I've had an epiphany

[PredFan]

Speaking of comprehension problems! Let me ask directly since you seem to be having trouble. What is dishonest about it?

For the third, time, neither a healthy embryo, nor a healthy non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to die.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

Jesus Christ! I'm trying to understand what your incoherent babbling is about here.

From what I can gather is that you think a fetus isn't equivalent to a child right? Yet you offer NO logical argument to support that statement, you think we have to accept it just because you say it.

It's just as full of shit as you are.

Really? Okay. Let's boil the experiment in question some for you. You find yourself in a situation where you can save either 1,000 healthy, frozen, ready to implant embryos, or one sleeping baby. Both are in imminent danger of destruction. You CAN. NOT. save both. Period. Full stop. Which do you save?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

 

[Czernobog]

A fetus is not morally equivalent to a child, or baby, so the use of the term "pre-born" invokes a false equivalency.

...pre-borns...

A fetus is not morally equivalent to a child, or baby, so the use of the term "pre-borns" invokes a false equivalency

Thanks for confirming you can't address my posts because you have no argument!

I refuse to respond to false equivalences. Try making arguments that don't employ terms meant to create a false equivalences, and you might get a more detailed response. I told you that so long as you use dishonest terms, the only response you would get is me pointing out the dishonesty of your post.

Dodgeball!

Only an idiot believes that human beings are something else, something less, prior to birth.

Only an idiot believes that intrinsic value can be added.

Being genetically human does not make something equivalent of a living human being. By that absurd logic a cancer cluster is a human being. After all, it is a living organism that is genetically human.

 

[Czernobog]

For the third, time, neither a healthy embryo, nor a healthy non-viable fetus is morally equivalent to a child. If it were that a thousand such embryos, or non-viable fetuses would have a thousand times more value than a single child, and would dictate that they be saved, and the child be left to die.

But, not one of you fuckers will say that! I'm sorry, exactly one of you fuckers said that. The rest of you know fucking well that the child is of more moral value, but you want to keep right on pretending that you don't know that, so you keep trying to imply, suggest, or flat out state that I am trying to say something that I never said!

Jesus Christ! I'm trying to understand what your incoherent babbling is about here.

From what I can gather is that you think a fetus isn't equivalent to a child right? Yet you offer NO logical argument to support that statement, you think we have to accept it just because you say it.

It's just as full of shit as you are.

Really? Okay. Let's boil the experiment in question some for you. You find yourself in a situation where you can save either 1,000 healthy, frozen, ready to implant embryos, or one sleeping baby. Both are in imminent danger of destruction. You CAN. NOT. save both. Period. Full stop. Which do you save?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

 

[Spare_change]

You have intentionally created a 'Grodinger's cat' paradox. You can't know that you can't save 1,001 until after you try. It is only when you fail that you will know that you failed. Therefore, your "choice" is irrelevant.

Your whole scenario is morally corrupt.

I did no such thing. You know you can't save both because the scenario specifically states that you can't. That is the point of a thought experiment - you have to make a choice within the designated parameters. You don't get to just ignore the parameters, because they make you uncomfortable. If these were easy, they would be useless. They are designed to test your moral presumptions. That's what a moral dilemma experiment is designed to do.

The cat ain't dead until you know it's dead.

Has nothing to do with the use of the thought experiment. You were given the parameters. Insisting on changing the parameters, because they make you uncomfortable, invalidates your participation. That';s like saying, "I don't care what Schrodinger says, I have already decided the cat is dead. So, I don't need to open the box. I declare the cat dead," Except that's not how the thought experiment works.

Believe me, your false "experiment" doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. In fact, I've repeatedly told you that your "experiment" is invalid. You simply choose not to listen.

Your "experiment" is nothing more than mental masturbation. You ask something no more valid than ... assume that 2 +2 does not equal 4. When given two groups of two stones, how many stones do you have?" You intentionally remove the ethical and moral impacts of your scenario, and then ask us to justify our moral and ethical decision.

Sorry, chief, it just don't work like that ...

Sure. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep lying to yourself.

See what happens when they won't play your game? You get all pissy, and run off and hide. It couldn't be that, possibly, just maybe, you might learn something if you were to enter into a REAL conversation?

That scares you, doesn't it?

 

[Weatherman2020]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Does that mean I can have Spotted Owl omelets? Bald Eagle eggs easy over?

 

[Spare_change]

So, you would let them all die in your failed attempt to save both? Really? Because that is the choice you have. Save one, or the other, or both are destroyed.

You have intentionally created a 'Grodinger's cat' paradox. You can't know that you can't save 1,001 until after you try. It is only when you fail that you will know that you failed. Therefore, your "choice" is irrelevant.

