I've had an epiphany

[task0778]

Really? Okay. Let's boil the experiment in question some for you. You find yourself in a situation where you can save either 1,000 healthy, frozen, ready to implant embryos, or one sleeping baby. Both are in imminent danger of destruction. You CAN. NOT. save both. Period. Full stop. Which do you save?

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

 

[Czernobog]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

Let's frame your "argument" another way .....

You are a father of two - a boy and a girl. You are caught in a burning building and can only save one. Which do you save?

The argument is analogous with your supposition.

Actually, it's not. First of all, you have added a personal component, which will change the equation. Also, by making it one child vs one child, with no other information, you have made it impossible to assign anything other than an equal moral value to each.

You see, in my scenario, it was a thousand to one. The only way to save the child was to decide that is isn't worth a thousand "pre-born"(since you guys love that term so much) children. So, you see? Your "scenario" isn't even close to analogous with mine. The only way it would have been would be if I had only present a single embryo. That's why I) didn't present a single embryo, I presented a thousand.

 

[Czernobog]

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

 

[Czernobog]

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Thank you for being honest. This is why it is dishonest to try to morally equate an embryo, or non-viable fetus with a child. Because while it may be alive at the time of fertilisation, there is absolutely no guarantee that it will survive to full term.

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

See, now your trying to backtrack No one is saying that an embryo has no value, but it absolutely does have less of a right to life than an actual child. You just reasoned out why it has less right. Now, are there many considerations to factor into a woman's decision to have an abortion? You bet! And do you know who has the right, and authority to evaluate those considerations? The woman, her doctor, and her significant other. Not you. Not me. Not anyone else who does not even know all of the considerations in her individual case.

No one is delegitimising anything. It only puts that embryo/non-viable fetus in it's proper perspective. It is not a person - not to the vast majority of people. It does not have the same moral value as a person. There is simply no way around that.

 

[PredFan]

Whichever one I have the best chance to.

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

I took his meaning of embryos as fertilized eggs. If he didn't mean that then I would have to change my answer.

I cannot place myself in the position of deciding "well, these embryos might not make it to term" the may ALL make it to being born.

I agree and have said that the scenario is impossible but I played along for the sake of discussion.

 

[PredFan]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

 

[Czernobog]

You have an equal chance to save one. You just can't save both. Choose.

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

I took his meaning of embryos as fertilized eggs. If he didn't mean that then I would have to change my answer.

I cannot place myself in the position of deciding "well, these embryos might not make it to term" the may ALL make it to being born.

I agree and have said that the scenario is impossible but I played along for the sake of discussion.

Actually, because statistically speaking, that is accurate, you can put yourself in the position to say that. The problem is that, the minute you admit that, that makes those embryos of less moral value than an actual child/person.

 

[Czernobog]

Not the point of my question. The point is that you, arguably, are not in the majority. So, while I certainly defend your right to believe what you do, and behave accordingly in your own life, I am curious what authority you feel allows you to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with you, whether they do, or not, by force of law.

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

 

[PredFan]

That isn't actually possible, but I'll play your game. I'd save the 1000 people. It's not too hard of a decision. 1000 people vs 1 person. Now, had you said 1 embryo and one child, THAT would be a problem.

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

I took his meaning of embryos as fertilized eggs. If he didn't mean that then I would have to change my answer.

I cannot place myself in the position of deciding "well, these embryos might not make it to term" the may ALL make it to being born.

I agree and have said that the scenario is impossible but I played along for the sake of discussion.

Actually, because statistically speaking, that is accurate, you can put yourself in the position to say that. The problem is that, the minute you admit that, that makes those embryos of less moral value than an actual child/person.

Sure, but that isn't the way I think about it.

 

[PredFan]

Actually, I don't. I will argue all day about my personal belief that abortion is murder, but I don't try to pass laws forcing people to abide by my beliefs. I'm a libertarian, and as long as it is legal, you can do what you want. On a forum like this where we don't actually make laws, I'll argue about what abortion is; murder.

In your own real life hey, do what you want. Just don't ask or demand that I pay for it.

