Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[sealybobo]

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

So you admit a human embryo is human life?

Sure. It is alive, and genetically human. So what? Is it morally equivalent to an actual person?

It is an actual person

Would you have the fire department save one 5 year old or instead save 50 fetus? Pick one. Why did you choose the 5 year old?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

 

[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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

Sure. You keep telling yourself that. But, you're the one who can't answer the question presented, because it would demonstrate your dishonesty.

 

[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.

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.

he did not

you failed

your thread failed

failure is your only option

 

[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.

he did not

you failed

your thread failed

failure is your only option

Sure. Because you say so. Moving the goalpost is now succeeding in countering an argument. And just what colour is the sky in your reality? When you have to use intellectual dishonesty to defeat an argument, you didn't defeat the argument. You failed spectacularly.

 

[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.

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.

he did not

you failed

your thread failed

failure is your only option

Sure. Because you say so. Moving the goalpost is now succeeding in countering an argument. And just what colour is the sky in your reality? When you have to use intellectual dishonesty to defeat an argument, you didn't defeat the argument. You failed spectacularly.

stop embarrassing yourself

 

[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.

he did not

you failed

your thread failed

failure is your only option

Sure. Because you say so. Moving the goalpost is now succeeding in countering an argument. And just what colour is the sky in your reality? When you have to use intellectual dishonesty to defeat an argument, you didn't defeat the argument. You failed spectacularly.

stop embarrassing yourself

You're adorable. No need to project. I knew you couldn't answer the question. No need to be embarrassed.

 

[otto105]

Has my vote for dumbest libtard thread of the month.

Because you won't answer...knowing that you save the child.

 

[otto105]

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

Humans in the womb?

 

[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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

Sure. You keep telling yourself that. But, you're the one who can't answer the question presented, because it would demonstrate your dishonesty.

I did answer the question, what's pissing you off, and exposing you as a liar, is that I gave your response to the answers.

It's typical leftist behavior, boring and predictable.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

Sure. You keep telling yourself that. But, you're the one who can't answer the question presented, because it would demonstrate your dishonesty.

I did answer the question, what's pissing you off, and exposing you as a liar, is that I gave your response to the answers.

It's typical leftist behavior, boring and predictable.

No you didn't. In fact you threw a hissy fit about how unfair the question was, because there was, in your mind, no "right" answer that wouldn't make you "look bad".

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.

You have bitched, you have deflected. You have railed at me. You have not answered the question that was posed.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

Sure. You keep telling yourself that. But, you're the one who can't answer the question presented, because it would demonstrate your dishonesty.

I did answer the question, what's pissing you off, and exposing you as a liar, is that I gave your response to the answers.

It's typical leftist behavior, boring and predictable.

No you didn't. In fact you threw a hissy fit about how unfair the question was, because there was, in your mind, no "right" answer that wouldn't make you "look bad".

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.

You have bitched, you have deflected. You have railed at me. You have not answered the question that was posed.

Its impossible yo have an honest discussion with someone who refuses to be honest. As long as you keep pretending you haven't been answered and refuse to actually address the problems with your hypo there is no point in wasting time here.

 

[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?

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.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.

That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

There's nothing dishonest about my stance nor is it irrational.

you set up a bullshit scenario to ridicule people that don't support the mass murder of innocent babies.

the fact you have to go this far, should clue you in as to how evil your pro mass murder stance is.

but it won't, evil often has no idea that it's evil

Sure. You keep telling yourself that. But, you're the one who can't answer the question presented, because it would demonstrate your dishonesty.

I did answer the question, what's pissing you off, and exposing you as a liar, is that I gave your response to the answers.

It's typical leftist behavior, boring and predictable.

No you didn't. In fact you threw a hissy fit about how unfair the question was, because there was, in your mind, no "right" answer that wouldn't make you "look bad".

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.

You have bitched, you have deflected. You have railed at me. You have not answered the question that was posed.

Its impossible yo have an honest discussion with someone who refuses to be honest. As long as you keep pretending you haven't been answered and refuse to actually address the problems with your hypo there is no point in wasting time here.

Link top his "answer". I went back, and reread his responses, just like I did yours. When I discovered that you had, in fact, answered the question, I acknowledged such. He did not answer the question, at any time.

 

[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.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person". Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No semantics, you lied by saying the embryos in the vat were viable, you can't know that. At best they are possibly viable IF the expected implantation goes as planned. And when give a choice between a living child and 1000 possibilities, it's a no briner, you save the one that is a sure thing. Like I said, you have zero critical thinking skills.


.

 

[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?

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.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

 

[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.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

 

[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?

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.

The Constitution says that ALL persons are entitled to the EQUAL protections of our laws.
moral
That is the ONLY "value" assessment that matters.

And, without twisting a single word in the pre-amble, the Constitution never defines "person".
Lets' get the semantic argument out of the way. The Constitution speaks of "posterity". Many anti-abortionists (I presume you) make a big deal out of the fact that an obscure synonym of posterity is "unborn", and claim that mean in vitro.

The problem is that no jurist has ever attempted to make this connection in any ruling, ever. Further, the actual definition of the word posterity makes it clear that this was never the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding this word:

1. Succeeding or future generations collectively:
   Judgment of this age must be left to posterity.
   
   
2. all descendants of one person:
   His fortune was gradually dissipated by his posterity.

Clearly, posterity means succeeding generations of actual descendants, not in vitro fetuses.

Now that we have that bit of semantic silliness out of the way, calling a fetus, or an embryo a "person" is a question of moral equivalency. It is the point of the thought experiment in the OP. IF you believe that an embryo is a "person", then you should have no problem saying with conviction, that you should choose the phial of embryos over the 5-year-old. I'm still waiting for you to make that statement.

I'm still waiting on YOU to explain how the rights of one is contingent upon the other.

How the right of the one what is contingent on the right of the other what?

You just aren't very bright at all. Are you.

How are the rights of the children in an embryonic stage of their life in ANY way contingent upon how much or how little they are fucking valued in comparison to a fucking screaming baby in a burning building?

 

[Vastator]

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

Thread fail... On the premise that the writer believes that if a person chooses anything other than the answer they predict; that the person must be lying... At which point one has to wonder why they bothered to ask in the first place.