Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[PredFan]

An embryo is a stage of human development, therefor it is human. To state that it isn't is to be simply stubborn and dishonest.

.
the same applies to a chicken egg, baby back ribs ....

View attachment 157105

if you are honest, they are all the same.

A chicken embryo is a stage of the life of a chicken yes. A human embryo is not the stage of life of a chicken. To say they are the same is dishonest.

 

[hadit]

The boy, the embryos aren’t implanted, and are cryogenically frozen, not an actively growing child. Life yes, is it tragic yes. But the boy is an already a more partially developed human, and has a much better shot at survival than an individual embryo. Just because you can’t personify he embryo doesn’t take away the fact that it is life, it is tragic, but this is also a hypothetical. This hypothetical shows a stark lack of understanding in the issue of abortion. It’s just trying to set up an I gotcha moment, that doesn’t really exist, it only exist in the mind of pro choice people, as well as collectivist thinkers. It’s also a completely different conversation than the issue of abortion as we know it in 99% of abortion cases.

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

And when you have sex and willfully create a new life, you are responsible for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. And it's my decision how to contend with those consequences, no one else's.

When it comes to killing another human, other people get involved. That is, after all, the crux of the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gtopa1]

Answering honestly? We all live or we all die, me included. And it would be a fertility clinic you dope!!

Greg

 

[Czernobog]

Except it's not, really. You described it perfectly. It demonstrates that the anti-abortion proponents know that the moral equivalency between embryos, or non-viable fetuses, and actual persons is a false equivalency.

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

And when you have sex and willfully create a new life, you are responsible for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. And it's my decision how to contend with those consequences, no one else's.

When it comes to killing another human, other people get involved. That is, after all, the crux of the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they don't. When it comes to killing another person, other people get involved. We kill genetically human organisms every day, and no one cares. We have no one protesting cancer clinics. You keep wanting to pretend that "genetically human" is the end-all, be-all pinnacle of moral importance. It's not. It's just not. If you think it is, then just say that a thousand humans is of more value than a single human, and you would save the embryos.

Why won't you say that?

 

[Czernobog]

Answering honestly? We all live or we all die, me included. And it would be a fertility clinic you dope!!

Greg

Your answer I understand less than any. So, you would let a thousand "pre-born" humans die, just because you couldn't save then all? You really are a monster. You're also, in my opinion, full of shit. You, and I both know who/what you would save, you just don't wanna ad it it, either to me, or to yourself.

 

[BreezeWood]

An embryo is a stage of human development, therefor it is human. To state that it isn't is to be simply stubborn and dishonest.

.
the same applies to a chicken egg, baby back ribs ....

View attachment 157105

if you are honest, they are all the same.

A chicken embryo is a stage of the life of a chicken yes. A human embryo is not the stage of life of a chicken. To say they are the same is dishonest.

.

A chicken embryo is a stage of the life of a chicken yes. A human embryo is not the stage of life of a chicken. To say they are the same is dishonest.

to be honest they both are from an original template and are the same within Garden Earth. the true significance for their being.

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

Mod Edit: Czernobog --- In the future, if your tale has a source -- you need to credit it.
Believe the source for this one is something like

Man confronts anti-abortion debaters with one question | Daily Mail Online

The answer to the question is that frozen embryos should not be created in the first place. The only ethical way to conceive a human is through natural vaginal sex between a married couple.

.

The answer to the question is that frozen embryos should not be created in the first place. The only ethical way to conceive a human is through natural vaginal sex between a married couple.

guy has real problems ...

is that why you are a divorcee - will you be destroying your offspring's as well ...

 

[gtopa1]

Answering honestly? We all live or we all die, me included. And it would be a fertility clinic you dope!!

Greg

Your answer I understand less than any. So, you would let a thousand "pre-born" humans die, just because you couldn't save then all? You really are a monster. You're also, in my opinion, full of shit. You, and I both know who/what you would save, you just don't wanna ad it it, either to me, or to yourself.

You asked a hypothetical; I gave an honest answer. You don't like the answer? Tuff!! Have you ever had to make a choice to put your life in danger to help someone else out? Did you?

Greg

 

[PredFan]

An embryo is a stage of human development, therefor it is human. To state that it isn't is to be simply stubborn and dishonest.

.
the same applies to a chicken egg, baby back ribs ....

View attachment 157105

if you are honest, they are all the same.

A chicken embryo is a stage of the life of a chicken yes. A human embryo is not the stage of life of a chicken. To say they are the same is dishonest.

.

A chicken embryo is a stage of the life of a chicken yes. A human embryo is not the stage of life of a chicken. To say they are the same is dishonest.

to be honest they both are from an original template and are the same within Garden Earth. the true significance for their being.

 

[hadit]

Nonsense. It is the difference in the way we treat different people. Are the lives lost every year on the highways due to our desire to drive fast nor morally equivalent to our own?

Apples, and oranges. Further those lives are your moral responsibility, that's why we have speed laws. When you wilfully ignore the law, then you are responsible for the consequences.

And when you have sex and willfully create a new life, you are responsible for the consequences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah. And it's my decision how to contend with those consequences, no one else's.

When it comes to killing another human, other people get involved. That is, after all, the crux of the matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No they don't. When it comes to killing another person, other people get involved. We kill genetically human organisms every day, and no one cares. We have no one protesting cancer clinics. You keep wanting to pretend that "genetically human" is the end-all, be-all pinnacle of moral importance. It's not. It's just not. If you think it is, then just say that a thousand humans is of more value than a single human, and you would save the embryos.

Why won't you say that?

I already answered that one. The fact that you keep asking simply means you didn't like the answer. Now, answer my question. Would you save a child or an adult in a persistent vegetative state, given the same parameters, namely that whichever one you leave to die is less human than the one you save?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk