Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Zander]

What if the kid was a retard, and the pregnant woman was a morbidly obese welfare mother, who was getting an abortion at the time of the fire, and had the vacuum still in her?

 

[Czernobog]

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

I would probably go for the child

What would you do if the woman was super attractive and the kid was ugly?

Having fun with your deflection, so you don't have to expose your dishonesty?

 

[Zander]

What if the "embryos" were all Chinese females? Even the Chinese throw those things out............

 

[BluesLegend]

This OP clown is trying to suggest frozen embryo's and human fetuses growing in the womb are the same thing in some twisted attempt to justify abortion.

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.

Look up the word deflection fool.

Dude, your thread is dripping with please mock me for posting such a stupid premise. There's two boys in the room, you can only save one, same damn thing. On the bright side when liberals try to be clever and fail like this, it is funny.

Dude, my thread exposes the intellectual dishonesty of people like you. But, you go right ahead, and keep deflecting.

Your thread exposes jack shit, I'm sorry you worked on this all weekend and we destroyed it in seconds.

 

[Czernobog]

What if the kid was a retard, and the pregnant woman was a morbidly obese welfare mother, who was getting an abortion at the time of the fire, and had the vacuum still in her?

More deflection. Boy you want to change the subject badly, don't you. Why not just admit that your position has been intellectually dishonest, and stop calling non-viable fetuses children, and babies?

 

[Czernobog]

This OP clown is trying to suggest frozen embryo's and human fetuses growing in the womb are the same thing in some twisted attempt to justify abortion.

More deflection. Again dismissed. LOL

Look up the word mocking fool.

Look up the word deflection fool.

Dude, your thread is dripping with please mock me for posting such a stupid premise. There's two boys in the room, you can only save one, same damn thing. On the bright side when liberals try to be clever and fail like this, it is funny.

Dude, my thread exposes the intellectual dishonesty of people like you. But, you go right ahead, and keep deflecting.

Your thread exposes jack shit, I'm sorry you worked on this all weekend and we destroyed it in seconds.

You didn't destroy shit. You did exactly what I predicted you would do: refuse to answer the question, because it exposes you for liars.

 

[Czernobog]

What if the "embryos" were all Chinese females? Even the Chinese throw those things out............

What if you stopped being a duplicitous prick, and just answered the question?

 

[BluesLegend]

This OP clown is trying to suggest frozen embryo's and human fetuses growing in the womb are the same thing in some twisted attempt to justify abortion.

Look up the word mocking fool.

Look up the word deflection fool.

Dude, your thread is dripping with please mock me for posting such a stupid premise. There's two boys in the room, you can only save one, same damn thing. On the bright side when liberals try to be clever and fail like this, it is funny.

Dude, my thread exposes the intellectual dishonesty of people like you. But, you go right ahead, and keep deflecting.

Your thread exposes jack shit, I'm sorry you worked on this all weekend and we destroyed it in seconds.

You didn't destroy shit. You did exactly what I predicted you would do: refuse to answer the question, because it exposes you for liars.

So you admit your entire thread was about trying to gotcha people with a far fetched scenario and that was your goal, got it. Weird.

 

[Zander]

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

I would probably go for the child

What would you do if the woman was super attractive and the kid was ugly?

Having fun with your deflection, so you don't have to expose your dishonesty?

What is my dishonesty?

I don't give a flying fuck about abortion. I do not have a uterus.

That doesn't change the fact that your hypothetical example is nonsensical.

 

[Avatar4321]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

 

[Sunni Man]

Starting at minute 2.43 Ben Shapiro completely destroys the OP's hypothetical anti- abortion question. ......

 

[Indeependent]

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.

The boy is alive...save the boy.
Current status overrides potential.
But that's a Torah imperative which I presume you believe is evil.

 

[Doc1]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

So this thread is plagiarized as well as idiotic?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

That's because the decision would be based on emotion and adrenaline and not based on morality or. Reason.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Explain why if you kill a pregnant woman you can be charged with two counts of murder.

What if she was on her way to an abortion clinic, then was murdered? Would the court throw out the extra charge?

Probably not.

 

[OKTexas]

Go ahead rationalize killing over 50 million human infants in the womb by ripping their limbs off you blood thirsty liberal deviants.

As I said, cannot answer the question, as it destroys this silly argument.

Actually you destroyed your own argument by trying to draw a false equivalents of a child in the womb compared to a frozen embryo in a test tube. Saving the living child in your scenario is not equivalent to actively preforming an abortion.


.

 

[Zander]

First, nice going poisoning the well right off the bat.

Second, I saw this on twitter last week. The idiot who posted it had thousands of honest responses immediately. Best by far was matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro over at the daily wire.

Third, let's do the same hypo, but instead of a canister of embryos, its a choice between saving the child and saving you. Does the fact that I'd still save the child mean your life has no value? Or that you aren't alive? According to the logic of the op it proves you aren't human. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

So this thread is plagiarized as well as idiotic?

The hypothetical is nonsensical.

The embryo is only viable if it is growing in the womb.

If a pregnant women and a child were both asking for help and I could only save one......Now that is a dilemma!

I would probably go for the child

What would you do if the woman was super attractive and the kid was ugly?

Having fun with your deflection, so you don't have to expose your dishonesty?

What is my dishonesty?

I don't give a flying fuck about abortion. I do not have a uterus.

That doesn't change the fact that your hypothetical example is nonsensical.

Please see edit below:

What is my dishonesty?

I don't give a flying fuck about abortion. I do not have a uterus.

That doesn't change the fact that the hypothetical example YOU PLAGIARIZED is nonsensical.

 

[TNHarley]

Suddenly they're all pro choice.

LOL seriously? Because they would rather save a young child than embryos makes them ok with abortion?
The fallacies in this thread make my head hurt

 

[Zander]

Go ahead rationalize killing over 50 million human infants in the womb by ripping their limbs off you blood thirsty liberal deviants.

As I said, cannot answer the question, as it destroys this silly argument.

Actually you destroyed your own argument by trying to draw a false equivalents of a child in the womb compared to a frozen embryo in a test tube. Saving the living child in your scenario is not equivalent to actively preforming an abortion.


.

It is not his "own" argument. He stole it from someone else, without attribution. He's as dishonest as they come!