Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Avatar4321]

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

Here is a twist. You are having a baby. It's only 1 month old in your belly. You can save it or a living human being. Who would you save? Even though I'm pro choice I would save my baby. Then I would consider the thing living. When it's mine. Then it has value to me. But you can have all the abortions you want.

Of course you save your OWN BABY.

Just like every living person on the planet would save the boy in the example.

Guess what? It's not Patrick's argument, either. The thing has been around for a while. I just thought it would be fun to bring back, and expose the duplicitous pricks for who they are. And you're all doing a great job of proving me right. Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted.

Like you predicted? You mean like Patrick (or whomever he stole it from) predicted......

At any rate, lots of people, myself included, have answered the question. You fail.

Dismissed.

No you didn't. You said it was stupid, and started asking a lot of irrelevant questions. Those who did answer I responded to.

But you just said "Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted."



Anyway, read your own plagiarized thread son......I did answer.

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

I stand corrected. You really should look up the word, plagiarise, those. But, I'll let that go.

I am pro choice, plagiarizer.

But even if I were rabidly pro Life....I'd save the child. Just like every other person on the planet.

You are pro-choice. Adding your "If I were rabidly pro life" alters your response not one little whit. You'll notice the only people who have bee answering the question have been people who are Pro-Choice. Now, why do you think that is????

I looked it up and it fits you to a "T":
pla·gia·rize
ˈplājəˌrīz/
verb

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
   synonyms: copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; More
   • copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own.

Definition of PLAGIARIZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if everyone who answered the question is pro-choice or not. SO.....

Let's ask.

DID ANYONE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS PRO-LIFE?

Yes

 

[Zander]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Yes. Let's do that! Let's de3flect fro the question, so I can avoid being exposed as a duplicitous prick!

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument failing. That doesn't change the truth that 1) it's been answered honestly and 2) there is no logic in your argument

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

Here is a twist. You are having a baby. It's only 1 month old in your belly. You can save it or a living human being. Who would you save? Even though I'm pro choice I would save my baby. Then I would consider the thing living. When it's mine. Then it has value to me. But you can have all the abortions you want.

Of course you save your OWN BABY.

Just like every living person on the planet would save the boy in the example.

Like you predicted? You mean like Patrick (or whomever he stole it from) predicted......

At any rate, lots of people, myself included, have answered the question. You fail.

Dismissed.

No you didn't. You said it was stupid, and started asking a lot of irrelevant questions. Those who did answer I responded to.

But you just said "Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted."



Anyway, read your own plagiarized thread son......I did answer.

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

I stand corrected. You really should look up the word, plagiarise, those. But, I'll let that go.

I am pro choice, plagiarizer.

But even if I were rabidly pro Life....I'd save the child. Just like every other person on the planet.

You are pro-choice. Adding your "If I were rabidly pro life" alters your response not one little whit. You'll notice the only people who have bee answering the question have been people who are Pro-Choice. Now, why do you think that is????

I looked it up and it fits you to a "T":
pla·gia·rize
ˈplājəˌrīz/
verb

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
   synonyms: copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; More
   • copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own.

Definition of PLAGIARIZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if everyone who answered the question is pro-choice or not. SO.....

Let's ask.

DID ANYONE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS PRO-LIFE?

Yes

Thanks Avatar.

I think this thread should be left to die a natural death now.......

 

[Avatar4321]

Op: No honest person will answer this

Tons of responses

Op: Your lying or you didn't answer or I'm just going to ignore it

 

[Czernobog]

Starting at minute 2.43 Ben Shapiro completely destroys the OP's hypothetical anti- abortion question. ......

You're video debunks nothing. At no point did I say "Human embryos aren't life". I said, and still say, that human embryos are not morally, ethically, or biologically equivalent to a child.

Please do not attempt to assign to me a position I have not taken. The vast majority of anti-abortionists cannot make the same request, as any time that they call a fetus a child, or a baby they are taking the positon of which I am accusing them.

So the argument is -

If not equivalent to a child, you can kill it.

