Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Vastator]

Wrong again... Fail on...

 

[Vastator]

Yet the new born has vastly greater protection under the law than does the unborn fetus. The womb is a dangerous place to be, where you can be violently killed at any time for any reason.

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

It was also on authority by the courts that blacks we're 3/5 of a human. What changed? Blacks? Or the opinion of the court?

The Born Alive Act isn't a court ruling; it is federal law. Another fail. You just aren't capable of rational thought, are you?

Rational thought? You said you could rape a 12 year old. Remember?
CERN: "You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl,"...

 

[JoeB131]

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?"

Because, first those laws are stupid.
Secondly, because people won't stand for it.

We have NEVER arrested a woman for having an abortion, even before Roe v. Wade.

All Roe did was get rid of a bunch of laws no one was obeying. There were just as many abortions happening before Roe as after.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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...?

Post 225.

 

[Zoom-boing]

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.

Wrong. Both are worth the same. You can only save one. You choose, the other(s) die. In no way does that make either have less intrinsic value.

Your kid, my kid. I save my kid. Does that mean your kid is worth less?Because using your logic, the answer is yes. You sure you want to go with that?

Old person, child, fetus, embryos. ALL are human beings at various stages of life. None are more - or less- human than the other. Their humanness is not based upon where they are developmentally. This is so basic but you pro-abortion types simply refuse to acknowledge it. Why? Because then you'd have to admit that you are okey-dokey will killing pre-born human beings. Cause you are. Stop pussy footing around the facts, Jack.

 

[Czernobog]

Wrong again... Fail on...

Another brain-dead response from the intellectually challenged. Gods you are boring. I have avoided putting your racists ass on ignore, because it was fun making you look as stupid as you obviously are. But, if you're just gong to be boring, I may have to rethink that decision.

 

[Czernobog]

That is because we have legally determined that a fetus is not a person.

No. "We" haven't...

Actually we have. It was pretty clearly defined in the Born Alive Act of 2002, a federal statute. That means that it is applicable, and has authority... well... everywhere in the US. You should look it up, racist.

It was also on authority by the courts that blacks we're 3/5 of a human. What changed? Blacks? Or the opinion of the court?

The Born Alive Act isn't a court ruling; it is federal law. Another fail. You just aren't capable of rational thought, are you?

Rational thought? You said you could rape a 12 year old. Remember?
CERN: "You will never have the moral high ground, you racist fuck! I could be raping a 12-year-old girl,"...

Boring. Strike two.

 

[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...?

Post 225.

Thanks. Let's get into this, shall we?

If your child and my child were in the building I'd save my child, not yours.

Does that mean my child has more value than yours?

Of course it does. You have just confirmed that your child has more moral value to you than mine would. As well it should. You are talking about relative value, which can only be determined by an individual, for themselves.

Of course not; both have intrinsic value because both are humans. The same holds true for the child and embryos in your, ah, 'scenario'. The difference between the born and the pre-born is location.

You're trying to equate relative value with intrinsic/absolute value. They are two different things. No one denies that embryos have (innate) value; only that their value is not equivalent to an actual child.

Regardless that your scenario takes place in a fertility clinic, it's obvious you're speaking about abortion. How does saving a born human but leaving the pre-born to die equate to intentionally killing a pre-born human? When one has an abortion, one intentionally kills the preborn.

Now you're just making a presumption, and drawing the wrong conclusion. I am not suggesting that you abandon your anti-abortion position. Only that you cease using the dishonest attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a non-viable fetus, and a child. You wanna oppose abortion? Fine. Find a new argument that doesn't rely on intellectual dishonesty in order to attempt to elicit an emotional response.

If there was a 3 week old baby and a 93 year old person I'd save the baby. The 93 year old has had their life, the baby has not.

Yup. Makes perfect sense. The moral calculation is sound.

Does that mean I do not value the older person? Of course not. Does that mean the older person's life has no value? Of course not. It means I had to make a decision based on emergency and emotion. That decision is not the intentional, deliberate taking of life.

No one is saying that you are, again, confusing relative value with absolute value. For example, make that old man your father. That changes the moral calculus some, no? I mean, I think, rationally the end result is the same, but it gives a bit of pause. Because the relative value has changed.

Why do you guys always, always go for the extreme scenarios? Did this actually happen? What about the vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions that are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience? You guys dodge that all the damn time.

