Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

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.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Abortion is designed to kill the developing baby, not give him/her a chance to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what? Your statement implies that the only reason fetuses fail to come to term, and survive is abortion. That is demonstrably not true, as the data demonstrates.

No such implication exists. Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to the unborn child fetus. That's not even controversial.

Sooner, or later, you guys are gonna learn that I am not going to respond to your emotional dishonesty by anything other than correcting your dishonesty. Now that that's been dealt with, what's your point. Abortions only account for less than 6% of pregnancies. mathematically more fetuses die naturally than by abortion. How does abyone having an abortion affect you? If it dosn't, then it is really none of your business. And don't bother with the "killing a person" bullshit, as I will just remind you that a fetus isn't a person, and there is federal law to support that position.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child.

If agreed that an embryo has the same moral value as a child, I would grab the phials saving a thousand children, and let the child die, as grabbing the phial does the greater good, by saving more children. And you know that. However, you also know that you don't perceive an embryo as morally equivalent to a child, which is why you choose to save the child.

You can try to cover your dishonesty any way you like. Either stop referring to fetuses as children, or know that every time you do, I will recognise that you are being intentionally dishonest.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

Because nothing you say after that matters. I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value. You claiming that that value is equal to a child, and still insist that you would save the child makes you a liar. Either you lied when you said you would save 1 child instead of 1,000, or you are lying when you insist that a fetus/embryo is equivalent to a child.

I'll let you decide which was the lie.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

I'm saying that it doesn't take an abortion for a fetus to be no-viable.

I never said it did.

I'm saying abortion makes them non-viable.

Do you dispute that?

So does miscarriage, or premature labour before week 20. Do you deny that? Now that we've established that fetuses can die, what's your point?

 

[Czernobog]

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those in favor of abortion can't stand to have the truth spoken. They duck, dodge, and cherry pick what they respond to.

I'm not the one who equates a fetus/embryo with a child, while simultaneously insisting that he would let the equivalent of 1,000 children die for the sake of one child.

One way, or the other, you're either a liar, or a monster. I'll let you decide which.

 

[hadit]

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

And I will point out your intellectual vacuity. You presented a thought experiment that was fatally flawed from the start, then when shown the flaws, doubled down on it.

You thought you had the perfect "gotcha" and don't want to let it go.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child.

If agreed that an embryo has the same moral value as a child, I would grab the phials saving a thousand children, and let the child die, as grabbing the phial does the greater good, by saving more children. And you know that. However, you also know that you don't perceive an embryo as morally equivalent to a child, which is why you choose to save the child.

You can try to cover your dishonesty any way you like. Either stop referring to fetuses as children, or know that every time you do, I will recognise that you are being intentionally dishonest.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

Because nothing you say after that matters. I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value. You claiming that that value is equal to a child, and still insist that you would save the child makes you a liar. Either you lied when you said you would save 1 child instead of 1,000, or you are lying when you insist that a fetus/embryo is equivalent to a child.

I'll let you decide which was the lie.

Everything I said matters. The fact is you're incapable of even addressing it so you dodge it. Typical. If the five yr old has intrinsic value then so does the pre-born have the same intrinsic value, as intrinsic value is present from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. That's what intrinsic means. You're attempting to give intrinsic a 'more or less' definition by saying the pre-born has less value. Sorry, Charlie, you do not get to redefine the term. Again, when do they first exist as a distinct entity?? If you don't answer this (I've asked you several times now), we'll all know you're just full of shit. If they do not have value, or if their value is less (as you claim), then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If the pre-born is without this value then so is the five yr old then so is the 90 yr old.

The only thing you've proven is that in this scenario you'd react with logic whereas I'd react with emotion, instinct, and panic. You're attempting to equate "logical vs emotional reactions" with "pre-born humans have less value than born humans". Fail. That and the fact that your ilk continually try to convince others that pre-born human beings aren't actually pre-born human beings. Science says otherwise, Frances. You fail. Again.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

I'm saying that it doesn't take an abortion for a fetus to be no-viable.

I never said it did.

I'm saying abortion makes them non-viable.

Do you dispute that?

So does miscarriage, or premature labour before week 20. Do you deny that? Now that we've established that fetuses can die, what's your point?

Already answered, above.

My point is that the majority of pre-born humans are viable while in-utero. Abortion (in addition to miscarriage, etc) causes them to become non-viable.

Yes or no?

 

[Zoom-boing]

I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value.

Intrinsic:

belonging to a thing by its very nature

the definition of intrinsic

Belonging naturally; essential.

intrinsic | Definition of intrinsic in English by Oxford Dictionaries

You claiming that that value is equal to a child

If the pre-born has intrinsic value it IS equal to the value of a child, as that's what intrinsic means.

Your weak attempt at redefining 'intrinsic' shows YOU to be the hack and liar.

It also shows that, whether you admit it or not, you KNOW that pre-borns have the same value as the born. You just stated it, above. Your subconscious is talking to you. Do yourself a favor and listen to it.