You aren't equivalent to a child. Therefore we can kill you

No. The argument is, if not equivalent to a person, then the only person who has the moral, and ethical right to determine the relative value of a fetus is the person carrying the fetus.

 

[Czernobog]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Yes. Let's do that! Let's de3flect fro the question, so I can avoid being exposed as a duplicitous prick!

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument failing. That doesn't change the truth that 1) it's been answered honestly and 2) there is no logic in your argument

Deflecting from the argument does not equate the argument failing. It ini fact is having the exact result that I said it would. That rather makes it a success.

 

[Czernobog]

Another hypothetical that sheds light on this one.

Would you let your own child die to save 1,000 other children? We all value some lives over other lives for various reasons, and it doesn't make the ones led valued any less human.

Lets put it another way. Would you accept an inconvenience knowing that it would save tens of thousands of lives every year? All you have to do is accept a restrictor on every automobile that would prevent it from traveling over 25 mph. You wouldn't do that, because you value being able to drive fast more than the lives lost due to high speed collisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except you're referring again to relative value. Are you suggesting that a stranger should have the authority to dictate the relative value of a fetus to a pregnant woman? Is so, then, by what moral, or ethical authority should they have that right?

 

[Eaglewings]

Save the boy...alert the staff to save the embryos. The boy is asking for rescue. The embryos are cool with the situation. They will go straight to heaven, without having to endure the stupidity of your hypotheticals.

There you go. The embryos die, and you decided that the child was of more value than the embryos. So, please cease referring to embryos as children.

False choice. ---- Let's extend it --- Save a thousand old men or one child? Just because the benefit of the moral greyness goes to the child in SOME cases -- does not make it the MORAL decision in others.

I would save the dog first.. the old farts know how to get out..

.

 

[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

This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've read today.

Yeah. I keep getting that deflection from the anti-abortion advocates. Can't imagine why that would be.

 

[Czernobog]

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

So you admit a human embryo is human life?

Sure. It is alive, and genetically human. So what? Is it morally equivalent to an actual person?

 

[Avatar4321]

Starting at minute 2.43 Ben Shapiro completely destroys the OP's hypothetical anti- abortion question. ......

You're video debunks nothing. At no point did I say "Human embryos aren't life". I said, and still say, that human embryos are not morally, ethically, or biologically equivalent to a child.

Please do not attempt to assign to me a position I have not taken. The vast majority of anti-abortionists cannot make the same request, as any time that they call a fetus a child, or a baby they are taking the positon of which I am accusing them.

So the argument is -

If not equivalent to a child, you can kill it.

You aren't equivalent to a child. Therefore we can kill you

No. The argument is, if not equivalent to a person, then the only person who has the moral, and ethical right to determine the relative value of a fetus is the person carrying the fetus.

Then clearly the canister is the only one who has the moral right to save the embyros.

But lets look at what you've actually admitted here:

That human embryos are life
That they have value.

Which makes its morally wrong to kill them

 

[Czernobog]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

So this thread is plagiarized as well as idiotic?

Unless the op is the idiot on twitter that matt and Ben responded to last week probably.

It was funny. They demolished his argument then he was like "no one ask for your opinion" well yes you did.

Actually they didn't. They moved the goal post, and argued against a point that was never made. In other words, they didn't answer the question, and deflected. Shocker.

Oh I get it. Any answer you don't like. You pretend doesn't exist.

So you're argument isn't that embryos aren't life therefore abortion is a ok?

Cause it's the entire point of the hypo. Unless you honestly didn't realize that

No. any answer that deflects is not valid. No where has anyone said that a fetus is not alive. So, why lie, and claim that is what is being said, attempting to argue against a point that was never made, rather than simply dealing with what is actually being said?

 

[Eaglewings]

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.

Many extreme christian righties will tell you that God didn't create the Test Tube baby.. so the 5 year old of coarse..

.And I am not a rightie so don't go there.

.

So many that literally none have argued that

Seriously they did Avatar, especially when the test tube baby came about..

While a great deal of praise is flowing from the first successful test-tube births, some very valid criticisms are also being voiced. Some theologians object that what the doctors brought about really represents interference with God’s will. Not everyone is destined to bear children, they say. Are those involved with IVF really trying to play God. And the fact of the matter is, that those imitating God, are not God.

