Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.
You are trying to build on a false premise.
There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.
A child is a child.
By any other name, it is still a child.
We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.
Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.
Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.
Oaks aren't either.Expand to see answers.Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.
So every sperm is sacred. Got it.
A sperm is not a human being, moron.
Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.
Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??
Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.
Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.
Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.
It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.
That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.
People are not acorns, moron.
We also have the BORN ALIVE Act that very specifically defines personhood. Your point?The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.
You are trying to build on a false premise.
There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.
A child is a child.
By any other name, it is still a child.
We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.
Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.
I would respectfully disagree. it is a personal choice made, I would hope, according to a moral calculation. I mean I would hope that it was based on more than a whim.If we were speaking with only first responders, I might agree with you. However, I am not a first responder, and that would not enter into my calculation. I doubt it would anyone else's who was not a first responder, but I thank you for your input.Dear Czernobog I'm disappointed as I know you can set this up better.
This has a major hole in it:
the boy who is older has a GREATER CHANCE of surviving
than just the embryos. So a first responder in this situation
would try to get the boy out, based on Probability of living.
You'd have to set it up better than this if you want
to focus solely on the "value" of life, instead of chances of living being
a variable or factor in the equation.
Close, please refine this and I trust you could make the point you intend.
Thanks Czernobog
Which is only further evidence of the greater moral value of the child, wouldn't you say, emilynghiem ?(Another side factor is the older boy has a greater chance of having
currently existing and established family relations and more people who will miss the boy,
so their relationships become an added factor and motivation; while the embryos have a lower chance of having established relationships that would be affected if they disintegrated in the fire)
I don't think it is a "moral" value but a personal/relative call.
purely subjective and depends on feelings and what makes us feel better or worse.
I would, with respect, submit that you are still over-simplifying the matter. Even in the 9/11 example you cited, I submit that there was more than just "Gee, I don't want that person to die alone," going on in the head of the second person. They considered how they would feel in that situation. They considered their family, and the effects of their death on them. They considered...a thousand other things in their moral calculation making the decision to stay.What about this example, Czernobog
in 9/11 when people were evacuating the towers,
one person collapsed in the stair well and just couldn't go on.
this person understood others would leave in order to save their own lives.
but ONE person made the decision to stay in the stairwell with this person,
knowing that meant TWO people would die instead of only one.
If it was any other two people, maybe they wouldn't have made that decision,
but these two people did.
That person felt it was more important not to leave a suffering
soul to die alone but to know they were loved enough to stay, even if it meant dying,
and that feeling of love was more important, that "feeling" of not being abandoned
and suffering to be left by others and die alone,
as part of QUALITY of life and relationships
rather than just the quantity of life, the length of time or the number of lives.
so if it's quality and feeling, what makes us feel
life matters, if that is what motivates people
then it isn't just clinical life and death or
measuring lives by external factors.
Some people have chosen to die with another person
rather than be separated or feel isolated/abandoned.
Some people choose the opposite, and abandon someone to die
in order to save their own life.
There are other factors involved Czernobog
which I would call "spiritual" but perhaps you'd call it emotional or psychological.
And, again, for as many times as it needs to be repeated, THE BORN ALIVE ACT specifically precludes fetuses from being considered persons.The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.
You are trying to build on a false premise.
There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.
A child is a child.
By any other name, it is still a child.
We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.
Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.
Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.
Again, (for as many times as it needs to be repeated) the Constitution (supreme law of the land) says that ALL persons are equally entitled to the protections of our laws. So, the issue is NOT how much any of us might value or attempt to rescue children in ANY particular hypothetical situation.
If they are human beings / persons. . . They are entitled to Constitutional rights.
Period.
End of debate.
No, they aren't. You don't look at an acorn, and say, "Wow. what a majestic oak,"Oaks aren't either.Expand to see answers.Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.
So every sperm is sacred. Got it.
A sperm is not a human being, moron.
Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.
Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??
Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.
Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.
Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.
It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.
That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.
People are not acorns, moron.
If it's germinated, they are.
