I've had an epiphany

[task0778]

They ARE or should have the same inalienable right to life in the eyes of many, so in that sense they are equal.

Why?

That is actually the only argument needed from a moral point of view. Your problem is that you equated a dead fetus in a jar with a living person and proclaimed a false equivalency, which is ridiculous.

I did no such thing. You clearly did not understand the premise. it was not a jar of dead fetuses. It was a phial of 1,000 perfectly healthy, useable, ready to implant embryos.

First of all, you yourself equated embryos with fetuses:

"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."

Second, when a woman receives an implanted embryo, it sure as hell isn't viable in the sense that it can survive on it's own after only a few days of fertilization. The embryo gets inserted into a woman's womb after only a few days, after it has shown itself to be growing. Nobody knows if it is viable or not until it gets it's chance to attach itself inside the mother. Is that what we're talking about here? You think they keep those things in a jar, out in the open?

Third, I do not think you will find anywhere in the world a place that has a jar of a thousand(s) of healthy, usable, ready to implant embryos/fetuses. So, the premise is absolutely ridiculous; in vitro embryos are going to be in a protected environment, and BTW you're not going to have some kid standing around in a fire in the same place as wherever those embryos/fetuses are kept. Which essentially means your premise is bullshit. And therefore any conclusions drawn from it are also bullshit.

Fourth, even if your scenario was plausible, which it isn't, those embryos/fetuses are not going to survive anyway once removed from their controlled environment. I would save the only entity that is alive, the crying kid. While I would not like to see those embryos/fetuses lost, as yet they are not yet in the mother's womb and she ain't pregnant and until that happens you do not yet have a living, growing future human. It's essentially just a fertilized egg until it attaches itself to the mother's body. Some would claim a fertilized egg is itself the beginning of new life, and that's fine. Which leads us to....

Fifth, the logic of saving a small child in a fire over any number of embryos/fetuses only a few days old does not in any way suggest that those embryos have no right to life, or that the embryos right to life is in any way lessened. As stated above, you have constructed a faulty conclusion based on a faulty and unrealistic scenario that does not exist and almost certainly never will.

 

[Spare_change]

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".

One thing I'm sure of, that you did not show any fact at all that a fetus isn't human from conception. You cannot show that it's impossible. It would be like claiming you proved the earth was flat.

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims, implies, or otherwise indicates that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar. So what!?!? Neither of those was ever the point. The point is that neither an embryo, nor a 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 do.

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!

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

Let me assure you - I believe that. It is no less a crime to intentionally kill a fetus than it is a 5 minute old baby. Does that mean I believe (horror of horrors) that getting an abortion should be a crime? Yes. (Brace yourself for incoming!!)

It amazes me that you somehow believe there is such a thing as "moral equivalency.". Actions are either against the law, or they aren't. Actions are either immoral or they aren't. Actions are either right, or wrong. There are no grays - there are only shades of wrong and more wrong. This is one of the great crimes - and dangers - of the atheistic "man is the ultimate authority" mantra. Man, as the "ultimate authority" has always, and will always, try to create justification for his actions - no matter how heinous. Man is incapable of drawing a definite, and inviolate, code of conduct. Man will always find some rationale for crossing that line. He will always self-justify why, just this one time, crossing that line is moral and permissible.

It is this one, simple, characteristic of man that demands there be a God - whether there really is one or not - the ability of man to justify the most egregious, most heinous, and most despicable acts, all in the name of the "greater good".

Sorry - didn't mean to get off track, there.

 

[Czernobog]

Are none of you capable of comprehension. Here. Let me put this in a way you can't miss it.

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE ALIVE

HUMAN EMBRYOS, AND NON-VIABLE FETUSES ARE HUMAN.

No, anyone who claims that I am attempting to say that a non-viable fetus is wither not alive, or not genetically human is a fucking liar

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

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?

 

[task0778]

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!

Let's look at this from the other end: do you think an unborn child 5 minutes prior to birth has any less right to life than a baby born 5 minutes after birth? Personally, I do not. That being the case, how far back do we go before that unborn child loses it's right to life? To the point where it is not yet viable in the sense that it could survive outside the mother's womb? How about to the point where it begins to feel pain? Where's the logic for that, by what criteria do we decide the point at which a human embryo/fetus that is already inside the mother's body and growing can be killed? None of you fuckers will say that either!

 

[Spare_change]

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

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?

Actually, the answer is quite simple - you need to try to save all 1,001 lives. Anything else is morally objectionable.

 

[Czernobog]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

 

[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!

Let's look at this from the other end: do you think an unborn child 5 minutes prior to birth has any less right to life than a baby born 5 minutes after birth/

No, and I have never said that I do. That is rather the point of the non-viable part. A viable fetus - one that has a relative chance of survival outside of the womb, is morally equivalent to a child. This is why I support abortion bans after week 23. Because from that point forward they are morally equivalent to a child. I do not support abortion up to the moment of delivery. I support abortion up to viability.

 

[task0778]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

Oh, so now you know in your infinite wisdom what somebody else believes?

 

[Czernobog]

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

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?

Actually, the answer is quite simple - you need to try to save all 1,001 lives. Anything else is morally objectionable.