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

 

[Czernobog]

You are person number 2. YOU, I will not fault for calling a fetus, a baby. So, now I have another question for you. Can I assume that you would agree that many would not agree with your moral calculus?

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

I took his meaning of embryos as fertilized eggs. If he didn't mean that then I would have to change my answer.

I cannot place myself in the position of deciding "well, these embryos might not make it to term" the may ALL make it to being born.

I agree and have said that the scenario is impossible but I played along for the sake of discussion.

Actually, because statistically speaking, that is accurate, you can put yourself in the position to say that. The problem is that, the minute you admit that, that makes those embryos of less moral value than an actual child/person.

Sure, but that isn't the way I think about it.

I suspect that is part of why you fail to see what I perceive to be the error in your moral calculation. But, not my job to disabuse you of your perceptions.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I can accept that, depending on what you consider "asking you to pay for it"? For instance one could argue that insurance is paid for by a pool. So, would using insurance to help offset the cost of the abortion, is that "asking you" to pay for it?

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

I would ask, again, with what insurance company do you have your health insurance. Aetna? Blue Cross? HealthNow?

 

[PredFan]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

As a pro-lifer I'd chose to save the kid, cuz all those embryos are not yet inside the mother's womb and a scientist can always make more of them but you can't make another kid screaming his lungs out. Even though science says once you have a fertilized egg you have a new human life, I think you have to save the one life that is already in existence over any number of potential lives that may or may not survive implantation or a possible miscarriage. Are we going to stipulate that those embryos will survive outside of the temperature controlled lab environment they're in now? Whose going to risk a living breathing kid for a number of vials that contain embryos that may not survive anyway?

Which does not mean that decision in any way demeans the value of those embryos or indicates they have any less right to live than does the living breathing kid. It ain't a cut and dried decision, there are a number of considerations to be factored in. And it's a ridiculous scenario anyway, those vials should be stored somewhere that is protected from fire and how come I'm the only person left in the building? Nobody else cared abut the kid or the vials, and so on. What we have here is a contrived situation that simply isn't going to happen in reality, a thought experiment with impossible assumptions and totally unrealistic conditions from which no honest person would or should draw any conclusions. What we really have here is an attempt to dehumanize and delegitimize a human embryo/fetus and rationalize it's murder.

I took his meaning of embryos as fertilized eggs. If he didn't mean that then I would have to change my answer.

I cannot place myself in the position of deciding "well, these embryos might not make it to term" the may ALL make it to being born.

I agree and have said that the scenario is impossible but I played along for the sake of discussion.

Actually, because statistically speaking, that is accurate, you can put yourself in the position to say that. The problem is that, the minute you admit that, that makes those embryos of less moral value than an actual child/person.

Sure, but that isn't the way I think about it.

I suspect that is part of why you fail to see what I perceive to be the error in your moral calculation. But, not my job to disabuse you of your perceptions.

Yes, I fail to see what you perceive about my thinking.

 

[PredFan]

Yes it is.

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

I would ask, again, with what insurance company do you have your health insurance. Aetna? Blue Cross? HealthNow?

I cannot tell you without revealing more information about my private life than I care to. It may not be a potential problem where you are concerned but there are people here on this board who I don't want to have access to my personal info.

 

[Czernobog]

And therein lies my problem. That insurance is there as much for her, as for you. Tell you what, if it pays for your Viagra, for your vasectomy, or for your lap band, you don't get to dictate that it dosn't pay for her abortion. I might agree if you paid in, and she doesn't. But, that's not how insurance works. So, we should remove from insurance coverage anything anyone might find objectionable? You're quickly gonna find that insurance doesn't cover a whole lot...

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

I would ask, again, with what insurance company do you have your health insurance. Aetna? Blue Cross? HealthNow?

I cannot tell you without revealing more information about my private life than I care to. It may not be a potential problem where you are concerned but there are people here on this board who I don't want to have access to my personal info.

Yeah, not sure how the name of an insurance company translates to "personal info", and considering that I have researched all of the major insurance companies before choosing my own, I find it highly unlikely that any reliable insurance company does not cover elective services.

 

[Spare_change]

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

Let's frame your "argument" another way .....