Can... you know what? I'm not bothering. You are a liar. And you know you are a liar. If an embryo is morally equivalent to a child, then a thousand embryos has a thousand times more value than a single child. So, prove you mean your bullshit, and say that you would save the phial, and let the child burn.Okay. So your moral caclulation is interesting. The ability to fell pain creates a higher moral value, and responsibility. Okay. My calculus would have been slightly different, but would have arrived at the same conclusion.Tell you what. You want a change that doesn't require a fear response. Here you go, in one corner of the room - that is to large to reach each corner in time, mind you - is a sleeping baby, and in the other is a cold box labelled 1,000 embryos. There you go. Now you don't have the "terrified screaming" of the child to sway your emotion. Choose.Just because he is standing there paralysed with fear, not screaming, you think he can "take direction". Really??? Like everyone else, you are just trying to find a way to change the parameters to prevent you from having to make a choice.
See, now you're trying to change the parameters. I thought you didn't want to do that. Anyway, that's easy. You save the one that experiences pain and suffers, then mourn over the many that will never get the opportunity to grow and thrive
Not the humanity, the moral value. And it certainly does. You did decide that the embryos were of less moral value, and could simply be "tossed in the trash" during the clean up after the fire. Otherwise you would have saved them.You see, you thought that by getting me to say that anunborn babyembryo without a functioning brain doesn't suffer I would be saying that the unborn embryo is less than human and can be safely tossed in the trash. Again, the reaction doesn't define the humanity of those not saved, any more than saving a sleeping baby instead of an adult in a persistent vegetative state makes the adult any less human.
You can keep denying this all you like, but your reaction demonstrates that you do not, regardless of your dihonest attempts to suggest otherwise, assign the same relative moral value to an embryo that you do to an actual baby, or child.
It's a choice between two sets of humans, not between a human and something else. That's been my point the whole time, that we place value on people all the time, but it doesn't alter their humanity.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Otherwise give up your bullshit.
Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.
And, again, for as many times as it needs to be repeated, THE BORN ALIVE ACT specifically precludes fetuses from being considered persons.The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.You are trying to build on a false premise.
There is no need to draw a moral equivalence between a child which is in the fetal stage of their life and any other child.
A child is a child.
By any other name, it is still a child.
We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.
Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.
Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.
Again, (for as many times as it needs to be repeated) the Constitution (supreme law of the land) says that ALL persons are equally entitled to the protections of our laws. So, the issue is NOT how much any of us might value or attempt to rescue children in ANY particular hypothetical situation.
If they are human beings / persons. . . They are entitled to Constitutional rights.
Period.
End of debate.
That is the end of the debate.
No, they aren't. You don't look at an acorn, and say, "Wow. what a majestic oak,"Oaks aren't either.Expand to see answers.Humans do. Their value begins when they begin. When is that? When they first come into existence, as that is the beginning of a human being.
So every sperm is sacred. Got it.
A sperm is not a human being, moron.
Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.
Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??
Their value remains the same from the start to the finish.
Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.
Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.
It doesn't increase or decrease, it isn't based on location (in or out of utero). If a pre-born human has instrinic value it is there from the start, it is the same value as in a post-born human.
That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.
People are not acorns, moron.
If it's germinated, they are.
At least you don't if you are not delusional.
Is the OP still claiming no pro lifer will honestly answer his hypo while ignoring the fact that his hypo doesn't prove jack?
Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.
People are not acorns, moron.
Okay. So you are personally anti-abortion. This may come as a shock to many - so am I. However, like you - although as a result of an entirely different moral calculus - I am politically pro-choice.Now, Bonzi , if you are still anti-abortion, and want to make the argument why your position should be codified into law, then by all means do so. Just stop doing it by dishonestly trying to draw a moral equivalence between a fetus, and a child.
I am anti-abortion, but here is why....
Instead of taking a human life growing inside of you, sacrifice 9 months and have the child and put it up for adoption.
I am not saying it should or shouldn't be codified into law. As a matter of fact, I have said (in other forums/posts) that the majority of society that supports something should have it be made law, even if I don't agree with it.
