Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[deltex1]

Save the boy...alert the staff to save the embryos. The boy is asking for rescue. The embryos are cool with the situation. They will go straight to heaven, without having to endure the stupidity of your hypotheticals.

There you go. The embryos die, and you decided that the child was of more value than the embryos. So, please cease referring to embryos as children.

I checked the label on the container of empyos. It said fresh shipment from the land of chaos and reason. I knew they had no future...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

What is a phial?

 

[BlindBoo]

ripping their limbs off

What? I thought they were selling those baby bits? Shouldn't hey be carefully dissecting those fetuses to maximize profits?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Save the boy...alert the staff to save the embryos. The boy is asking for rescue. The embryos are cool with the situation. They will go straight to heaven, without having to endure the stupidity of your hypotheticals.

There you go. The embryos die, and you decided that the child was of more value than the embryos. So, please cease referring to embryos as children.

Your scenario is flawed. A fertility clinic would not have 10,000 embryos.

Back to the drawing board!

 

[TNHarley]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That's the point.

the point is creating a dumb "gotcha?"
Interesting.

Derp.
No.
That everyone would pick the boy.

Of course they would, dummy. Thats why i think its dumb.
Its like asking if the woman running from the rapist is going to grab the loaded 9MM or the banana.

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Not "dumb" at all, and if an embryo has the same moral, ethical, and biological weight as a 5-year-old boy, then it is not a gotcha either - clearly saving a thousand "children" is more ethical than letting them die for the sake of a single child.

But, you also admit with your response that you are fully aware that they are not the same.

Of course they arent. I believe life starts at birth. I am as pro-choice as they come.
I think this OP just lacks reasoning.
I doubt there is 20 people in this entire country that would let the boy die over embryos. Its dumb.

You're right, but the nearly universal argument against abortion is equating an embryo, or a non-viable fetus with child, even going so far as to call them, interchangeably, children, babies, infants.

All this hypothetical does is expose the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy of such an irrational position.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That's the point.

the point is creating a dumb "gotcha?"
Interesting.

Derp.
No.
That everyone would pick the boy.

Of course they would, dummy. Thats why i think its dumb.
Its like asking if the woman running from the rapist is going to grab the loaded 9MM or the banana.

Now your scenario has a flaw. If the rapist was really, really hungry and you threw the banana in the opposite direction, he just might chase the banana.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

What is a phial?

What is your point?

 

[Czernobog]

Has my vote for dumbest libtard thread of the month.

2017 nominee for sure.

Deflection noted. Dismissed.

 

[BluesLegend]

Has my vote for dumbest libtard thread of the month.

Deflection noted. You are dismissed.

Aliens invade Earth, decide liberals are idiotic morons and start killing them. Conservatives can't save all liberals so which liberals should we try to save?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Not "dumb" at all, and if an embryo has the same moral, ethical, and biological weight as a 5-year-old boy, then it is not a gotcha either - clearly saving a thousand "children" is more ethical than letting them die for the sake of a single child.

But, you also admit with your response that you are fully aware that they are not the same.

Of course they arent. I believe life starts at birth. I am as pro-choice as they come.
I think this OP just lacks reasoning.
I doubt there is 20 people in this entire country that would let the boy die over embryos. Its dumb.

You're right, but the nearly universal argument against abortion is equating an embryo, or a non-viable fetus with child, even going so far as to call them, interchangeably, children, babies, infants.

All this hypothetical does is expose the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy of such an irrational position.

Embryos, despite your faulty hypothetical, are potential life. A snowglobe setting on a desk will never develop into a human, so the heck with saving it, but they are only potential human beings.

Also, in your scenario, it is possible that the embryos could survive, whereas the child would not.

 

[TNHarley]

All this hypothetical does is expose the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy of such an irrational position.

I dont agree at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That's the point.

the point is creating a dumb "gotcha?"
Interesting.

Derp.
No.
That everyone would pick the boy.

Of course they would, dummy. Thats why i think its dumb.
Its like asking if the woman running from the rapist is going to grab the loaded 9MM or the banana.

Then the boy and the embryos are not the same. That's the point.

The right to lifers swear they are.

 

[BluesLegend]

ripping their limbs off

What? I thought they were selling those baby bits? Shouldn't hey be carefully dissecting those fetuses to maximize profits?

Abortion, that's some sick human behavior right there goddamn.

