Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[GHook93]

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

Fallacy in the question.

You picked a scenario that will never happen in reality in order to make PRO-LIFERS (which I am not one of) seem hypocritical. 1. you make the assumption that a person can identify embryos in a chaotic situation. 2. You put a false narrative of a boy some how ending up in a freezer with embryos. And you add the Hollywood fantasy the child would not try to escape to safety. 3. Implausibility in the argument. If it is so dire you can’t save both, then you really have no chance of saving the child. 4. Implausible that many fertilized eggs are just sitting around. 5. Just because one might safe the child over embryos doesn’t demean a PRO-LIFER’S claim that fertilized embryos are life worth protecting. The scenario can be made to save a child over the old man! Save the good son vs the bad one! Save YOUR son over the stranger’s son! Choosing one in a bad situation doesn’t make the other any less human or alive.





Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Zoom-boing]

Interesting, the op completely ignored my response.

How. Unsurprising.

 

[GHook93]

How about this gottya question?

We create a device that shows the future of fertilized embryos. So we know exactly what they will do and become. 2 women want abortions so bad they are willing to kill themselves. Then you have 2 black women are admit that they want the baby under all circumstances.

The two embryos, in which the women demand an abortions no matter what, have genius IQs and high moral compasses. One goes on to develop cheap clean renewal energy that saves the planet and ends fossil fuel usage in 10 years from it’s patent. Providing cheap clean energy to even the poorest regions of the planet. The other develops the cure to cancer without destroying the body via chemo and radiation. Would you deny the world of these game changing individuals because the mother so desires? Wouldn’t the world benefit too much to let them die?

Then you have the 2 black women that want the baby no matter what. One causes pain and suffering to others his entire life despite having a loving family. He ends up becoming a serial killer and murders 15 young women. The other grows up to be an evil charismatic leader of a vicious African militia group that is responsible for the massacre of over a tens of thousands of innocent people before his actions spark a bloody war on the African continent that takes an additional 2 million lives and countless atrocities. Would you force these two poor black women to abort these babies?!?!?

These gottya questions are bullshit. No matter your answer you will be a hypocrite.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Czernobog]

One cannot know the race of those in the phial for one.

Why would race have anything to do with anything? unless you're a racist, ad think that some races deserve to live more than others...

Another being that they are in a fertility clinic lab; which can suggest that the parents have some genetic flaw that prompted the neccesity of using the clinic in the first place. Those are just two of many.

Did I say anything about the room being a lab? All I said was that it was a room inside of a fertility clinic. You made that room a lab, not me. So, no flaw, yet...

Fertility clinic... A phial of embryos... If this isn't a lab... With support equipment to see these embryos through to the natural maturation stage... Then... The answer is obviously the child; as the children were doomed from the outset... Like I said. Your scenario is plagued with problems.
As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too. If not... I'd wager one to be a rather shitty parent otherwise. If the 5 year old in the corner is my son; and the thousand children in the phial are eskimos... A thousand kids are going to die. And my son will live. Even if the 5 year old just happens to be white. The thousand Eskimos will die; as I still have a closer genetic/familial relation to the 5year old. It a basic decision promoted at its core, by self preservation.
I can think of a much more concise scenario than the one you plagiarized.

Well, that answer right there told me everything I need to know. Your moral priorities are completely fucked. So, nothing you say would surprise me at all, and you certainly are in no position to be passing moral judgement on anyone for any reason.

Feel free to slither your racist ass back under whatever rock you crawled out from under. Your opinion is now officially irrelevant.

Its only irrelevant because of yet another flaw in your plagiarized premise. You didn't account for the variables accociated with the person making the choice. Its interesting that you were so taken with this writers work; that not only did you try to pass it off as your own... But you also interpreted it to be rather clever, all the while never noticing the plethora of failures inherent in the proposition. Having a preconceived bias as to what constitutes a " correct" answer only cements the obvious conclusion.
That by any objective measure... This is a thread FAIL...

Oh fuck off. The opinions of an admitted racist means dick to me. Thanks for dropping by.

 

[hadit]

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.

Sophie's choice. You don't want any of them to die, but you can only save one. Like you said, that doesn't change anything about the one(s) you can't save.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Interesting, the op completely ignored my response.

How. Unsurprising.