 

[Czernobog]

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

And I will point out your intellectual vacuity. You presented a thought experiment that was fatally flawed from the start, then when shown the flaws, doubled down on it.

You thought you had the perfect "gotcha" and don't want to let it go.

You keep calling it a "gotcha" like that's a bad thing. It's not. If the reasoning for your position is sound, then there is no "gotcha". The only reason it becomes a "gotcha" is that it exposes a dishonesty in your position. No flaws were demonstrated. Only a bunch of whining from dishonest anti-abortionists who don't want to admit their position is flawed. A flaw would mean that there was a way, built into the thought experiment, that would allow someone to resolve the scenario without having to make the choice presented. Not one of you has exposed such a flaw. The best you could present was, "That wouldn't happen in the real world!" Well, guess what? That is irrelevant. That ios how thought experiments work. They don't have to be 100% grounded in reality. That's why they are called hypotheticals. They aren't designed to test real world experience. They are designed to test one's moral, and ethical positions.

 

[Czernobog]

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child.

If agreed that an embryo has the same moral value as a child, I would grab the phials saving a thousand children, and let the child die, as grabbing the phial does the greater good, by saving more children. And you know that. However, you also know that you don't perceive an embryo as morally equivalent to a child, which is why you choose to save the child.

You can try to cover your dishonesty any way you like. Either stop referring to fetuses as children, or know that every time you do, I will recognise that you are being intentionally dishonest.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

Because nothing you say after that matters. I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value. You claiming that that value is equal to a child, and still insist that you would save the child makes you a liar. Either you lied when you said you would save 1 child instead of 1,000, or you are lying when you insist that a fetus/embryo is equivalent to a child.

I'll let you decide which was the lie.

Everything I said matters. The fact is you're incapable of even addressing it so you dodge it. Typical. If the five yr old has intrinsic value then so does the pre-born have the same intrinsic value, as intrinsic value is present from the first moment they exist as a distinct entity. That's what intrinsic means. You're attempting to give intrinsic a 'more or less' definition by saying the pre-born fetus has less value. Sorry, Charlie, you do not get to redefine the term. Again, when do they first exist as a distinct entity?? If you don't answer this (I've asked you several times now), we'll all know you're just full of shit. If they do not have value, or if their value is less (as you claim), then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If the pre-born fetus is without this value then so is the five yr old then so is the 90 yr old.

Have I ever claimed otherwise? Once again for the cheap seats. An embryo has intrinsic value, just as a child has intrinsic value. See, this is why what you are saying about intrinsic value is meaningless. You keep pretending that I am denying that embryos have intrinsic value. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value is so sophomoric, naive, and idiotic, as to require me to assume that, because I know that you are not a moron, that you are intentionally being dishonest to suggest such. A flower has intrinsic moral value. A person has intrinsic moral value. Would you really be so stupid as to claim that because this is true, they have equal moral value?!?! I truly hope not, because if you would, then I will have no choice but to simply refuse to ever engage you in discussion again, as that would indicate that you are clearly too stupid to be capable of rational thought.

The only thing you've proven is that in this scenario you'd react with logic whereas I'd react with emotion, instinct, and panic. You're attempting to equate "logical vs emotional reactions" with "pre-born humans fetuses have less value than born humans". Fail. That and the fact that your ilk continually try to convince others that pre-born human beings fetuses aren't actually pre-born human beings children. Science says otherwise, Frances. You fail. Again.

I suppose that you may have a point. However, even considering that, that means that you are admitting that attempting to equate a fetus with a child is an emotional determination, not a rational one. Emotional attachment is a personal matter, and no stranger has the right to dictate the personal , emotional choices of anyone other than themselves. Science says no such thing. Science specifically between fetuses, and children. As does the law.

 

[Czernobog]

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

I'm saying that it doesn't take an abortion for a fetus to be no-viable.

I never said it did.

I'm saying abortion makes them non-viable.

Do you dispute that?

So does miscarriage, or premature labour before week 20. Do you deny that? Now that we've established that fetuses can die, what's your point?

Already answered, above.

My point is that the majority of pre-born humans fetuses are viable while in-utero. Abortion (in addition to miscarriage, etc) causes them to become non-viable.

Yes or no?

No. Viability has nothing to do with in-utero. Viability is specifically the ability of a fetus to survive to adult organism ex-utero.

 

[Czernobog]

I never denied that a fetus, or an embryo has intrinsic value.

Intrinsic:

belonging to a thing by its very nature

the definition of intrinsic

Belonging naturally; essential.

intrinsic | Definition of intrinsic in English by Oxford Dictionaries

You claiming that that value is equal to a child

If the pre-born fetus has intrinsic value it IS equal to the value of a child, as that's what intrinsic means.

Your weak attempt at redefining 'intrinsic' shows YOU to be the hack and liar.

It also shows that, whether you admit it or not, you KNOW that pre-borns have the same value as the born. You just stated it, above. Your subconscious is talking to you. Do yourself a favor and listen to it.

