Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[sealybobo]

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

Did you ever ask a fetus if it hurts? It doesn't. They don't feel at that age.
2. They go right to heaven.
3. Their parents would be horrible parents
4. We are over populated as is. If it takes killing 50 million fetus' to keep the planet habitable for humans I guess that's what we have to do. Would you rather those 50 million fetus' become living humans and then they consume all our natural resources in 1000 years? I'd rather the planet be habitable for another 5 million years.
5. Consider these fetus' would become our future prisoners and criminals. Bad parents usually produce our nations prisoners rapists and murderers.
6. Welfare and foodstamps

 

[sealybobo]

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!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

Here is a twist. You are having a baby. It's only 1 month old in your belly. You can save it or a living human being. Who would you save? Even though I'm pro choice I would save my baby. Then I would consider the thing living. When it's mine. Then it has value to me. But you can have all the abortions you want.

 

[Czernobog]

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!

Guess what? It's not Patrick's argument, either. The thing has been around for a while. I just thought it would be fun to bring back, and expose the duplicitous pricks for who they are. And you're all doing a great job of proving me right. Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted.

Like you predicted? You mean like Patrick (or whomever he stole it from) predicted......

At any rate, lots of people, myself included, have answered the question. You fail.

Dismissed.

No you didn't. You said it was stupid, and started asking a lot of irrelevant questions. Those who did answer I responded to.

But you just said "Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted."



Anyway, read your own plagiarized thread son......I did answer.

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

I stand corrected. You really should look up the word, plagiarise, those. But, I'll let that go.

I am pro choice, plagiarizer.

But even if I were rabidly pro Life....I'd save the child. Just like every other person on the planet.

You are pro-choice. Adding your "If I were rabidly pro life" alters your response not one little whit. You'll notice the only people who have bee answering the question have been people who are Pro-Choice. Now, why do you think that is????

 

[Czernobog]

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?

Unless the op is the idiot on twitter that matt and Ben responded to last week probably.

It was funny. They demolished his argument then he was like "no one ask for your opinion" well yes you did.

Actually they didn't. They moved the goal post, and argued against a point that was never made. In other words, they didn't answer the question, and deflected. Shocker.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

False choice. ---- Let's extend it --- Save a thousand old men or one child? Just because the benefit of the moral greyness goes to the child in SOME cases -- does not make it the MORAL decision in others.

Nope. Let's not extend it. The thought experiment is what it is. Either you honestly believe that an embroy is the moral equivalent of a child, in which case it only makes sense to save a thousand children, or you don't in which case it only makes sense to save the actual child. It is a simple moral calculation.

Then you can't claim a UNIVERSAL "moral" basis for this. Because the "relative value" of life DOES matter and it's a decision that sane rational folks DON'T WANT TO MAKE..

Except when one refers to fetuses as children they are not making a relative value judgement, they are attempting to make an equivalent value judgement. And the only person who should have the authority to determine the relative value of a fetus, is the person pregnant with that fetus.

Doesn't HAVE to be an equal judgement. Those embryos have IMMENSE value to the family who created them. The fact they're IN a fertility clinic -- shows that dedicated decision to MAKE something of value. And they are JOINTLY creating that value. Not just the woman who provided the egg.

If ANYTHING, the argument works just because the embryos are EASIER to RE-CREATE than the boy. That's an argument of convenience. Not a overriding moral value.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

You're video debunks nothing. At no point did I say "Human embryos aren't life". I said, and still say, that human embryos are not morally, ethically, or biologically equivalent to a child.

Please do not attempt to assign to me a position I have not taken. The vast majority of anti-abortionists cannot make the same request, as any time that they call a fetus a child, or a baby they are taking the positon of which I am accusing them.

So the argument is -

If not equivalent to a child, you can kill it.

You aren't equivalent to a child. Therefore we can kill you

 

[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!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

Here is a twist. You are having a baby. It's only 1 month old in your belly. You can save it or a living human being. Who would you save? Even though I'm pro choice I would save my baby. Then I would consider the thing living. When it's mine. Then it has value to me. But you can have all the abortions you want.

Of course you save your OWN BABY.

Just like every living person on the planet would save the boy in the example.

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

Guess what? It's not Patrick's argument, either. The thing has been around for a while. I just thought it would be fun to bring back, and expose the duplicitous pricks for who they are. And you're all doing a great job of proving me right. Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted.

Like you predicted? You mean like Patrick (or whomever he stole it from) predicted......

At any rate, lots of people, myself included, have answered the question. You fail.

Dismissed.

No you didn't. You said it was stupid, and started asking a lot of irrelevant questions. Those who did answer I responded to.

But you just said "Not one of you will answer the question. Just like I predicted."



Anyway, read your own plagiarized thread son......I did answer.

Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

I stand corrected. You really should look up the word, plagiarise, those. But, I'll let that go.

I am pro choice, plagiarizer.

But even if I were rabidly pro Life....I'd save the child. Just like every other person on the planet.

You are pro-choice. Adding your "If I were rabidly pro life" alters your response not one little whit. You'll notice the only people who have bee answering the question have been people who are Pro-Choice. Now, why do you think that is????

I looked it up and it fits you to a "T":
pla·gia·rize
ˈplājəˌrīz/
verb

1. take (the work or an idea of someone else) and pass it off as one's own.
   synonyms: copy, infringe the copyright of, pirate, steal, poach, appropriate; More
   • copy from (someone) and pass it off as one's own.