 

[Czernobog]

Has my vote for dumbest libtard thread of the month.

Deflection noted. You are dismissed.

Aliens invade Earth, decide liberals are idiotic morons and start killing them. Conservatives can't save all liberals so which liberals should we try to save?

More deflection. Again dismissed. LOL

 

[TNHarley]

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

That's the point.

the point is creating a dumb "gotcha?"
Interesting.

Derp.
No.
That everyone would pick the boy.

Of course they would, dummy. Thats why i think its dumb.
Its like asking if the woman running from the rapist is going to grab the loaded 9MM or the banana.

Then the boy and the embryos are not the same. That's the point.

The right to lifers swear they are.

How many people do you know think that an embryo and a young child are the same?

 

[TNHarley]

Swallowing is cannibalism!

 

[Czernobog]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Not "dumb" at all, and if an embryo has the same moral, ethical, and biological weight as a 5-year-old boy, then it is not a gotcha either - clearly saving a thousand "children" is more ethical than letting them die for the sake of a single child.

But, you also admit with your response that you are fully aware that they are not the same.

Of course they arent. I believe life starts at birth. I am as pro-choice as they come.
I think this OP just lacks reasoning.
I doubt there is 20 people in this entire country that would let the boy die over embryos. Its dumb.

You're right, but the nearly universal argument against abortion is equating an embryo, or a non-viable fetus with child, even going so far as to call them, interchangeably, children, babies, infants.

All this hypothetical does is expose the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy of such an irrational position.

Embryos, despite your faulty hypothetical, are potential life.

Potential life, yes. Which means they are not morally equivalent to actual living people. So, between a non-viable fetus, and a pregnant woman - an actual living person - guess whose rights matter more, morally, and ethically.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Hypothetical: You are are at a fertility clinic - it doesn't matter why - and a fire breaks out. You run for the exit. As you are running down the hall, you hear a child screaming behind a door. As you throw open the door, you see a five-year-old boy crying for help in the corner. In the opposite corner is a phial labelled 1,000 viable embryos. The smoke is rising, and you begin to choke. You realise that the room is too large for you to have time to save both the embryos, and the boy. If you try you will die, as will both the boy, and the embryos.

Do you:

• A: Save the boy?
• B: Save the embryos?

There is no "third option". Any "third option" will result in the death of both the boy, and the embryos.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I rather quite doubt that any anti-abortion advocate will honestly answer this question. They will equivocate, deflect, or simply ignore this post, and hope that no one will take note of it. Because they can't answer the question, and maintain their their primary argument against abortion - that a fetus, from the moment of conception is equal, in every way, to a child.

The rational response, the clearly moral response, is A. Because an actual living child is worth a thousand embryos. 10,000 embryos. Or even a million embryos. This is because they are not the same. Not morally, ethically, nor biologically. This is the rational, ethical, and moral position. However, this position also destroys the anti-abortionists position that an embryo, or a non-viable fetus is a "child", so they will not answer the question.

Who wouldnt pick the boy?
Kind of a dumb "gotcha" IMO

Not "dumb" at all, and if an embryo has the same moral, ethical, and biological weight as a 5-year-old boy, then it is not a gotcha either - clearly saving a thousand "children" is more ethical than letting them die for the sake of a single child.

But, you also admit with your response that you are fully aware that they are not the same.

Of course they arent. I believe life starts at birth. I am as pro-choice as they come.
I think this OP just lacks reasoning.
I doubt there is 20 people in this entire country that would let the boy die over embryos. Its dumb.

You're right, but the nearly universal argument against abortion is equating an embryo, or a non-viable fetus with child, even going so far as to call them, interchangeably, children, babies, infants.

All this hypothetical does is expose the intellectual dishonesty, and hypocrisy of such an irrational position.

Embryos, despite your faulty hypothetical, are potential life. A snowglobe setting on a desk will never develop into a human, so the heck with saving it, but they are only potential human beings.

Also, in your scenario, it is possible that the embryos could survive, whereas the child would not.

are potential life.

Exactly.

 

[BluesLegend]

Has my vote for dumbest libtard thread of the month.

Deflection noted. You are dismissed.

Aliens invade Earth, decide liberals are idiotic morons and start killing them. Conservatives can't save all liberals so which liberals should we try to save?

More deflection. Again dismissed. LOL

Look up the word mocking fool.