Because it is the extreme scenarios that challenge our moral calculus, to insure that we are making rational, logical choices.

Abortion kills a pre-born human being.

Sorry, that is just more false moral equivalency in order to elicit an emotional response.

They are human from the get go, the do not "turn into" or "develop into" a human. Humans beget humans, that's how the hell it works. You are okay with abortion. That means that you are okay killing/terminating/snuffing out/destroying/ending the life of a pre-born human being. Your type constantly tries (and fails) to present abortion as ANYTHING other than what it is ... horrid, disgusting, intentional killing of a pre-born human. smh

Bullshit. "Pre-born human being" is just a semantic play of words in an attempt to assign a greater moral value to a non-viable fetus than it deserves.

 

[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.

Wrong. Both are worth the same. You can only save one. You choose, the other(s) die. In no way does that make either have less intrinsic value.

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

You're just a liar that wants to support his pro murder stance.

evil to the core

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

I did, you just don't like the fact that I'm smarter than you.

you're 'question' is not new, it's part of an email chain that started years ago.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

I did, you just don't like the fact that I'm smarter than you.

you're 'question' is not new, it's part of an email chain that started years ago.

Saying "there is no answer" is not answering the question.

 

[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.

You're just a liar that wants to support his pro murder stance.

evil to the core

You're just a liar who wants to support his patriarchal control over women, and their bodies.

evil to the core.

(See? I post post useless insults, too.)

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

You're just a liar that wants to support his pro murder stance.

evil to the core

You're just a liar who wants to support his patriarchal control over women, and their bodies.

evil to the core.

(See? I post post useless insults, too.)

Except I'm not lying.

There's a difference.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

You're just a liar that wants to support his pro murder stance.

evil to the core

You're just a liar who wants to support his patriarchal control over women, and their bodies.

evil to the core.

(See? I post post useless insults, too.)

Except I'm not lying.

There's a difference.

Not a difference, because neither am I. And actually, every time you claim to have answered the question, that is a lie.

 

[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.

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.

Of course the life is worth protecting, and every effort is expended trying to prevent the vegetative state in the first place. Once it is reached, however, one could make the case that the patient is no longer really alive. Unborn babies at surprisingly early stages of development can exhibit brain activity superior to patients in deep vegetative states.

Except they are. They are alive. They still perform every single function of a living organism. You just want to pick and chose which living human beings deserve your protection. Rather exactly what you are accusing me of.

But, despite your insistence, there are differences. In an elective abortion, no one speaks for the child.

And this would be why you will not answer the question in the OP. Because you want to keep equating a fetus with a child, even when you know that they are not morally equivalent.

No one evaluates the baby fetus for viability.

That would be because it's not necessary. First, we already have the data on this. Any fetus under 21 weeks of development has exactly zero percent chance of being viable. Even in week 22, it's only 0 to 10%. This is why I advocate the cutoff for at-will abortion at 23 weeks. While 10% is still low, that's still on in ten fetuses that are viable.

Second, you are, apparently, unaware of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002. It dictates, in part, that whereas a fetus may be viable or not viable in utero, this law provides a legal definition for personal human life when not in utero. It defines "born alive" as "the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles" and specifies that any of these is the action of a living human person. In other words, we have defined, precisely, the criteria to be defined as a person. A non-viable fetus doesn't fit the criteria.

Chris reeve ceased to be viable the moment his head hit the rock.

Really?!?! You think so? I'm pretty sure he would disagree. We can't really ask him, since he's dead, now. But you know who else I am certain disagrees with you? Stephen Hawking. And he is most certainly still alive to ask.[\quote]

How long would he last completely on his own, you know, the standard we apply to developing babies?

However, you have already indicated that you have no problem killing non-viable human beings - remember the vegetative human being? You have no problem killing them.[\quote]

And that's where the wheels fall off your tricycle. Allowing someone to die naturally after doing everything possible to save their life apparently equates in your mind to ripping a healthy body apart with a saw blade. Are you sure you're not high?

And you are ignoring the fact that we have already defined, by law, what is, and is not a person, and a non-viable fetus is not.[\QUOTE]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Click expand to see my replies.

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...?

Post 225.

Thanks. Let's get into this, shall we?

If your child and my child were in the building I'd save my child, not yours.

Does that mean my child has more value than yours?

