog]

Except you're referring again to relative value. Are you suggesting that a stranger should have the authority to dictate the relative value of a fetus to a pregnant woman? Is so, then, by what moral, or ethical authority should they have that right?

Literally, the only question to be resolved is whether or not a pre-born baby is a living human being. If so considered, then no one should have the right to violently end his/her life. Yes, as I demonstrated, human life does hold relative value, but we all agree it is wrong to deliberately end that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

Which is precisely the point.

It is the point. No one has the right to determine the relative value of a fetus, other than the person carrying the fetus. Not you. Not me.

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That was my first thought as well but I have been astounded at how many christians said they would choose the embryos.

IMO, that's horrifying. But it also gives us a good idea of how some feel about children as opposed to fetuses. Fact is, pro-lifers are actually just pro-birthers.

Okay. Not all Christians are Anti-Abortion. And I haven't, at least during this thread, found an anti-abortion advocate yet who is willing to say that.

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

Why are obvious flame threads, moronic, idiotic obvious flame threads like this allowed to stay?

Deflecting from the argument does not equate the argument failing. It ini fact is having the exact result that I said it would. That rather makes it a success.

Addressing the flaws of the argument isn't deflecting from the argument. It's facing it head on. Poisoning the well on the other hand...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

Except there is no thought involved

That's adorable.

 

[Czernobog]

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

No it's not, it's a blatant "you picked wrong b/c there's not right answer' bullshit line.

I save the kid.

YOUR EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU DIDN'T SAVE THE EGGS.

I save the eggs

YER EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU LET THE KID DIE



this is not a new question of leftist murderers, this is an old one from an email that is making the rounds again.

Actually, that isn't the point at all. The only moral, and ethical choice, unless you are sincere in your contention that an embryo has the same moral equivalency as a child, is to save the child. The thing is, I don't believe that you do believe that. This doesn't make you "evil", or force you to be "pro-choice". The only thing it means is that you have to come to terms with the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a child, or a baby. You are anti-abortion? Fine. Find an argument that doesn't require you to rely on a dishonest, irrational position.

Except in a fight or flight situation you will be making decisions on emotions not morality

Maybe you would be. I cannot say that I have ever made a decision without considering the moral implications of that decision. It's kinda scary that you are implying that you have...

 

[Czernobog]

Op: No honest person will answer this

Tons of responses

Op: Your lying or you didn't answer or I'm just going to ignore it

There you go again, making shit up, and mocking a point I never made. Please quote for me where I sad not person will honestly answer the question. Or, at least, please quit lying about things I have said.

In the op. Keep up please

Please quote it., Quote where I specifically said "no person".

The title...

Nope. The title specifically says "Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer" (the emphasis is mine). The word "person" was no where there. Thank you for demonstrating that you are a liar. Dismissed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

unlike you

i am not going to pretend to have come with the idea

leftards --LOL all the same

i will let Ben Shapiro respond to your nonsense


This Pro-Abortion Fanatic Presented A Thought Experiment 'DESTROYING' Pro-Lifers. Here Are 4 Reasons He Fails Dramatically.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

Not really accurate, Hutch. This isn't about being Pro-Choice. It is about exposing the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a baby, or child. If one is anti-abortion, that's fine. Just find a new argument that doesn't rely on an irrational argument.

When pressed, posters claimed to be pro choice despite seeming to argue the other way. It proves your point that some just won't address it.

 

[Czernobog]

unlike you

i am not going to pretend to have come with the idea

leftards --LOL all the same

i will let Ben Shapiro respond to your nonsense


This Pro-Abortion Fanatic Presented A Thought Experiment 'DESTROYING' Pro-Lifers. Here Are 4 Reasons He Fails Dramatically.

Yeah...you're the third person who did that. Ben failed. In order to make an "arguement" he had to pretend that the argument is about something it isn't - whether or not an embryo is alive. This is why it never helps to let someone else do your thinking for you. The point of a thought experiment is to employ critical thinking. You need to put yourself into the process.

 

[Czernobog]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

Not really accurate, Hutch. This isn't about being Pro-Choice. It is about exposing the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a baby, or child. If one is anti-abortion, that's fine. Just find a new argument that doesn't rely on an irrational argument.

When pressed, posters claimed to be pro choice despite seeming to argue the other way. It proves your point that some just won't address it.

Oh, well...I'm not going to question someone's claim about their ideology, unless they give me reason to.

 

[Czernobog]

As I said, cannot answer the question, as it destroys this silly argument.

Actually you destroyed your own argument by trying to draw a false equivalents of a child in the womb compared to a frozen embryo in a test tube. Saving the living child in your scenario is not equivalent to actively preforming an abortion.


.

It is not his "own" argument. He stole it from someone else, without attribution. He's as dishonest as they come!

LOL! Yeah! So that makes it invalid, right?!?! LOLOLOLOLOL! Oh. Wait... except it doesn't. It is still a question that you cannot answer, and so you have to deflect. Well, shit. I guess I was right all along...

You or the guy you stole the question from? But an embryo in a test tube is NOT VIABLE until it's implanted and attaches to the uterine wall. So both of you FAIL.


.

What's wrong child, you got no response to this one. What happened to you responding to everyone who answered your stupid question?


.

Yeah. You want to play semantics to avoid answering a question whose answer you know you won't like. Deflection dismissed.