Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Czernobog]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.

 

[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....

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.

I think value and morality are very subjective. How can all come to an agreement there? I can only speak for myself.

 

[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.

I think value and morality are very subjective. How can all come to an agreement there? I can only speak for myself.

That is the first thing that you have said with which I agree. Then the best that you could say is that a fetus is morally equivalent to a child to. YOU. However, even were that true, then you are saying that, to you, a single embryo is morally equivalent to a single child, to you. Which means that a thousand embryos would have a thousand times more moral value than a single child, to you. So, now that we have established your understanding of the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value, would you like to rethink your response to the scenario presented in the OP, or would you rather concede that you should not be morally equating a fetus, or embryo to a child?

 

[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....

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.

I think value and morality are very subjective. How can all come to an agreement there? I can only speak for myself.

That is the first thing that you have said with which I agree. Then the best that you could say is that a fetus is morally equivalent to a child to. YOU. However, even were that true, then you are saying that, to you, a single embryo is morally equivalent to a single child, to you. Which means that a thousand embryos would have a thousand times more moral value than a single child, to you. So, now that we have established your understanding of the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value, would you like to rethink your response to the scenario presented in the OP, or would you rather concede that you should not be morally equating a fetus, or embryo to a child?

It is equally immoral to purposefully set out to end their lives.

 

[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.

I think value and morality are very subjective. How can all come to an agreement there? I can only speak for myself.

That is the first thing that you have said with which I agree. Then the best that you could say is that a fetus is morally equivalent to a child to. YOU. However, even were that true, then you are saying that, to you, a single embryo is morally equivalent to a single child, to you. Which means that a thousand embryos would have a thousand times more moral value than a single child, to you. So, now that we have established your understanding of the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value, would you like to rethink your response to the scenario presented in the OP, or would you rather concede that you should not be morally equating a fetus, or embryo to a child?

It is equally immoral to purposefully set out to end their lives.

That wasn't the question, nor the purpose of the exerise, and you know it. Since you are now back to refusing to answer the question, I also assume that you know what your answer would be, and how that affects your determination to continue to call fetuses, and embryos something they are not.

 

[Czernobog]

Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.

 

[hadit]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

The bottom line remains, your parameters are false. Our reactions don't define the people to which we're reacting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

The bottom line remains, your parameters are false. Our reactions don't define the people to which we're reacting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they don't. They define you. That is the point. The thought experiment isn't meant to define either the embryos, or the child. It is meant to reveal who you are, and what your moral calculus is.

 

[hadit]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.

See, now you're trying to change the parameters. I thought you didn't want to do that. Anyway, that's easy. You save the one that experiences pain and suffers, then mourn over the many that will never get the opportunity to grow and thrive.

You see, you thought that by getting me to say that an unborn baby without a functioning brain doesn't suffer I would be saying that the unborn is less than human and can be safely tossed in the trash. Again, the reaction doesn't define the humanity of those not saved, any more than saving a sleeping baby instead of an adult in a persistent vegetative state makes the adult any less human.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

The bottom line remains, your parameters are false. Our reactions don't define the people to which we're reacting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they don't. They define you. That is the point. The thought experiment isn't meant to define either the embryos, or the child. It is meant to reveal who you are, and what your moral calculus is.

So your going on about how it would reveal that the unborn are DIFFERENT and thus not fully human was window dressing?

 

[Czernobog]

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.

Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.

Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.

See, now you're trying to change the parameters. I thought you didn't want to do that. Anyway, that's easy. You save the one that experiences pain and suffers, then mourn over the many that will never get the opportunity to grow and thrive

Okay. So your moral caclulation is interesting. The ability to fell pain creates a higher moral value, and responsibility. Okay. My calculus would have been slightly different, but would have arrived at the same conclusion.

You see, you thought that by getting me to say that an unborn baby embryo without a functioning brain doesn't suffer I would be saying that the unborn embryo is less than human and can be safely tossed in the trash. Again, the reaction doesn't define the humanity of those not saved, any more than saving a sleeping baby instead of an adult in a persistent vegetative state makes the adult any less human.

Not the humanity, the moral value. And it certainly does. You did decide that the embryos were of less moral value, and could simply be "tossed in the trash" during the clean up after the fire. Otherwise you would have saved them.

You can keep denying this all you like, but your reaction demonstrates that you do not, regardless of your dihonest attempts to suggest otherwise, assign the same relative moral value to an embryo that you do to an actual baby, or child.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Expand to see answers.

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. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. 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?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? 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. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. 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.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

 

[Vastator]

As far as race goes... Of course I'm a racist. You should be too.

Expand to see answers.

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. Wrong, I specifically said you did say that pre-born humans have intrinsic value. I even quoted you. I'm not. However, to suggest that simply because two different things A pre-born human and a post-born human are not two different things; they are both human therefore they both have the same intrinsic moral value. Their location or where they are developmentally does not change this. have intrinsic moral value that they have equal moral value two different things do not necessarily have the same value. Again, a pre-born human and a post-born human are not different, as they are both human beings. Location does not enter into the equation because location does not dictate their humanness. 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?!?! wtf are you comparing humans to plants saying they have the same value and trying to project that onto me?? 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. Except that's not what I said. I said that YOU were attempting to equate 'logical vs emotional REACTIONS' with 'pre-born humans have less value than born humans'. REACTION to the situation. 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.