Your whole scenario is morally corrupt.

I did no such thing. You know you can't save both because the scenario specifically states that you can't. That is the point of a thought experiment - you have to make a choice within the designated parameters. You don't get to just ignore the parameters, because they make you uncomfortable. If these were easy, they would be useless. They are designed to test your moral presumptions. That's what a moral dilemma experiment is designed to do.

The cat ain't dead until you know it's dead.

Has nothing to do with the use of the thought experiment. You were given the parameters. Insisting on changing the parameters, because they make you uncomfortable, invalidates your participation. That';s like saying, "I don't care what Schrodinger says, I have already decided the cat is dead. So, I don't need to open the box. I declare the cat dead," Except that's not how the thought experiment works.

That is however exactly the way you set up the thought experiment in the 1st place, with assumptions and conditions that are not based in reality and then basing your foregone conclusions based on your own definition or morality. IOW, it was an invalid thought experiment from the getgo, from which you applied an illogical result. Which proves absolutely nothing to anybody.

It's called 'confirmation bias' ----

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Does that mean I can have Spotted Owl omelets? Bald Eagle eggs easy over?

No. Because we have decided that scarcity increases an organism's moral value.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Does that mean I can have Spotted Owl omelets? Bald Eagle eggs easy over?

No. Because we have decided that scarcity increases an organism's moral value.

Ah, I see. So it is not that a fetus is not the species, its worth is based upon whether you think there are enough of them.

Once again you blow your entire thread to smithereens.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Does that mean I can have Spotted Owl omelets? Bald Eagle eggs easy over?

No. Because we have decided that scarcity increases an organism's moral value.

Ah, I see. So it is not that a fetus is not the species, its worth is based upon whether you think there are enough of them.

Once again you blow your entire thread to smithereens.

Not even close to comparable.

 

[Zoom-boing]

...pre-borns...

A fetus is not morally equivalent to a child, or baby, so the use of the term "pre-borns" invokes a false equivalency

Thanks for confirming you can't address my posts because you have no argument!

I refuse to respond to false equivalences. Try making arguments that don't employ terms meant to create a false equivalences, and you might get a more detailed response. I told you that so long as you use dishonest terms, the only response you would get is me pointing out the dishonesty of your post.

Dodgeball!

Only an idiot believes that human beings are something else, something less, prior to birth.

Only an idiot believes that intrinsic value can be added.

Being genetically human does not make something equivalent of a living human being. By that absurd logic a cancer cluster is a human being. After all, it is a living organism that is genetically human.

A pre-born isn't merely 'genetically human', it IS a human being in the very early stages of development. Biology 101.

You can not add intrinsic value. You insist that a pre-born has less value than a post-born. Following that logic, a 5 yr old has more value than a 1 yr old, a 15 yr old has more than a 9 yr old. Incorrect. They are all human beings from the get go, regardless of stage of development, they can not be anything else. Therefore, as human beings from the beginning, they must have the same intrinsic value. They all either have the same value or no value.

 

[PredFan]

Jesus Christ! I'm trying to understand what your incoherent babbling is about here.

From what I can gather is that you think a fetus isn't equivalent to a child right? Yet you offer NO logical argument to support that statement, you think we have to accept it just because you say it.

It's just as full of shit as you are.

Really? Okay. Let's boil the experiment in question some for you. You find yourself in a situation where you can save either 1,000 healthy, frozen, ready to implant embryos, or one sleeping baby. Both are in imminent danger of destruction. You CAN. NOT. save both. Period. Full stop. Which do you save?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

 

[2aguy]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Yeah....and Jews were just rats....take away that argument....right? You guys can't get past the fact that those cells are a human being......so now you have to get rid of that argument. The only case you have against murder is that you are killing a human being....take away that part and you have no other reason to ban murder...right?

Moron.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? Okay. Let's boil the experiment in question some for you. You find yourself in a situation where you can save either 1,000 healthy, frozen, ready to implant embryos, or one sleeping baby. Both are in imminent danger of destruction. You CAN. NOT. save both. Period. Full stop. Which do you save?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

 

[PredFan]

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

 

[PredFan]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

 

[Spare_change]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

Let's frame your "argument" another way .....

You are a father of two - a boy and a girl. You are caught in a burning building and can only save one. Which do you save?

The argument is analogous with your supposition.

 

[Czernobog]

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

 

[PredFan]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

Let's frame your "argument" another way .....

You are a father of two - a boy and a girl. You are caught in a burning building and can only save one. Which do you save?

The argument is analogous with your supposition.

That scenario is also impossible. If the choice is equal, then there will be an opportunity to save both. Otherwise the situation will determine who gets saved.

 

[PredFan]

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.