Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

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?

Yes. You let the world be deprived of these "future paragons". Because the knowledge of what these fetuses will, or will not be in the future does not, in any way, alter what they are now - fetuses, whose fates belong in the hands of one person, and one person only - the woman who is pregnant with them. A right is only a right when we defend it under the most difficult, and unsavoury of circumstances. Otherwise, it's just a privilege that we give to those we like.

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?!?!?

No. You do not. I have already established that what they will be does not alter what they are. Neither you, nor me, nor anyone else has the right to dictate what a woman does, and does not do with her body, and her fetus inside. I'll refer you to my statement about the sanctity of a right in your previous question.

What was that about these being "gotchas"? As I said, a gotcha is only a gotcha if you have not considered the logical conclusion of your position, are engaging in intellectual dishonesty, or in hypocrisy. I have done the former, and clearly am not engaging in the latter.

 

[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

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

 

[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.

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

 

[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

I would save the embryos.

Not sure I believe you, based on how much time you spent avoiding the question, but okay. Bully for you. You actually believe that a fetus is equal to a child. Your moral priorities are fucked, in my opinion, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Now, new question, just for you. While I absolutely disagree with your opinion, I always defend the right of individuals to hold their own opinions. So, clearly, you should never have an abortion, or condone your wife having an abortion. But, tell me this, should you have the right to impose that individual opinion on everyone else, by force of law? And, if you think you should, by what authority do you believe you should have that right? Please remember that we have a secular society, and government as you answer those questions.

 

[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.

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

So in other words... A decent number of posters shattered the narrative that you bought into; so much so that you plagiarized it. And now in the face of your abject failure you're pleading with posters to reconsider their definition... Sad man... Sad...

 

[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.

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.

Been considering it. I generally try to avoid putting someone on ignore unless they actively engage in trolling, or flame-baiting as a matter of practice. I say, "as a matter of practice", because everyone trolls, or flame-baits once in a while. Sometimes your emotions get the better of you, and it just feels good to be a dick.

But for something as obviously morally reprehensible as racism, I'm considering making an exception.

 

[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

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

 

[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

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

So in other words... A decent number of posters shattered the narrative that you bought into; so much so that you plagiarized it. And now in the face of your abject failure you're pleading with posters to reconsider their definition... Sad man... Sad...

Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you still wouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!

 

[Czernobog]

Adam had the life...

Nope. You lost me the minute you brought in your religious mumbo-jumbo. I didn't even read any further than this.

 

[martybegan]

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

 

[Vastator]

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

So in other words... A decent number of posters shattered the narrative that you bought into; so much so that you plagiarized it. And now in the face of your abject failure you're pleading with posters to reconsider their definition... Sad man... Sad...

Really?!?! A fucking racist poopooing plagiarism? Like you think talking about that somehow gives you the moral high ground. You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl, while beating puppies...with kittens...boiling babies, and drinking their melted fat, and you still wouldn't have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! There is nothing more vile, disgusting, or reprehensible than a racist fuck you racist fuck!

I have no doubt that you believe that. Thank you for your candor. It really brings things into perspective.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

--LOL

you even fail at being a troll

--LOL

man you are one hell of a loser

--LOL@U

 

[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

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?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

 

[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

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.

And no one says it does. Entirely different question. Look at it this way. Use the proposition that was used earlier; replace the phial with an old man - not just elderly and stately, but really old, and frail, one foot in the grave old. The moral calculation would be that he had lived his life, and provided his contributions, while the child had yet to fill his potential. The obvious choice is to save the child. This doesn't mean that the old man is worthless; only that he was worth less then the child. Same with the embryos. Choosing the child doesn't make the embryos worthless; only worth less than the child.

 

[Vastator]

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?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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?

--LOL

indeed even as troll this guy is total failure

--LOL

i didnt even bother to respond to that one

--LOL

It was pretty telling that he holds child rapists in such high esteem... I wonder if he regrets making such info public?

not a chance of it

he is proud of that fact

 

[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.

And no one says it does. Entirely different question. Look at it this way. Use the proposition that was used earlier; replace the phial with an old man - not just elderly and stately, but really old, and frail, one foot in the grave old. The moral calculation would be that he had lived his life, and provided his contributions, while the child had yet to fill his potential. The obvious choice is to save the child. This doesn't mean that the old man is worthless; only that he was worth less then the child. Same with the embryos. Choosing the child doesn't make the embryos worthless; only worth less than the child.

By changing the question and adding in the other factors, you change the original premise made by the creator of the logic problem.

His whole point was to create a gotcha moment, and say "ha ha! you picked the kid, thus embryos are worthless!!!, Look, me smartz, u dumbz"

The objection isn't to the question it's to the assumption of the binary logic of worth between the child and the embryos, which by your replacement of the old guy you remove.

 

[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

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.

No identification necessary. The identification was made for you. It was kindly labelled for you.

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.

How do you create a "false narrative" in a hyptheitcal. The entire thing is not real. It is a thought experiment.

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.

Bullshit. it is a simple presentation of a choice.

4. Implausible that many fertilized eggs are just sitting around.

In the real world? Probably. So what? No one is suggesting that it has actually happened. It is a hypothetical thought experiment designed only to challenge one's ehhical choices.

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.

Like the guy in that stupid video, you are presuming the wrong premise. No one is suggesting that an embryo is not alive. No one is even suggesting that it is not genetically human, and alive. It is a question of moral value. The only thing being challenged is the idea that a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child. And you're right. You could change the parameters of the thought experiment to challenge the moral equivalency of any two choices. That is the point. To challenge the question of moral equivalency.

 

[Czernobog]

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

 

[martybegan]

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

Except it does. The point of Sophie's Choice thought experiments is to expose relative moral value. It is to demonstrate that not all moral imperatives are equal. In this case, the moral value of an actual child, and that of a potential child. If ylu would save the child, you admit that the two are not equivalent, so quit calling fetuses children, or babies.

This doesn't mean that you have to give up being Anti-Abortion; only that you have to find some new argument against abortion that doesn't rely on a false moral equivalency designed to elicit an emotional response to counter a rational one.

It means nothing, because as a thought problem it is binary solution to a non-binary question.

I disagree. It is binary. Either a fetus is the moral equivalent to a child, or it isn't. Saying that it isn't morally equivalent to a child is not synonymous with saying it has no value - only that its moral value is not equivalent to that of an actual child.

it depends on the context and situation. In this situation the child wins, in a situation where there is nothing else at risk, the fetus, by the logic of equivalency, should win.

A fetus can be more important than the happiness of a person who's pregnant, but less important than that person's physical health.

TO THE BOLD: Ah, but you see, you are talking about the choice of the individual directly involved in the decision. Someone pointed out, earlier, that the owner of one of those embryos might well choose the embryos over the child, as well. And that is okay. I have always maintained that the individual who is pregnant should be allowed to decide how much moral value a fetus has. My only point is that you don't have that authority, as you have no dog in that hunt.

As a citizen in the United States I have a dog in every hunt. Just because I am not a firefighter doesn't mean I can't say firefighters should fight fires.

The fallacy of "it doesn't impact you" would mean that women shouldn't have a vote on going to war because they can't get drafted. Silly when you look at it that way.