I've had an epiphany

[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?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

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

 

[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.

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

One day. Who cares? They are healthy, frozen, and ready for implantation.

 

[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.

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.

When your actions do not conform to your expressed beliefs, that indicates you are lying about your beliefs.

 

[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.

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.

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

 

[miketx]

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.

When your actions do not conform to your expressed beliefs, that indicates you are lying about your beliefs.

Talking in circles, a classic regressive trait.

 

[Czernobog]

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 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.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

When your actions do not conform to your expressed beliefs, that indicates you are lying about your beliefs.

Talking in circles, a classic regressive trait.

There is nothing circular about stating that behaviour that is inconsistent with stated belief is inconsistent.

 

[Spare_change]

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 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 ...

 

[Zoom-boing]

Egg gets fertilized by sperm. Cells divide. THAT is the start of a brand new human being. That's how we all are here. That's. How. The. Fuck. It. Works. Biology one-oh-one. To think anything else is insanity. What stage of development they are in DOES NOT make them 'more or less' of a human being. They are a human being from the get go. They can't possibly BE anything else. Location does determine this, viability does not determine this, ability to feel pain does not determine this. 5 day old pre-born, 8 month pre-born, 3 month post-born, 10 yr old, 40 yr old, 90 yr old ... human being the entire time, same instrinic value the entire time.

churnhog has been schooled on this numerous times. His default is to change other poster's posts. Since churnhog can't fathom that pre-born humans are, in fact, pre-born humans, he likes to cross that out if it's in someone elses post. When he gets called on THAT and warned he'll get reported for altering a post, he whines and does it again all the while saying 'report me and I'll block you'. He ignores responses to his posts then runs away completely by blocking a poster. Ask me how I know this, ask me how I know he won't see this post.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

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.

 

[Czernobog]

Egg gets fertilized by sperm. Cells divide. THAT is the start of a brand new human being. That's how we all are here. That's. How. The. Fuck. It. Works. Biology one-oh-one. To think anything else is insanity. What stage of development they are in DOES NOT make them 'more or less' of a human being. They are a human being from the get go. They can't possibly BE anything else. Location does determine this, viability does not determine this, ability to feel pain does not determine this. 5 day old pre-born, 8 month pre-born, 3 month post-born, 10 yr old, 40 yr old, 90 yr old ... human being the entire time, same instrinic value the entire time.

churnhog has been schooled on this numerous times. His default is to change other poster's posts. Since churnhog can't fathom that pre-born humans are, in fact, pre-born humans, he likes to cross that out if it's in someone elses post. When he gets called on THAT and warned he'll get reported for altering a post, he whines and does it again all the while saying 'report me and I'll block you'. He ignores responses to his posts then runs away completely by blocking a poster. Ask me how I know this, ask me how I know he won't see this post.

You haven't been blocked. You just haven't said anything worth responding to. A fetus is not morally equivalent to a child. I know this. All anti-abortion fanatics know this. All pro-choice proponents know this. You want to pretend that this is about genetics, or biology, or personhood, but that is bullshit. Every choice - Every. Single. One - is a choice of moral value. Either you are lying to yourselves, or you are lying to everyone else. You want everyone to believe that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is the moral equivalent to an actual baby. No one who is pro-choice believes you. Not one of us. So, as long as you keep making that argument, we will laugh at you, mock you, ridicule you, and ignore you. Not because you are not entitled to your opinion, but because none of us believe you when you say that this is your opinion. This is why the presentation of the moral dilemma between embryos, and a child pisses you all off so much. Because it exposes your false equivalency. So, keep right on calling them pre-born humans, children, babies. No matter what else you may say, the only response you will get is that a fetus is not the moral equivalent of a child. In other words, nothing else you say will matter in light of your false equivalency.

 

[task0778]

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 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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Egg gets fertilized by sperm. Cells divide. THAT is the start of a brand new human being. That's how we all are here. That's. How. The. Fuck. It. Works. Biology one-oh-one. To think anything else is insanity. What stage of development they are in DOES NOT make them 'more or less' of a human being. They are a human being from the get go. They can't possibly BE anything else. Location does determine this, viability does not determine this, ability to feel pain does not determine this. 5 day old pre-born, 8 month pre-born, 3 month post-born, 10 yr old, 40 yr old, 90 yr old ... human being the entire time, same instrinic value the entire time.

churnhog has been schooled on this numerous times. His default is to change other poster's posts. Since churnhog can't fathom that pre-born humans are, in fact, pre-born humans, he likes to cross that out if it's in someone elses post. When he gets called on THAT and warned he'll get reported for altering a post, he whines and does it again all the while saying 'report me and I'll block you'. He ignores responses to his posts then runs away completely by blocking a poster. Ask me how I know this, ask me how I know he won't see this post.

You haven't been blocked. You just haven't said anything worth responding to. A fetus is not morally equivalent to a child. I know this. All anti-abortion fanatics know this. All pro-choice proponents know this. You want to pretend that this is about genetics, or biology, or personhood, but that is bullshit. Every choice - Every. Single. One - is a choice of moral value. Either you are lying to yourselves, or you are lying to everyone else. You want everyone to believe that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is the moral equivalent to an actual baby. No one who is pro-choice believes you. Not one of us. So, as long as you keep making that argument, we will laugh at you, mock you, ridicule you, and ignore you. Not because you are not entitled to your opinion, but because none of us believe you when you say that this is your opinion. This is why the presentation of the moral dilemma between embryos, and a child pisses you all off so much. Because it exposes your false equivalency. So, keep right on calling them pre-born humans, children, babies. No matter what else you may say, the only response you will get is that a fetus is not the moral equivalent of a child. In other words, nothing else you say will matter in light of your false equivalency.

If a pre-born has less instrinsic value than a post-born, then the post born has no value. You can not add or take away instrinsic value. What value the post-born has is what value the pre-born has. They are ALL human beings, at differing stages of their human being life, from the get go, they can't possible BE anything else, they all have the same moral value.If the pre-born has less value (it doesn't) but IF it did, and the post-born has more value (it doesn't) but IF it did then their value wouldn't be intrinsic. Think.

Keep churning, churnhog. Keep spewing that pre-born human beings are not pre-born human beings.

 

[Czernobog]

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...

They dont' have to be. Consider Robert Nozick's "Thought Machine". The parameters of the experiment are to suppose there were an experience machine that would give you any experience you desired. Superduper neuropsychologists could stimulate your brain so that you would think and feel you were writing a great novel, or making a friend, or reading an interesting book.

Now, first you have to imagine a "thought machine". Oh! Well! That doesn't exist in the real world, so obviously you are not capable of even imagining such a machine, right?!?! Wrong! That's why you are expected to engage your imagination, and put yourself in the position described by the parameters.

 

[Czernobog]

a pre-born...

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

 

[Zoom-boing]

a pre-born...

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

Oh look, you're using your usual avoidance m.o.

You seem to be under the delusion that pre-borns and post-borns are two different entities. That's your mistake. They are not. Whatever intrinsic value one has, so does the other. You can not add or take away intrinsic value.

Go ahead, continue to hide and dodge. All it does is show you have no argument.

 

[Czernobog]

a pre-born...

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

 

[Zoom-boing]

a pre-born...

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!

 

[Czernobog]

a pre-born...

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.

 

[Zoom-boing]

a pre-born...

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.