You still refuse to answer my question as to when humans first exist as a distinct entity. I told you if you didn't answer you'd be admitting that you're full of shit. Good on you for at least admitting this.

ftr, changing another posters post is against board rules. Do it again and I'll report you.

I'm sorry. I thought I made that clear. Around the 23rd week of pregnancy. This is the earliest that a fetus has any chance of viability. This is also why I do not oppose any suggestion of banning abortion after this point.

Then we'll just have to put one another on ignore. Because I refuse to acknowledge intentionally dishonest statements.

If they have no chance of viability til week 23... How do they make it to week 23?

 

[Chuz Life]

Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.

You are trying to build on a false premise.

There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.

A child is a child.

By any other name, it is still a child.

 

[mamooth]

Nice thread.

I've asked the same type of questions over the years. Since about 1995 actually, which is the first time I saw the Burning Fertility Clinic Scenario, on UseNet forums. For example, I use a variation on it here, the Susan Smith Scenario.

What Robert Frost Reveals About Libersals

The guy on Twitter obviously got it from someone else. Nobody plagiarized it. It's just a common debating technique used over the years to point out pro-lifers are liars. You youngun's need to understand that internet history didn't begin with Twitter.

Just like this thread, each time I presented the scenario, pro-lifers reacted badly. Most of them evaded. Just like as in this thread, they'd hurl insults, or say it was stupid and they didn't have to answer, or they'd present endless counter-scenarios that made zero sense. They understood that giving a straight answer would knock out the sole moral basis of their fundamentally anti-liberty pro-life philosophy.

If a pro-lifer says they believe an embryo is morally the same thing as a child, that pro-lifer is lying. It's that simple. That's what this thread shows. They don't think abortion is murder. They're lying about that.

That's one reason why it's so good to be a pro-choicer. We don't have to evade or weasel. If you're honest, you won't ever get tied up in knots trying to keep all your lies straight. We just tell the simple truth all the time, and we "win". While it's not PC to say such things, that makes us morally superior to pro-lifers, among other reasons.

 

[Vastator]

Nice thread.

I've asked the same type of questions over the years. Since about 1995 actually, which is the first time I saw the Burning Fertility Clinic Scenario, on UseNet forums. For example, I use a variation on it here, the Susan Smith Scenario.

What Robert Frost Reveals About Libersals

The guy on Twitter obviously got it from someone else. Nobody plagiarized it. It's just a common debating technique used over the years to point out pro-lifers are liars. You youngun's need to understand that internet history didn't begin with Twitter.

Just like this thread, each time I presented the scenario, pro-lifers reacted badly. Most of them evaded. Just like as in this thread, they'd hurl insults, or say it was stupid and they didn't have to answer, or they'd present endless counter-scenarios that made zero sense. They understood that giving a straight answer would knock out the sole moral basis of their fundamentally anti-liberty pro-life philosophy.

If a pro-lifer says they believe an embryo is morally the same thing as a child, that pro-lifer is lying. It's that simple. That's what this thread shows. They don't think abortion is murder. They're lying about that.

That's one reason why it's so good to be a pro-choicer. We don't have to evade or weasel. If you're honest, you won't ever get tied up in knots trying to keep all your lies straight. We just tell the simple truth all the time, and we "win". While it's not PC to say such things, that makes us morally superior to pro-lifers, among other reasons.

And that's the fatal, hubris, laced flaw in your scenario. You refuse to believe any response that doesn't fulfill your confirmation bias. That's what makes the proposition a fail...

 

[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 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?!?!?

Everything doesn't have instrinsic value. Everything doesn't have moral value.

Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being. Their value remains the same from the start to the finish. It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human. If it is less (it isn't), but IF it is less then it isn't intrinsic. You can't add to one’s intrinsic value or take away from one’s value; all things of xx group (pssst, that would be humans) that are intrinsically valuable are all equally valuable.

You sure are trying to twist things in order to make some kind of point. I've never claimed that two different things have the same intrinsic value. Stop projecting.

 

[Czernobog]

Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.

You are trying to build on a false premise.

There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.

A child is a child.

By any other name, it is still a child.

The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.

 

[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?!?!?

Everything doesn't have instrinsic value. Everything doesn't have moral value.

Really? Name something that doesn't have intrinsic value.

...a pre-born human an embryo...

Last warning. Post that meaningless phrase to try to create a false equivalency between an embryo, and a child, and I will simply put you on ignore. Now, you wanna report me, report me. Use that dishonest term again, and I will simply put you on ignore, so that I do not have to engage with your dishonesty any more.

Incidentally, threatening to report me for ":changing" your post indicates that you know that you are being dishonest, otherwise I haven't changed anything, and am simply using a synonym of your posted words.