Questions must also be raised about the motives of prospective parents. It is easy to sympathize with childless couples but should they all be encouraged? Some perhaps want offspring to carry on the family name, or the family trade. Would not IVF then be used selfishly?

Christian Life Resources

 

[Avatar4321]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

Yes. Let's do that! Let's de3flect fro the question, so I can avoid being exposed as a duplicitous prick!

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument failing. That doesn't change the truth that 1) it's been answered honestly and 2) there is no logic in your argument

Deflecting from the argument does not equate the argument failing. It ini fact is having the exact result that I said it would. That rather makes it a success.

Addressing the flaws of the argument isn't deflecting from the argument. It's facing it head on. Poisoning the well on the other hand...

 

[hadit]

Another hypothetical that sheds light on this one.

Would you let your own child die to save 1,000 other children? We all value some lives over other lives for various reasons, and it doesn't make the ones led valued any less human.

Lets put it another way. Would you accept an inconvenience knowing that it would save tens of thousands of lives every year? All you have to do is accept a restrictor on every automobile that would prevent it from traveling over 25 mph. You wouldn't do that, because you value being able to drive fast more than the lives lost due to high speed collisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except you're referring again to relative value. Are you suggesting that a stranger should have the authority to dictate the relative value of a fetus to a pregnant woman? Is so, then, by what moral, or ethical authority should they have that right?

Literally, the only question to be resolved is whether or not a pre-born baby is a living human being. If so considered, then no one should have the right to violently end his/her life. Yes, as I demonstrated, human life does hold relative value, but we all agree it is wrong to deliberately end that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

Not really accurate, Hutch. This isn't about being Pro-Choice. It is about exposing the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a baby, or child. If one is anti-abortion, that's fine. Just find a new argument that doesn't rely on an irrational argument.

 

[Czernobog]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

LOL seriously? Because they would rather save a young child than embryos makes them ok with abortion?
The fallacies in this thread make my head hurt

I would refer you to my response to Hutch. This isn't about being Pro-Choice - although the vast majority of the posters who have answered the question appear to be Pro-Choice advocates, not that I expected otherwise. Rather it is about exposing an irrational argument. If one wishes to be Anti-Abortion, and make an argument for that position, fine. Just do so without dishonestly, and irrationally, attempting to draw a moral equivalent between a non-viable fetus, and child.

 

[Avatar4321]

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

So you admit a human embryo is human life?

Sure. It is alive, and genetically human. So what? Is it morally equivalent to an actual person?

It is an actual person

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

Why are obvious flame threads, moronic, idiotic obvious flame threads like this allowed to stay?

 

[Czernobog]

Another hypothetical that sheds light on this one.

Would you let your own child die to save 1,000 other children? We all value some lives over other lives for various reasons, and it doesn't make the ones led valued any less human.

Lets put it another way. Would you accept an inconvenience knowing that it would save tens of thousands of lives every year? All you have to do is accept a restrictor on every automobile that would prevent it from traveling over 25 mph. You wouldn't do that, because you value being able to drive fast more than the lives lost due to high speed collisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except you're referring again to relative value. Are you suggesting that a stranger should have the authority to dictate the relative value of a fetus to a pregnant woman? Is so, then, by what moral, or ethical authority should they have that right?

Literally, the only question to be resolved is whether or not a pre-born baby is a living human being. If so considered, then no one should have the right to violently end his/her life. Yes, as I demonstrated, human life does hold relative value, but we all agree it is wrong to deliberately end that life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wrong, the question isn't whether a human embryo is a human life; that is a matter of medical fact. It is genetically human, and it is alive. The question is whether that embryo, which is a genetically human life, has the same moral equivalency to a child.

 

[Czernobog]

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

So you admit a human embryo is human life?

Sure. It is alive, and genetically human. So what? Is it morally equivalent to an actual person?

It is an actual person

Then the only morally correct answer is to save the phial. After all, how do you morally support a single person, against 1,000 people? You sure that is the position you want to take?