Of course it does. You have just confirmed that your child has more moral value to you than mine would. As well it should. You are talking about relative value, which can only be determined by an individual, for themselves.

Of course not; both have intrinsic value because both are humans. The same holds true for the child and embryos in your, ah, 'scenario'. The difference between the born and the pre-born is location.

You're trying to equate relative value with intrinsic/absolute value. They are two different things. No one denies that embryos have (innate) value; only that their value is not equivalent to an actual child.

They have intrinsic value, as they are human beings in an early stage of development. Their value is equivalent to an actual child because they are an actual child in an earlier stage of development. This is fact. How do you think humans are made?

Regardless that your scenario takes place in a fertility clinic, it's obvious you're speaking about abortion. How does saving a born human but leaving the pre-born to die equate to intentionally killing a pre-born human? When one has an abortion, one intentionally kills the preborn.

Now you're just making a presumption, and drawing the wrong conclusion. No, I'm correct. You are talking about abortion. I am not suggesting that you abandon your anti-abortion position. Only that you cease using the dishonest attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a non-viable fetus, and a child. The reason a fetus becomes non-viable is because it is ripped out of its environment (where it was perfectly viable) via abortion. Abortion MAKES a pre-born non-viable. You wanna oppose abortion? Fine. Find a new argument that doesn't rely on intellectual dishonesty in order to attempt to elicit an emotional response. That you don't think abortion should elicit an emotional response speaks volumes.

If there was a 3 week old baby and a 93 year old person I'd save the baby. The 93 year old has had their life, the baby has not.

Yup. Makes perfect sense. The moral calculation is sound.

Does that mean I do not value the older person? Of course not. Does that mean the older person's life has no value? Of course not. It means I had to make a decision based on emergency and emotion. That decision is not the intentional, deliberate taking of life.

No one is saying that you are, again, confusing relative value with absolute value. For example, make that old man your father. That changes the moral calculus some, no? I mean, I think, rationally the end result is the same, but it gives a bit of pause. Because the relative value has changed. Their value remains the same, regardless of how I personally view them. Why? Because they are human beings. As are the pre-born. Difference is a) where they are developmentally and b) location. NEITHER makes them "not a human", no matter how many time you squeal otherwise.

Why do you guys always, always go for the extreme scenarios? Did this actually happen? What about the vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions that are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience? You guys dodge that all the damn time.

Because it is the extreme scenarios that challenge our moral calculus, to insure that we are making rational, logical choices. Because the fact that most abortions occur due to 'inconvenience to the mother' is a much harder argument to make. THAT'S the reason for the 'ain't never gonna happen' scenarios. smh

Abortion kills a pre-born human being.

Sorry, that is just more false moral equivalency in order to elicit an emotional response. It's like you have no clue how humans are made, where they come from. Incredible.

They are human from the get go, the do not "turn into" or "develop into" a human. Humans beget humans, that's how the hell it works. You are okay with abortion. That means that you are okay killing/terminating/snuffing out/destroying/ending the life of a pre-born human being. Your type constantly tries (and fails) to present abortion as ANYTHING other than what it is ... horrid, disgusting, intentional killing of a pre-born human. smh

Bullshit. "Pre-born human being" is just a semantic play of words in an attempt to assign a greater moral value to a non-viable fetus than it deserves. Just stating the facts, Jack. All human beings have the same intrinsic value; their location doesn't make one morally greater. Again, pre-born humans are perfectly viable when they are left in-utero, until they are ready to be born. Abortion - the act of killing/destroying/ending the life of the pre-born causes them to become non-viable. If I took you, as you are now, and dropped you in Siberia, you'd become non-viable mighty fast. But it wouldn't make you any less human, just less of an alive human.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos. That does not mean the embryos have no - or less - value than the child. How I view them personally doesn't matter. Their intrinsic value does. I value my family more than I value your family but that does not mean your family has less value. BOTH have THE SAME intrinsic value. I am making my decision based on emergency and emotion. I can see him, I can hear him screaming, I can see him burning. Yes, I grab him to save him. I can not hear the pre-born scream, I can not know are they going to be implanted, I can not know if they are alive at that exact time. I am human and would respond to the child. How do you equate this decision with the intentional killing of a pre-born human via abortion? They are not in anyway the same thing.

