Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Avatar4321]

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

Which is exactly why the op wont address the counter arguments.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Which, of course, is irrelevant.

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

No sane person would accept the idea that simply because they would save the child over you that means we have the right to kill you. It's an absurd argument and premise.

One you don't want to honestly deal with.

 

[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

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

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...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

 

[godsandmen]

The OP's scenario is indeed a powerful one. Deep down, despite their objections, pro-lifers really don't believe what they say they believe.

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

And what about the thousands of children and grand children the child would have if he survived?

The choice here isn't a moral one. It's an emotional one.

 

[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

If it was revelant then the lack of moral equivalence between saving you and the child would mean that we can kill you.

This kind of gets away from the original thought experiment, but I'm curious to follow your logic here. On what are you basing the determination that I have less moral right to live than a child? And on what authority are you basing that determination?

 

[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?

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...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

 

[Czernobog]

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?

And what about the thousands of children and grand children the child would have if he survived?

The choice here isn't a moral one. It's an emotional one.

Now you're making a leap in logic. Why do you presume that the child will have any children. The purpose of a thought experiment is to only work with the known facts presented in the experiment. There was nothing presented in the experiment to allow you to presume that the child was ever going to have children of his own. It is a simple choice of 1 child, or 1,000 embryos. Either the embryos are morally equivalent to 1,000 children, or they are not.

 

[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

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

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...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

 

[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?

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...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

No it's not, it's a blatant "you picked wrong b/c there's not right answer' bullshit line.

I save the kid.

YOUR EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU DIDN'T SAVE THE EGGS.

I save the eggs

YER EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU LET THE KID DIE



this is not a new question of leftist murderers, this is an old one from an email that is making the rounds again.

 

[Czernobog]

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

There you go again, making shit up, and mocking a point I never made. Please quote for me where I sad not person will honestly answer the question. Or, at least, please quit lying about things I have said.

 

[Czernobog]

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

So, now a woman is the equivalent of a canister - just a receptacle for embryos? Not sure many women would agree with that assessment.

But, you know what? I actually agree with you, in spite of your horrible analysis. It is up to the canister, and only the canister, to save those embryos...or not.

It is up to a pregnant woman to decide the relative value of a fetus she is carrying...and only up to her.

 

[Avatar4321]

The OP's scenario is indeed a powerful one. Deep down, despite their objections, pro-lifers really don't believe what they say they believe.

You seriously think that if we have a choice between saving you and a child, and pick the child that means you have no value and thus we can kill you?

Really? Does any pro abortion advocate believe this? Does any sane person believe this?

New hypo, choice between the op and the embryos? How about if someone has to save you ot the embyros? Would you sacrifice yourself for the children? What if you or the op were trapped under debris?

Does not saving one mean killing them is alright? If I'm willing to sacrifice myself for another does that mean its morally alright to kill me outside that situation?

I suspect these questions will be ignored.

 

[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

There you go again, making shit up, and mocking a point I never made. Please quote for me where I sad not person will honestly answer the question. Or, at least, please quit lying about things I have said.

In the op. Keep up please

 

[Avatar4321]

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

So, now a woman is the equivalent of a canister - just a receptacle for embryos? Not sure many women would agree with that assessment.

But, you know what? I actually agree with you, in spite of your horrible analysis. It is up to the canister, and only the canister, to save those embryos...or not.

It is up to a pregnant woman to decide the relative value of a fetus she is carrying...and only up to her.

It's not up to the canister. You seem to miss the entire concept of pointing out absurdity to illustrate the absurd.

 

[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

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

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...

And what flaw was being addressed? Two-Thumbs sees to be under the mistaken impression that because something has less relative value, that is the same as saying that it has no value. I never proposed, or implied any such thing. The point of the thought experiment, in fact, is to expose the difference between absolute morally equivalent value, and relative value.

So, the only flaw would seem to be the presumption of Two-Thumbs'.

wrong or lying?

I'm gunna go with you're a liar.


Allow me to shed some reality on your lie; In a smoke filled room, not one single human is going to take time to read anything.

more reality; this is nothing short of a flame thread and should be in the FZ so you can be treated like the lying scum you are.

It's called a thought experiment. I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the concept. Although that does explain a lot...

No it's not, it's a blatant "you picked wrong b/c there's not right answer' bullshit line.

I save the kid.

YOUR EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU DIDN'T SAVE THE EGGS.

I save the eggs

YER EVIL AND NOT PRO LIFE B/C YOU LET THE KID DIE



this is not a new question of leftist murderers, this is an old one from an email that is making the rounds again.

Actually, that isn't the point at all. The only moral, and ethical choice, unless you are sincere in your contention that an embryo has the same moral equivalency as a child, is to save the child. The thing is, I don't believe that you do believe that. This doesn't make you "evil", or force you to be "pro-choice". The only thing it means is that you have to come to terms with the irrationality of trying to morally equate a non-viable fetus with a child, or a baby. You are anti-abortion? Fine. Find an argument that doesn't require you to rely on a dishonest, irrational position.

 

[Czernobog]

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

There you go again, making shit up, and mocking a point I never made. Please quote for me where I sad not person will honestly answer the question. Or, at least, please quit lying about things I have said.

In the op. Keep up please

Please quote it., Quote where I specifically said "no person".

 

[Czernobog]

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

So, now a woman is the equivalent of a canister - just a receptacle for embryos? Not sure many women would agree with that assessment.

But, you know what? I actually agree with you, in spite of your horrible analysis. It is up to the canister, and only the canister, to save those embryos...or not.

It is up to a pregnant woman to decide the relative value of a fetus she is carrying...and only up to her.

It's not up to the canister. You seem to miss the entire concept of pointing out absurdity to illustrate the absurd.

Nope the absurdity was you trying to find some way to avoid answering the question. There was nothing absurd about the thought experiment. You just don't like what the answer forces certain people to admit.

 

[godsandmen]

You seriously think that if we have a choice between saving you and a child, and pick the child that means you have no value and thus we can kill you?

If you really believed that life begins at conception, you would be morally obligated to save a thousand rather than one. It's as simple as that.

 

[Czernobog]

The OP's scenario is indeed a powerful one. Deep down, despite their objections, pro-lifers really don't believe what they say they believe.

You seriously think that if we have a choice between saving you and a child, and pick the child that means you have no value and thus we can kill you?

You see you keep trying to make this about extremes - equal value, or not value. You get there's a middle ground of less value, right. If I, and a child are trapped, and you only get to save one, and you choose the child, you have decided that I have less value than the child. I'd be curious to know your moral calculus that made you arrive at that decision, but that is all it means. Not that I have no value - just less value than the child.

Now, back to the thought experiment, the only way to choose the child over the embryos is to decide that an embryo has less valuer than the child. Not that it has no value; only less value than the child.

Because if the embryo has equivalent value to the child, then, based on only the information given in the thought experiment, the moral calculus is easy - saving 1,000 children outweighs saving one.