See? You aren't willing to honestly answer the question, because it exposes your lie. The scenario specifically states that you can't save both. You must choose one, or the other. Now, is having to let them die morally uncomfortable? Sure. But when forced to choose between them, you will choose the child.

 

[Spare_change]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

No ---- choosing one over the other admits your fallacious "moral equivalency". It is inconceivable that a person wouldn't try to save 1,001. You're trying to make me choose between red-headed children and brown haired children. Neither is a viable argument.

Your insistence that a choice must be made is exactly what invalidates your whole scenario.

 

[Czernobog]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

Oh, so now you know in your infinite wisdom what somebody else believes?

Your choice when presented with the moral dilemma indicates your belief.

 

[Czernobog]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

No ---- choosing one over the other admits your fallacious "moral equivalency". It is inconceivable that a person wouldn't try to save 1,001. You're trying to make me choose between red-headed children and brown haired children. Neither is a viable argument.

Your insistence that a choice must be made is exactly what invalidates your whole scenario.

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.

 

[task0778]

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!

Let's look at this from the other end: do you think an unborn child 5 minutes prior to birth has any less right to life than a baby born 5 minutes after birth/

No, and I have never said that I do. That is rather the point of the non-viable part. A viable fetus - one that has a relative chance of survival outside of the womb, is morally equivalent to a child. This is why I support abortion bans after week 23. Because from that point forward they are morally equivalent to a child. I do not support abortion up to the moment of delivery. I support abortion up to viability.

So, are you seriously suggesting that there could be a lab somewhere with thousands of fetuses in a jar that haven't reached the 23rd week yet? I'm really having a hard time visualizing your experimental scenario here, just how old are your fictitious embryos/fetuses?

 

[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!

Let's look at this from the other end: do you think an unborn child 5 minutes prior to birth has any less right to life than a baby born 5 minutes after birth/

No, and I have never said that I do. That is rather the point of the non-viable part. A viable fetus - one that has a relative chance of survival outside of the womb, is morally equivalent to a child. This is why I support abortion bans after week 23. Because from that point forward they are morally equivalent to a child. I do not support abortion up to the moment of delivery. I support abortion up to viability.

So, are you seriously suggesting that there could be a lab somewhere with thousands of fetuses in a jar that haven't reached the 23rd week yet? I'm really having a hard time visualizing your experimental scenario here, just how old are your fictitious embryos/fetuses?

Why does it matter? They are embryos. They are healthy, are frozen, and ready to implant. Again, you want to equivocate, because you know the choice you would make.

 

[Spare_change]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

No ---- choosing one over the other admits your fallacious "moral equivalency". It is inconceivable that a person wouldn't try to save 1,001. You're trying to make me choose between red-headed children and brown haired children. Neither is a viable argument.

Your insistence that a choice must be made is exactly what invalidates your whole scenario.

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.

 

[task0778]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

Oh, so now you know in your infinite wisdom what somebody else believes?

Your choice when presented with the moral dilemma indicates your belief.

As does yours. I at least do not presume to know that someone is lying when they post their thoughts. Really? Telling someone else what they believe or don't believe? Pretty arrogant and condescending if you ask me.

 

[task0778]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

No ---- choosing one over the other admits your fallacious "moral equivalency". It is inconceivable that a person wouldn't try to save 1,001. You're trying to make me choose between red-headed children and brown haired children. Neither is a viable argument.

Your insistence that a choice must be made is exactly what invalidates your whole scenario.

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.

It's also bullshit. If he's going to make up fantasy scenarios without any basis in reality then it's ridiculous to be drawing conclusions and making judgements.

 

[task0778]

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!

Let's look at this from the other end: do you think an unborn child 5 minutes prior to birth has any less right to life than a baby born 5 minutes after birth/

No, and I have never said that I do. That is rather the point of the non-viable part. A viable fetus - one that has a relative chance of survival outside of the womb, is morally equivalent to a child. This is why I support abortion bans after week 23. Because from that point forward they are morally equivalent to a child. I do not support abortion up to the moment of delivery. I support abortion up to viability.

So, are you seriously suggesting that there could be a lab somewhere with thousands of fetuses in a jar that haven't reached the 23rd week yet? I'm really having a hard time visualizing your experimental scenario here, just how old are your fictitious embryos/fetuses?

Why does it matter? They are embryos. They are healthy, are frozen, and ready to implant. Again, you want to equivocate, because you know the choice you would make.

You dodged the question: just how old are you fantasy embryos?

 

[PredFan]

"I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be."

Was this a typo?

No. I always understood that was one of the arguments you guys had against abortion. It had just never occurred to me that it was the only argument you had, and constituted the entirety of your argument against abortion.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

You know - I think you suffer from an "either-or" paradigm.

You, somehow, want to rank the relative "moral" value of a fetus vs. a live child.

The problem with that is simple .... some of us (most of us?) don't accept that there is a greater, or lesser, value on those. We believe that they are "morally equal". You don't seem interested in accepting that there are people who believe that.

That's because you don't really believe that. If you really believed that you would save a thousand over saving one. Yet, none of you are willing to say that you would do that.

No ---- choosing one over the other admits your fallacious "moral equivalency". It is inconceivable that a person wouldn't try to save 1,001. You're trying to make me choose between red-headed children and brown haired children. Neither is a viable argument.

Your insistence that a choice must be made is exactly what invalidates your whole scenario.

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 experment - 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.