Uh...I didn't see your response. Do me a favour, and link to it, or tell me what post number it is, so I can go back and find it...?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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

No. A newborn has greater relative value than a fetus, or embryo. Want evidence? Run the same thought experiment, and replace the 5-year-old with an infant. The majority will still save the newborn over the phial. However, I would submit that you and I have very little vested interested in interfering with the decisions made about that newborn, and the law reflects this. We don't have a whole lot to say about how a newborn is treated. Short of violence against a newborn - either sexual, or physical - or abandonment, we pretty much leave parents alone to raise, and deal with their kids as they see fit. Vaccines would be one of a few exceptions, and, well, that's to protect my kid from eventual exposure to yours.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

typical leftist troll behavior

So. You're a leftist. Because you are certainly engaging in troll behaviour. Won't answer the question of the OP. Post a video that has to depend on dishonesty to "defeat" the OP, and then just keep posting to "declare" the thread a failure.

You were fun for a while. Now you're just boring. Do better.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

You're a racist piece of shit. You have already acknowleged that, based on that DNA test, and what race it revealed the embryos to be, not only would you not save them, you would happily dump them down a drain.

So, guess what? Your opinion is worthless you racist piece of shit.

 

[Vastator]

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.

Tell me. Are you in favour of family disconnecting a person in a persistent vegetative state from life support? And don't try to tell me, "That's different," It is a "human life", as you put it. Either it is worth protecting from destruction, or it isn't, by your logic.

If it is guaranteed that there is no hope of improvement. Which is absolutely not the case in the overwhelming number of abortions. But fear not. I see what you were trying to do there. You infantile ploy; much like your plagiarized thread fails on the premise that most aborted babies are perfectly healthy people, with no ailment whatsoever.

 

[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.

You're a racist piece of shit. You have already acknowleged that, based on that DNA test, and what race it revealed the embryos to be, not only would you not save them, you would happily dump them down a drain.

So, guess what? Your opinion is worthless you racist piece of shit.

I said nothing of dumping anything down a drain. You need help...
I did state that I would choose the closer familial/ genetic tie, over others. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm sure my children are too.
Glad to see you've decided to fly the name calling flag of surrender. After that much fail in one thread... You really had no choice

 

[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.

You're a racist piece of shit. You have already acknowleged that, based on that DNA test, and what race it revealed the embryos to be, not only would you not save them, you would happily dump them down a drain.

So, guess what? Your opinion is worthless you racist piece of shit.

I said nothing of dumping anything down a drain. You need help...
I did state that I would choose the closer familial/ genetic tie, over others. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm sure my children are too.

Glad to see you decided to fly the name calling flag of surrender.

 

[Czernobog]

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

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

 

[Czernobog]

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.

You're a racist piece of shit. You have already acknowleged that, based on that DNA test, and what race it revealed the embryos to be, not only would you not save them, you would happily dump them down a drain.

So, guess what? Your opinion is worthless you racist piece of shit.

I said nothing of dumping anything down a drain. You need help...
I did state that I would choose the closer familial/ genetic tie, over others. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm sure my children are too.
Glad to see you've decided to fly the name calling flag of surrender. After that much fail in one thread... You really had no choice

Oh fuck you, and your trying to rationalise your position. You. Are. A. Fucking. Racist. Your own goddamned words. So, your opinion on moral issues means less to me than nothing.

 

[Czernobog]

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...

The only opinionated hyperbole here is that of the racist fuck. You should look up the definition of person. You can't determine that in a lab.

 

[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.

You're a racist piece of shit. You have already acknowleged that, based on that DNA test, and what race it revealed the embryos to be, not only would you not save them, you would happily dump them down a drain.

So, guess what? Your opinion is worthless you racist piece of shit.

I said nothing of dumping anything down a drain. You need help...
I did state that I would choose the closer familial/ genetic tie, over others. Which I'm perfectly fine with. I'm sure my children are too.
Glad to see you've decided to fly the name calling flag of surrender. After that much fail in one thread... You really had no choice

Oh fuck you, and your trying to rationalise your position. You. Are. A. Fucking. Racist. Your own goddamned words. So, your opinion on moral issues means less to me than nothing.

Precisely one of the flaws I pointed out in your plagiarized premise.

 

[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.

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

yet

wonder if human zygotes are people

--LOL

FLAG ON THE PLAY

​

Wow... You don't handle fail well at all... You've resorted to using memes to defend your failure... Might I suggest a safe space, and a warm glass of milk?

 

[K9Buck]

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

I would save the embryos.

 

[K9Buck]

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...

The only opinionated hyperbole here is that of the racist fuck. You should look up the definition of person. You can't determine that in a lab.

I can't see the post of the person to whom you are writing because, presumably, after discovering that they are a bona-fide racist, I put them on ignore. The genuine racists are intolerable to me and I don't care to read anything they write. I suggest you do the same.