If the left wants to build a better world where life is fair to everyone why...

[Blackrook]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

 

[night_son]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

Even the staunchest postmodernist realizes the world of men can never be universally or equally "fair" for all. That's not what they're about at all. The postmodern American Left seeks absolute power for itself and from us demands absolute submission and conformity to the ideology. Above that, some of them believe in equality of outcome for all which would require a totalitarian communist state where the state essentially take everyone's freedom away, but only for a short time and only to make us all . . . freer. Their words, not mine.

 

[Moonglow]

How about another dozen threads on abortion in politics?

 

[HappyJoy]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

 

[Blackrook]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

Indeed? Let's hear it.

However, I will admit before you start that if you tell me there's a fire in a house and I have a choice between saving a baby already born and an embryo in a test tube, I would save the baby.

But I'm not sure what you're proven now that I've admitted that.

I would save the baby before I saved the life of an old man, and yet I consider both equally human.

 

[bodecea]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

Don't have an abortion if you hate them so much. Easy solution.

 

[HappyJoy]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

Indeed? Let's hear it.

However, I will admit before you start that if you tell me there's a fire in a house and I have a choice between saving a baby already born and an embryo in a test tube, I would save the baby.

But I'm not sure what you're proven now that I've admitted that.

I would save the baby before I saved the life of an old man, and yet I consider both equally human.

That's the question but it's not an embryo. You can either save the baby or 1,000 viable embryos. Whichever you do not save will perish in the fire.

 

[Auld Phart]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

the same hypothetical that had the board rolling in the aisles the other day?

 

[S.J.]

They don't want to build a better world. If they did, they would not seek to enslave the masses with socialism. They just want to be in charge, and if that means tearing down morality, so be it.

 

[Auld Phart]

yup, same one.

and the word is 'perish', not 'parish'.

 

[HappyJoy]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

the same hypothetical that had the board rolling in the aisles the other day?

I don't know. You can answer this if you care to.

 

[HappyJoy]

yup, same one.

and the word is 'perish', not 'parish'.

Cool. Ignore it at your leisure.

 

[Auld Phart]

yup, same one.

and the word is 'perish', not 'parish'.

Cool. Ignore it at your leisure.

are you going to keep changing the parameters this time, too?

 

[Blackrook]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

Indeed? Let's hear it.

However, I will admit before you start that if you tell me there's a fire in a house and I have a choice between saving a baby already born and an embryo in a test tube, I would save the baby.

But I'm not sure what you're proven now that I've admitted that.

I would save the baby before I saved the life of an old man, and yet I consider both equally human.

That's the question but it's not an embryo. You can either save the baby or 1,000 viable embryos. Whichever you do not save will perish in the fire.

I think that hypothetical questions don't really answer the question. I would save the baby if it was 1000 embryos in a jar, but if these 1000 embryos were in 1000 women, I would save the 1000 pregnant women.

 

[Thinker101]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

Build!? WTF, that sounds like way too much work. They want the free version.

 

[HappyJoy]

yup, same one.

and the word is 'perish', not 'parish'.

Cool. Ignore it at your leisure.

are you going to keep changing the parameters this time, too?

I don't think anything was changed, a couple of people made decisions based on things that were not in the question. But when it comes down to it, you either save the baby or the 1000 embryos, you can't save both, if you do nothing they all perish, whoever you don't save will perish. So, save the baby or the 1000 embryos.

You're already stalling and it's expected.

 

[Blackrook]

The fact that some human lives would be considered more valuable to a potential rescuer doesn't prove anything.

I would save a young person before an old person, a female before a male, a child before an adult, a child before a baby, a baby before an embryo, but these are all personal preferences, in fact every human life has infinite value to their creator, which is God. It would be wrong to kill anyone of them on purpose.

 

[HappyJoy]

...is killing unborn babies part of the equation?

If you didn't know what's what, you'd think the right-wing would be the cold heartless folks who think nothing about killing babies and the left would be the compassionate folks who want to save babies.

But reality is the opposite.

Why is that?

I have a hypothetical question that will demonstrate that you do not value an embryo the same as a baby.

Indeed? Let's hear it.

However, I will admit before you start that if you tell me there's a fire in a house and I have a choice between saving a baby already born and an embryo in a test tube, I would save the baby.

But I'm not sure what you're proven now that I've admitted that.

I would save the baby before I saved the life of an old man, and yet I consider both equally human.

That's the question but it's not an embryo. You can either save the baby or 1,000 viable embryos. Whichever you do not save will perish in the fire.

I think that hypothetical questions don't really answer the question. I would save the baby if it was 1000 embryos in a jar, but if these 1000 embryos were in 1000 women, I would save the 1000 pregnant women.

They are 1,000 viable embryos, not pregnant women. If you would save the single baby over the 1000 embryos well, that should tell you something.

 

[Blackrook]

yup, same one.

and the word is 'perish', not 'parish'.

Cool. Ignore it at your leisure.

are you going to keep changing the parameters this time, too?

I don't think anything was changed, a couple of people made decisions based on things that were not in the question. But when it comes down to it, you either save the baby or the 1000 embryos, you can't save both, if you do nothing they all perish, whoever you don't save will perish. So, save the baby or the 1000 embryos.

You're already stalling and it's expected.

I didn't stall, I've already answered the question, before you even asked it. Read my posts.

 

[HappyJoy]

I would save a young person before an old person, .

Apparently not in this case. And it's 1,000 to 1 and you save the 1 that is older.