Definition of PLAGIARIZE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if everyone who answered the question is pro-choice or not. SO.....

Let's ask.

DID ANYONE ANSWER THE QUESTION WHO IS PRO-LIFE?

 

[sealybobo]

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.

False choice. ---- Let's extend it --- Save a thousand old men or one child? Just because the benefit of the moral greyness goes to the child in SOME cases -- does not make it the MORAL decision in others.

Nope. Let's not extend it. The thought experiment is what it is. Either you honestly believe that an embroy is the moral equivalent of a child, in which case it only makes sense to save a thousand children, or you don't in which case it only makes sense to save the actual child. It is a simple moral calculation.

Then you can't claim a UNIVERSAL "moral" basis for this. Because the "relative value" of life DOES matter and it's a decision that sane rational folks DON'T WANT TO MAKE..

Except when one refers to fetuses as children they are not making a relative value judgement, they are attempting to make an equivalent value judgement. And the only person who should have the authority to determine the relative value of a fetus, is the person pregnant with that fetus.

Doesn't HAVE to be an equal judgement. Those embryos have IMMENSE value to the family who created them. The fact they're IN a fertility clinic -- shows that dedicated decision to MAKE something of value. And they are JOINTLY creating that value. Not just the woman who provided the egg.

If ANYTHING, the argument works just because the embryos are EASIER to RE-CREATE than the boy. That's an argument of convenience. Not a overriding moral value.

That's right. The embryo may have value to you but to me it has very little value.

 

[sartre play]

Is it just possible he was trying to make the point that there is some difference in how we view the embryo's & the little boy?

 

[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?

Yes. Let's do that! Let's de3flect fro the question, so I can avoid being exposed as a duplicitous prick!

I'm sorry if you don't like your argument failing. That doesn't change the truth that 1) it's been answered honestly and 2) there is no logic in your argument

 

[hadit]

Another hypothetical that sheds light on this one.

Would you let your own child die to save 1,000 other children? We all value some lives over other lives for various reasons, and it doesn't make the ones led valued any less human.

Lets put it another way. Would you accept an inconvenience knowing that it would save tens of thousands of lives every year? All you have to do is accept a restrictor on every automobile that would prevent it from traveling over 25 mph. You wouldn't do that, because you value being able to drive fast more than the lives lost due to high speed collisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hjmick]

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

This is perhaps the most idiotic thing I've read today.

 

[sartre play]

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

I don't see it as factual that all who reply save the child, are pro aborton

 

[Anathema]

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?

I'll take your challenge - I grab the child and leave the embryos. The embroys are not viable hjmsn tjssje until they are actively griwj g insjde a woman's womb. Until thst time they are sjmply a science project.

 

[Avatar4321]

I said, and still say, that human embryos are not morally, ethically, or biologically equivalent to a child.

You're an idiot. ....

Gee...I'm so hurt. A fucking duplicitous twat just called me an idiot. Whatever will I do...?

Continue lying and pretending you won this argument

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

You do understand that a "gotcha" only works if a person is engaged in dishonesty, right? if one holds an honest position, they can't be "got by a gotcha". Congratulations for admitting that you know that you position is dishonest.

Sorry pop, you're a plagiarist.

yeah, you can deflect with accusations, stupid sidebars, and bullshit all you like. You are still just doing exactly what I said you would.

You do know that it is against the rules not to post a source?

You do know I didn't plagiarise, right? And by the way, I didn't plagiarise. Here. Here is a link to his argument. I took it, and expanded on it, because I recognised a flaw that duplicitous fucks like you would take advantage of. So, I fixed that. He made no mention of the size of the room. I knew that left the "I run really fast, and get both" cheat open. so, I altered the parameters to not allow for that.

Guess what altering it did? Made it mine, and not plagiarism. But it does make all of you still guilty of deflection to avoid your own dishonesty.

So if I take Huck Finn add a sentence and submit it to my lit professor, I wouldn't get an F do plagiarizing since I made it my own?

 

[sartre play]

it was just a thought provoking question, not an argument, not a point of law, not a moral stance against you or me as a person. the one thing it did point out is that the lines are drawn & we never want to spend a moment thinking about any thing that comes from "those people"

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Can't address counter argumenta. Doesn't say much about your confidence in your argument. But then neither was your attempt to poison the well

Your response was not a valid counter, so deserved not address.

Translation: Can't answer it because you know nothing of basic logic

 

[Avatar4321]

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!

Someone is clearly not up on current science...
Deflection noted. Dismissed.

Says the person claiming a human embryo isn't human life

Please quote, with a link to the post, where I ever said that. That is another lie.

So you admit a human embryo is human life?

 

[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?

So this thread is plagiarized as well as idiotic?

Unless the op is the idiot on twitter that matt and Ben responded to last week probably.

It was funny. They demolished his argument then he was like "no one ask for your opinion" well yes you did.

Actually they didn't. They moved the goal post, and argued against a point that was never made. In other words, they didn't answer the question, and deflected. Shocker.

Oh I get it. Any answer you don't like. You pretend doesn't exist.

So you're argument isn't that embryos aren't life therefore abortion is a ok?

Cause it's the entire point of the hypo. Unless you honestly didn't realize that