.
If you truly believe that, then you are a moron. Because everything has intrinsic value. By your logic - or lack thereof, as it were - a fucking rock has the same moral value as a child. A fucking diamond necklace has the same moral value as a child. A piece of mother-fucking paper has the same moral value as a child! Surely you see how stupid it is to claim that just because two different things have intrinsic value, they, then, have equal moral value?!?!?

 

[Votto]

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 voted for a 4rth option, let the liberals burn since they don't seem to be as well developed as the embryos.

Better yet, give the embryos a gun and let them fight it out.

Damn gun laws!

 

[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 voted for a 4rth option, let the liberals burn since they don't seem to be as well developed as the embryos.

Better yet, give the embryos a gun and let them fight it out.

Damn gun laws!

Well, aren't you just adorable.

 

[Bonzi]

There's a difference between saving and purposefully killing.

I would save the boy, not because the embryos are not human life in the initial stages....I would save the boy because I believe he would endure more pain and trauma in the process of dying....

 

[Czernobog]

There's a difference between saving and purposefully killing.

I would save the boy, not because the embryos are not human life in the initial stages....I would save the boy because I believe he would endure more pain and trauma in the process of dying....

Now you're changing your argument. Let's put a pin in that. I want to verify, first, if you are still maintaining that just because two different things both have intrinsic value that dictates that they also must have the same moral value.

 

[hadit]

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

And I will point out your intellectual vacuity. You presented a thought experiment that was fatally flawed from the start, then when shown the flaws, doubled down on it.

You thought you had the perfect "gotcha" and don't want to let it go.

You keep calling it a "gotcha" like that's a bad thing. It's not. If the reasoning for your position is sound, then there is no "gotcha". The only reason it becomes a "gotcha" is that it exposes a dishonesty in your position. No flaws were demonstrated. Only a bunch of whining from dishonest anti-abortionists who don't want to admit their position is flawed. A flaw would mean that there was a way, built into the thought experiment, that would allow someone to resolve the scenario without having to make the choice presented. Not one of you has exposed such a flaw. The best you could present was, "That wouldn't happen in the real world!" Well, guess what? That is irrelevant. That ios how thought experiments work. They don't have to be 100% grounded in reality. That's why they are called hypotheticals. They aren't designed to test real world experience. They are designed to test one's moral, and ethical positions.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the instinctive reactions of people to a crying child in no way changes the humanity of the others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

And I will point out your intellectual vacuity. You presented a thought experiment that was fatally flawed from the start, then when shown the flaws, doubled down on it.

You thought you had the perfect "gotcha" and don't want to let it go.

You keep calling it a "gotcha" like that's a bad thing. It's not. If the reasoning for your position is sound, then there is no "gotcha". The only reason it becomes a "gotcha" is that it exposes a dishonesty in your position. No flaws were demonstrated. Only a bunch of whining from dishonest anti-abortionists who don't want to admit their position is flawed. A flaw would mean that there was a way, built into the thought experiment, that would allow someone to resolve the scenario without having to make the choice presented. Not one of you has exposed such a flaw. The best you could present was, "That wouldn't happen in the real world!" Well, guess what? That is irrelevant. That ios how thought experiments work. They don't have to be 100% grounded in reality. That's why they are called hypotheticals. They aren't designed to test real world experience. They are designed to test one's moral, and ethical positions.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the instinctive reactions of people to a crying child in no way changes the humanity of the others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So...if you just happened on the kid standing silently, it would change your moral calculus? Really????

 

[hadit]

I have done no such thing.

You absolutely have,. As soon as you admitted that you save the child, you acknowledge that a fetus is not morally equivalent to a baby. You want to continue to dishonestly claim that it is, I will keep pointing out that you are a liar.

And I will point out your intellectual vacuity. You presented a thought experiment that was fatally flawed from the start, then when shown the flaws, doubled down on it.

You thought you had the perfect "gotcha" and don't want to let it go.

You keep calling it a "gotcha" like that's a bad thing. It's not. If the reasoning for your position is sound, then there is no "gotcha". The only reason it becomes a "gotcha" is that it exposes a dishonesty in your position. No flaws were demonstrated. Only a bunch of whining from dishonest anti-abortionists who don't want to admit their position is flawed. A flaw would mean that there was a way, built into the thought experiment, that would allow someone to resolve the scenario without having to make the choice presented. Not one of you has exposed such a flaw. The best you could present was, "That wouldn't happen in the real world!" Well, guess what? That is irrelevant. That ios how thought experiments work. They don't have to be 100% grounded in reality. That's why they are called hypotheticals. They aren't designed to test real world experience. They are designed to test one's moral, and ethical positions.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the instinctive reactions of people to a crying child in no way changes the humanity of the others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So...if you just happened on the kid standing silently, it would change your moral calculus? Really????

What moral calculus? A crying child needs help. A quiet child can take direction. You can tell him to run out of the now open door while you grab the vials and get them out.