Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Zoom-boing]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

Oak trees do not just fucking morph out of one type organism and into another and neither do we human beings.

We human beings are the very same organism at 80 years of age (if we live that long) that we were at the moment of our conception. That's biology 101.

Thank you. How people are so stupid as to not know this is simply astounding.

 

[Czernobog]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

 

[hadit]

We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.

Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.

Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.

Again, (for as many times as it needs to be repeated) the Constitution (supreme law of the land) says that ALL persons are equally entitled to the protections of our laws. So, the issue is NOT how much any of us might value or attempt to rescue children in ANY particular hypothetical situation.

If they are human beings / persons. . . They are entitled to Constitutional rights.

Period.

End of debate.

And, again, for as many times as it needs to be repeated, THE BORN ALIVE ACT specifically precludes fetuses from being considered persons.

That is the end of the debate.

Actually, it is not, since other laws treat the unborn as people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, they don't. What they do is give once pregnant women the ability to punish criminals who, through their violence, deprived them the right to choose to have a baby. The irony is that you, now, want to use those same laws as an excuse to deprive women of the right to choose to not have a baby.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

They already have a baby, as they are reminded with every kick. The time to choose is before conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

I can't wait to get to my home pc to school you on just how retarded that claim is.

 

[Czernobog]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

I can't wait to get to my home pc to school you on just how retarded that claim is.

Why wait? Here is the text of the law:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means 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 move ment of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

Translation: A person is defined, by our government, as a member of the homo sapiens species after they have been born. Guess what a fetus is...

 

[Chuz Life]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

I can't wait to get to my home pc to school you on just how retarded that claim is.

Why wait? Here is the text of the law:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means 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 move ment of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

Translation: A person is defined, by our government, as a member of the homo sapiens species after they have been born. Guess what a fetus is...

Lol. Keep digging your hole. I'll be throwing the dirt in on top of you soon enough.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

No --- they can't VOTE. Or have a passport or run for office. That's "personhood".. BUT -- there are ample laws in place in MOST states that recognize the death of a fetus by malice or criminal intent.

Is killing a fetus murder?

 

[flacaltenn]

Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.

That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.

The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.

Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.

And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.

Oh for fucks sake.

The Constitution says All persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws. It doesn't fucking say "based on each mother fuckers moral fucking value."

This whole thing is a non starter, red herring, false dilemma.

Say It with me. . .
If the little mother fucking child in the embryonic stage of their life, they are automatically entitled to the equal fucking protections of our laws.

That's it.

The Supreme Court has already acknowledge that fucking fact.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 clearly defines personhood to not include fetuses. So your Constitutional appeal is meaningless, as our government does not recognise a fetus as a person.

I can't wait to get to my home pc to school you on just how retarded that claim is.

Why wait? Here is the text of the law:

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any
ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative
bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', `human
being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of
the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
``(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive', with respect
to a member of the species homo sapiens, means 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 move ment of
voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a
result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

Translation: A person is defined, by our government, as a member of the homo sapiens species after they have been born. Guess what a fetus is...

That's because if you kill them before they leave the womb, none of those things will happen. Don't try to over-interpret what this says. See my post above.

 

[Blackrook]

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

The answer to the question is that frozen embryos should not be created in the first place. The only ethical way to conceive a human is through natural vaginal sex between a married couple.

 

[mamooth]

Wrong. If a pre-born human has less value than a born human, then it has no intrinsic value.

That's a stupid and crazy claim on your part. Do you have anything to offer other than that false dichotomy fallacy? You're claiming, without any support to back it up, that there are only two possible states of intrinsic value, 100% or 0%. That's nonsense.

You can not add or take away intrinsic value from a human. If there is less intrinsic value in the pre-born then there is no intrinsic value in the baby ... or the 5 yr old ... or the 90 yr old. You're saying that humans have no intrinsic value with your post. Your word games are retarded.

Didn't I already tell you that repeating "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is not an argument?

Of course, it is the only argument you have, so I see why you have to rely entirely on it.

Sadly for you, everyone is free to laugh at your endless "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" claims, so we do, and you can't do anything about it except flail around in helpless rage. That's what infuriates pro-life control freaks the most, the fact that liberty-minded people are free to ignore your authoritarian edicts.

What part of a woman is no longer intact after she has an abortion?

Was there any point to such a totally bizarre question? I for one can't see it. It's just senseless. I can't even figure out what's being asked.

What part of a pre-born human is no longer intact after it is aborted?

If you any kind of point in there, show some courage and honesty and just state it directly, instead of playing stupid question games.

 

[mamooth]

No, I'm saying that humans and plants are not related and it's idiotic for you to compare the two.

I wasn't comparing the two, I was making an analogy, one that was very valid. And you're saying the analogy doesn't hold because ... well because you say it doesn't. Same old same old.

I pointed out that even pro-lifers believe that more development of a fetus means more intrinsic value, as illustrated by their focus on late term abortions. I see you don't want to address that point, almost certainly because you know it destroys your claims.

But since you insist on confusing people and plants ... the acorn IS an oak tree in its early stage of development.

It's a acorn, not an oak tree. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A zygote is not a human being. And so on. Across the spectrum, we say that things in different stages of development are different things.

An embryo IS a human being in its early stages of development.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

So, I say sperm are human beings. After all, I can trace my development back to a sperm, thus it is an indisputable fact that a sperm cell is a developmental stage of a human being, and thus is a human being. That's your logic. Well, it should be, but because of your seething murderous hatred of Helpless Haploid Humans, you seek to subjectively dehumanize them, all to satisfy your death-lust.

From the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg and cells divide, a human being is made. That's. How. It. Works. What stage of development a human is in DOES NOT make it 'more or less' human.

And now you're getting confused about nouns and adjectives. Being "human" (adjective) does not make something "a human" (noun). Sad, that your philosophy depends on bad grammar.

To believe this is utter insanity.

"BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO! BECAUSE I SAY SO!"

It must frustrate you, the way your religious beliefs can't be transferred sensibly out of your religion.

 

[sakinago]

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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

 

[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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

 

[hadit]

Have you ever noticed that the liberal mantra that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" is self contradictory?

If what is being aborted is not a human, then i abortion should not be rare. If it is human, however, then abortion should not be legal.

 

[hadit]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

 

[PredFan]

An embryo is a stage of human development, therefor it is human. To state that it isn't is to be simply stubborn and dishonest.

 

[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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

 

[BreezeWood]

An embryo is a stage of human development, therefor it is human. To state that it isn't is to be simply stubborn and dishonest.

.
the same applies to a chicken egg, baby back ribs ....

if you are honest, they are all the same.

 

[hadit]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

And when you have sex and willfully create a new life, you are responsible for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[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

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

And when you have sex and willfully create a new life, you are responsible for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. And it's my decision how to contend with those consequences, no one else's.