You are a father of two - a boy and a girl. You are caught in a burning building and can only save one. Which do you save?

The argument is analogous with your supposition.

That scenario is also impossible. If the choice is equal, then there will be an opportunity to save both. Otherwise the situation will determine who gets saved.

I would agree that many pro-abortion people would choose to save the child. I think that if the pro-life people had time to think about it, they would choose to save the 1000 people.

I think that many pro-life people would react with emotion, panic, instinct and grab the kid. They wouldn't stand there having an inner dialogue on who to save because the scream they could hear is the one they would react to. That does not prove the embryos are any less a human being; it proves that human beings are fallible. It also does not mean that you are intentionally killing the human embryos, like abortion does.

Well, the scenario he put forth is completely impossible so it comes down to wether you believe that the embryos are human. 1000 humans vs 1 human is a choice that I don't believe is too hard.

Let's frame your "argument" another way .....

You are a father of two - a boy and a girl. You are caught in a burning building and can only save one. Which do you save?

The argument is analogous with your supposition.

That scenario is also impossible. If the choice is equal, then there will be an opportunity to save both. Otherwise the situation will determine who gets saved.

... which, of course, points out the disconnect in the OP's discussion. (And, of course, that was exactly the point)

 

[PredFan]

My insurance doesn't pay for Viagra, nor vasectomies or lap bands, nor should they. It should not pay for abortions unless all of those putting in to it agree to.

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

I would ask, again, with what insurance company do you have your health insurance. Aetna? Blue Cross? HealthNow?

I cannot tell you without revealing more information about my private life than I care to. It may not be a potential problem where you are concerned but there are people here on this board who I don't want to have access to my personal info.

Yeah, not sure how the name of an insurance company translates to "personal info", and considering that I have researched all of the major insurance companies before choosing my own, I find it highly unlikely that any reliable insurance company does not cover elective services.

Wow! You can't imagine how an insurance company could give info on a person but you claim to know I'm lying because you haven't found one? Selective intelligence I guess. You don't have to believe me, hell, not believing the truth is the hallmark of pro-abortionists everywhere so that's no surprise.

 

[Czernobog]

I'd like to know what insurance company you use, because I haven't found one that doesn't. Well...that's not exactly true. I found one that won't cover elective surgeries. Medicaid.

Really? I don't think you have looked hard enough. Mine doesn't and neither does my wife's, and she works for Hilton.

I'll ask some friends when I see them.

I would ask, again, with what insurance company do you have your health insurance. Aetna? Blue Cross? HealthNow?

I cannot tell you without revealing more information about my private life than I care to. It may not be a potential problem where you are concerned but there are people here on this board who I don't want to have access to my personal info.

Yeah, not sure how the name of an insurance company translates to "personal info", and considering that I have researched all of the major insurance companies before choosing my own, I find it highly unlikely that any reliable insurance company does not cover elective services.

Wow! You can't imagine how an insurance company could give info on a person but you claim to know I'm lying because you haven't found one? Selective intelligence I guess. You don't have to believe me, hell, not believing the truth is the hallmark of pro-abortionists everywhere so that's no surprise.

You're adorable. And the hallmark of fanatics is to make shit up to give their bullshit credence. So, yeah. It seems unlikely that you have found the one insurance company in existence that doesn't ever cover any portion of elective surgery.

 

[BETH-MIDAN]

Merely like the seed of a tree ?

 

[The Original Tree]

Does the dumbass OP even know that FETUS is LATIN FOR BABY?
Just another word game for Eugenics Proponents, and their favorite past time of discussing Genocide like it was a baseball game.

You do know what an appeal to definition fallacy is, right? if not, I included a link to help you see where you went wrong.

I emailed your parents to help them see where they went wrong when they neglected to abort you.

FAG ON THE PLAY

​

I fixed this for you. Your little Meme applies to you in the most appropriate ways.

Why do you advocate for the murder of 50 million Lefty Voters? You dumb asses could have already had your Soviet Union right here in America if you weren't too busy killing yourselves off. And since a large percentage of your group cannot procreate, that's not the smartest strategy to employ when you are trying to fundamentally change America in to a Socialist Shit Hole.