All human beings have intrinsic value. ALL. They do not suddenly develop this value, they have it from the beginning, from the moment they begin to exist. And when is that? If they do not have value, or if their value is less, then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If they do not have it then the five year old does not have it nor the 90 year old. It must be all or none, there is no other way.

 

[Czernobog]

Click expand to see my replies.

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...?

Post 225.

Thanks. Let's get into this, shall we?

If your child and my child were in the building I'd save my child, not yours.

Does that mean my child has more value than yours?

Of course it does. You have just confirmed that your child has more moral value to you than mine would. As well it should. You are talking about relative value, which can only be determined by an individual, for themselves.

Of course not; both have intrinsic value because both are humans. The same holds true for the child and embryos in your, ah, 'scenario'. The difference between the born and the pre-born is location.

You're trying to equate relative value with intrinsic/absolute value. They are two different things. No one denies that embryos have (innate) value; only that their value is not equivalent to an actual child.

They have intrinsic value, as they are human beings in an early stage of development. Their value is equivalent to an actual child because they are an actual child in an earlier stage of development. This is fact. How do you think humans are made?

Regardless that your scenario takes place in a fertility clinic, it's obvious you're speaking about abortion. How does saving a born human but leaving the pre-born to die equate to intentionally killing a pre-born human? When one has an abortion, one intentionally kills the preborn.

Now you're just making a presumption, and drawing the wrong conclusion. No, I'm correct. You are talking about abortion. I am not suggesting that you abandon your anti-abortion position. Only that you cease using the dishonest attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a non-viable fetus, and a child. The reason a fetus becomes non-viable is because it is ripped out of its environment (where it was perfectly viable) via abortion. Abortion MAKES a pre-born non-viable. You wanna oppose abortion? Fine. Find a new argument that doesn't rely on intellectual dishonesty in order to attempt to elicit an emotional response. That you don't think abortion should elicit an emotional response speaks volumes.

If there was a 3 week old baby and a 93 year old person I'd save the baby. The 93 year old has had their life, the baby has not.

Yup. Makes perfect sense. The moral calculation is sound.

Does that mean I do not value the older person? Of course not. Does that mean the older person's life has no value? Of course not. It means I had to make a decision based on emergency and emotion. That decision is not the intentional, deliberate taking of life.

No one is saying that you are, again, confusing relative value with absolute value. For example, make that old man your father. That changes the moral calculus some, no? I mean, I think, rationally the end result is the same, but it gives a bit of pause. Because the relative value has changed. Their value remains the same, regardless of how I personally view them. Why? Because they are human beings. As are the pre-born. Difference is a) where they are developmentally and b) location. NEITHER makes them "not a human", no matter how many time you squeal otherwise.

Why do you guys always, always go for the extreme scenarios? Did this actually happen? What about the vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions that are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience? You guys dodge that all the damn time.

Because it is the extreme scenarios that challenge our moral calculus, to insure that we are making rational, logical choices. Because the fact that most abortions occur due to 'inconvenience to the mother' is a much harder argument to make. THAT'S the reason for the 'ain't never gonna happen' scenarios. smh

Abortion kills a pre-born human being.

Sorry, that is just more false moral equivalency in order to elicit an emotional response. It's like you have no clue how humans are made, where they come from. Incredible.

They are human from the get go, the do not "turn into" or "develop into" a human. Humans beget humans, that's how the hell it works. You are okay with abortion. That means that you are okay killing/terminating/snuffing out/destroying/ending the life of a pre-born human being. Your type constantly tries (and fails) to present abortion as ANYTHING other than what it is ... horrid, disgusting, intentional killing of a pre-born human. smh

Bullshit. "Pre-born human being" is just a semantic play of words in an attempt to assign a greater moral value to a non-viable fetus than it deserves. Just stating the facts, Jack. All human beings have the same intrinsic value; their location doesn't make one morally greater. Again, pre-born humans are perfectly viable when they are left in-utero, until they are ready to be born. Abortion - the act of killing/destroying/ending the life of the pre-born causes them to become non-viable. If I took you, as you are now, and dropped you in Siberia, you'd become non-viable mighty fast. But it wouldn't make you any less human, just less of an alive human.

Well, I'm still waiting, then, for you to tell us that given the scenario in the OP, you would choose to save the phial of "one thousand preborn children", rather than the single five-year-old child. I notice you still haven't said that. Why is that?