Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[hadit]

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.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

That would seem to argue the point that no one has the right to determine the relative value of a new born child, other than the person who provides for him/her. Not you. Not me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That puts taxpayers in a position to place a value on welfare recipients, as we provide for them. Should this mean we have the right to kill them in order to alleviate ourselves of the burden?

exactly one could change the words

which has more value and worth saving

those that contribute to society

or

those that live off of others in society

who do you save


--LOL

 

[JoeB131]

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

But that's the whole point. The Anti-Abortionists claim up and down that a zygote is the same morally as a human being. So would you save 1000 zygotes or one child?

Well, of course, you'd save the child. Because Zygotes aren't people.

 

[JoeB131]

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

If you guys REALLY believed that, why not go all out and call for prison sentences for women who get abortions?

 

[Vastator]

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

But that's the whole point. The Anti-Abortionists claim up and down that a zygote is the same morally as a human being. So would you save 1000 zygotes or one child?

Well, of course, you'd save the child. Because Zygotes aren't people.

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

 

[Vastator]

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

If you guys REALLY believed that, why not go all out and call for prison sentences for women who get abortions?

The idea has been floated. Though the doctors who perform them certainly ought to be held responsible as well.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

But that's the whole point. The Anti-Abortionists claim up and down that a zygote is the same morally as a human being. So would you save 1000 zygotes or one child?

Well, of course, you'd save the child. Because Zygotes aren't people.

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

funny lefties will believe a made up model for proof of global warming

yet

wonder if human zygotes are people

--LOL

 

[JoeB131]

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

well, no, they aren't, since a real person won't let a child burn to death to save a bottle full of zygotes.

 

[Vastator]

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

well, no, they aren't, since a real person won't let a child burn to death to save a bottle full of zygotes.

Actually they are. It can be geneticly proven. The rest of your post is merely opinionated hyperbole driven by your inability to accept the fact that science can prove your assertion to be incorrect.
Real people have in fact let others die for nothing more than money. So from yet another angle your position fails.
I haven't seen this much fail packed into one thread in a very long time... How amusing...

 

[JoeB131]

Actually they are. It can be geneticly proven. The rest of your post is merely opinionated hyperbole driven by your inability to accept the fact that science can prove your assertion to be incorrect.
Real people have in fact let others die for nothing more than money. So from yet another angle your position fails.
I haven't seen this much fail packed into one thread in a very long time... How amusing...

Guy, you are avoiding the point. The fact is, no one would watch a child burn to death so they can save a bottle of zygotes.

In terms of real value, a fetus isn't considered a person. Women don't lose their shit over a miscarriage the way they lose their shit when their child dies.

 

[Care4all]

Adam had the life of a "man/human", when he took his first breath, before that, he was being formed by God....Adam would not have had "life" and given his first breath, if he had not been "formed" first....God didn't twinkle his nose and "poof" , Adam was there....

Yet, according to God, while Adam(man) was being formed, and before he was born and given his first breath of "Life", the 'life' of a human, had not taken place? (mankind today, kind of follows that in a legal sense....the baby is not issued a birth certificate, unless they take a ''first breath'')

It's all very confusing in a way....did man's value, begin with his first breath, the breath of life? Or should equal 'value' be given to both the forming process, and the birthing? Can't have one without the other?

 

[hadit]

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

If you guys REALLY believed that, why not go all out and call for prison sentences for women who get abortions?

Education first. Isn't it better to get society to the point that life is protected, then worry about punishing people? And yes, an abortion ends a human life. As I've shown, human life really isn't all that precious to society.

Let's carry this to its logical conclusion. There's really very little difference between a late term baby and a new born. If it's permissible to abort a late term baby for any reason at all, why not allow for the killing of new borns?

There's hypocrisy on all sides, because most people don't think things all the way through and end up accepting things they normally would not in order to get things they want. Let me explain further. Pro-life people want to protect the developing humans, but don't necessarily think women who have had an abortion should be jailed, or abortion doctors should be killed, or abortion clinics be firebombed. Likewise, pro-choice people want to preserve the option of abortion, but don't necessarily want to extend that option to babies that have been born, even though there really is very little difference between a baby moments from birth and one moments after birth. I believe "out of sight, out of mind" would apply. As long as the killing takes place inside the womb, we can pretend it's no big deal. Once the baby is born, though, you can't pretend any longer.

Neither side is absolute in their stance and are vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. Instead of approaching the issue from the perspective that we are enemies, why not acknowledge that both sides have things they care deeply about and try to find a real solution? Can we not, for example, agree that contraceptives are every effective in preventing pregnancy and that 14 year old girls should not undergo surgery without their parents' knowledge and permission? Yet we're stuck in hardened positions, unable to find a solution for fear of giving up something.

 

[JoeB131]

Education first. Isn't it better to get society to the point that life is protected, then worry about punishing people? And yes, an abortion ends a human life.

You mean brainwashing people to see things your way?

Here's the thing. Your side has had 2000 years to brainwash people into the "Fetuses are people' view. And people have been still having abortions for 2000 years.

Let's carry this to its logical conclusion. There's really very little difference between a late term baby and a new born. If it's permissible to abort a late term baby for any reason at all, why not allow for the killing of new borns?