No, they don't. What they do is give once pregnant women the ability to punish criminals who, through their violence, deprived them the right to choose to have a baby. The irony is that you, now, want to use those same laws as an excuse to deprive women of the right to choose to not have a baby.And, again, for as many times as it needs to be repeated, THE BORN ALIVE ACT specifically precludes fetuses from being considered persons.The false premise is yours. If you believed that, then instead of trying so hard to find some way to avoid answering the question presented, you would simply say that you would save the thousand children (embryos), and demonstrate how silly I'm being. But, I notice that you aren't willing to do that. That is because you know that an embryo isn't the same thing as a child.
We have fetal HOMICIDE laws already to make the killing of a child in the womb in a criminal act - a crime of MURDER.
Your attempt to paint children in the womb as being unworthy of any consideration for equal rights has already been largely defeated.
Okay Chuz Life and what about embryo's outside the womb?
The example refers to embryos.
Do you treat them as you would children in the womb and children already born and living independently.
Again, (for as many times as it needs to be repeated) the Constitution (supreme law of the land) says that ALL persons are equally entitled to the protections of our laws. So, the issue is NOT how much any of us might value or attempt to rescue children in ANY particular hypothetical situation.
If they are human beings / persons. . . They are entitled to Constitutional rights.
Period.
End of debate.
That is the end of the debate.
Actually, it is not, since other laws treat the unborn as people.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would refer you to the final statement of my post.No, they aren't. You don't look at an acorn, and say, "Wow. what a majestic oak,"Oaks aren't either.Expand to see answers.So every sperm is sacred. Got it.
A sperm is not a human being, moron.
Your claim that a new human being is formed at conception is subjective nonsense, contradicted by science, common sense and basic decency. You're basically just trying to define yourself as correct.
Does the pre-born human exist before it made? No. When does it begin to exist? When it is first made. When is that??
Totally wrong. The moral value of a sperm/zygote/embryo/fetus/ grows as it grows. That's what everyone feels in their gut, and that's how law, society and tradition treat things. And that's what the scenario illustrates.
Wrong. Their intrinsic value is determined by the fact that they are a human being. It is not dependent upon what stage of development they are in or their location. If it were, then a 20 year old would have more value than a 20 month old. Incorrect, they both have the same value because they are both human beings. From the damn get go.
That's dopey. An acorn in my yard does not have the same moral value as my oak tree. Development matters a lot.
People are not acorns, moron.
If it's germinated, they are.
At least you don't if you are not delusional.
Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.
Oak trees do not just fucking morph out of one type organism and into another and neither do we human beings.
We human beings are the very same organism at 80 years of age (if we live that long) that we were at the moment of our conception. That's biology 101.
Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.
That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.
The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.
Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.
And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.
Just as I can look at an acorn and recognize it as a "mighty oak in the first days of it's life" I can also look at a Human Being in the first days of their life and recognize them for both the human being they already are AND as the larger, more developed human being they will be later in life as well.
That's nice. You can call things whatever you want. However, Your word games change nothing.
The oak tree still has more intrinsic/moral worth than an acorn, and a baby has more intrinsic/moral worth than an embryo.
Pro-lifers are still lying when they say they believe an embryo has the the same moral worth as a baby, still lying when they say they believe abortion is murder.
And no pro-lifers have the honesty to address that. That means the intellectual cowardice of pro-lifers is another point proven by this thread, a point proven by the pro-lifers.
People are not acorns, moron.
So, you're implying development stage matters with oak trees, but not with people.
Why? Can you back up your common sense defying claim with anything beyond your usual "BECAUSE I SAY SO!"?
After all, you pro-lifers refute your claim there with your own actions, by putting such major focus on a few late-term abortions. You clearly think that the more developed fetus has more moral value than an embryo, and that's why late-term abortions outrage you more. So why are you pretending otherwise?
Go on. Scream insults at me to deflect now. You know you want to. It's not like you can debate the actual issues.