Except that it's not, and few people do. If anyone is terminating a third trimester pregnancy, it's usually because something has gone wrong.

Less than 1% of abortions happen after the 20th week (nothing below 24 weeks is really viable), but you guys will dumpster dive behind abortion clinics to find the medical waste that kind of looks like a person.

There's hypocrisy on all sides, because most people don't think things all the way through and end up accepting things they normally would not in order to get things they want.

No, there's no hypocrisy at all. It's her body, it's her choice.

Period.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Id post on all social media that the Russian hacking evidence was going up in flames at the clinic and Antifa has to run to save it - hypothetically speaking

 

[Chuz Life]

Either a human life is worth protecting from deliberate destruction or it isn't. We're not really talking about having to decide to save this life vs that one. In an abortion, the goal is a dead human. That's the bottom line.

If you guys REALLY believed that, why not go all out and call for prison sentences for women who get abortions?

Try searching for how many times we HAVE.

ADD THIS TO YOUR SEARCH.

"Under our fetal homicide laws, If a criminal even ACCIDENTALLY kills a child in the womb during a criminal act, he can be and many HAVE been charged with MURDER. . . . WHY SHOULD A WOMAN WHO PAYS SOMEONE TO KILL THE CHILD INTENTIONALLY BE CHARGED WITH ANYTHING LESS?"

 

[Vastator]

Actually they are. It can be geneticly proven. The rest of your post is merely opinionated hyperbole driven by your inability to accept the fact that science can prove your assertion to be incorrect.
Real people have in fact let others die for nothing more than money. So from yet another angle your position fails.
I haven't seen this much fail packed into one thread in a very long time... How amusing...

Guy, you are avoiding the point. The fact is, no one would watch a child burn to death so they can save a bottle of zygotes.

In terms of real value, a fetus isn't considered a person. Women don't lose their shit over a miscarriage the way they lose their shit when their child dies.

Ive already stated; all things being equal, that I would save one thousand lives, over one. So that blows your theory.

 

[hadit]

Education first. Isn't it better to get society to the point that life is protected, then worry about punishing people? And yes, an abortion ends a human life.

You mean brainwashing people to see things your way?

Here's the thing. Your side has had 2000 years to brainwash people into the "Fetuses are people' view. And people have been still having abortions for 2000 years. [\quote]

And you are trying to use the force of law to make people see things your way.

Let's carry this to its logical conclusion. There's really very little difference between a late term baby and a new born. If it's permissible to abort a late term baby for any reason at all, why not allow for the killing of new borns?

Except that it's not, and few people do. If anyone is terminating a third trimester pregnancy, it's usually because something has gone wrong.

Less than 1% of abortions happen after the 20th week (nothing below 24 weeks is really viable), but you guys will dumpster dive behind abortion clinics to find the medical waste that kind of looks like a person. [\quote]

Then you should have no problem encoding that into law. No abortion after 20 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger.

There's hypocrisy on all sides, because most people don't think things all the way through and end up accepting things they normally would not in order to get things they want.

No, there's no hypocrisy at all. It's her body, it's her choice.

Period.

So, no problem then with a mother killing a child because she decides she doesn't want her body forced to care for this little parasite for the next several years? People do it all the time, shake a baby to death because they're sleep deprived, depressed and the baby won't stop crying. We put those people in jail or mental hospitals. We say, tough, you had the baby, now you can't kill him/her.

All you're doing is drawing an arbitrary line and demanding that everyone honor it. We're saying that the choice to conceive makes you responsible for your actions.

 

[hadit]

Actually they are. A DNA test can quite readily prove this.

well, no, they aren't, since a real person won't let a child burn to death to save a bottle full of zygotes.

A real person will also let a bus full of children crash in order to save the life of their own child. That doesn't make the children in the bus any less human.

 

[Vastator]

Education first. Isn't it better to get society to the point that life is protected, then worry about punishing people? And yes, an abortion ends a human life.

You mean brainwashing people to see things your way?

Here's the thing. Your side has had 2000 years to brainwash people into the "Fetuses are people' view. And people have been still having abortions for 2000 years.

Let's carry this to its logical conclusion. There's really very little difference between a late term baby and a new born. If it's permissible to abort a late term baby for any reason at all, why not allow for the killing of new borns?

Except that it's not, and few people do. If anyone is terminating a third trimester pregnancy, it's usually because something has gone wrong.

Less than 1% of abortions happen after the 20th week (nothing below 24 weeks is really viable), but you guys will dumpster dive behind abortion clinics to find the medical waste that kind of looks like a person.

There's hypocrisy on all sides, because most people don't think things all the way through and end up accepting things they normally would not in order to get things they want.

No, there's no hypocrisy at all. It's her body, it's her choice.

Period.

It isn't her body that's being debated. Its the child's body that is being lobbied for.

 

[martybegan]

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

Agreed. Just because you pick one over the other doesn't mean the one not selected becomes worthless.

It's kind of like the choice between saving your own kid or 5 strangers in the same scenario, just because you pick your own kid doesn't mean the people you leave to die are worthless.