Hypothetical no anti-abortionist will honestly answer

[Zoom-boing]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

 

[Zoom-boing]

Click expand to see my replies.

Interesting, the op completely ignored my response.

How. Unsurprising.

Uh...I didn't see your response. Do me a favour, and link to it, or tell me what post number it is, so I can go back and find it...?

Post 225.

Thanks. Let's get into this, shall we?

If your child and my child were in the building I'd save my child, not yours.

Does that mean my child has more value than yours?

Of course it does. You have just confirmed that your child has more moral value to you than mine would. As well it should. You are talking about relative value, which can only be determined by an individual, for themselves.

Of course not; both have intrinsic value because both are humans. The same holds true for the child and embryos in your, ah, 'scenario'. The difference between the born and the pre-born is location.

You're trying to equate relative value with intrinsic/absolute value. They are two different things. No one denies that embryos have (innate) value; only that their value is not equivalent to an actual child.

They have intrinsic value, as they are human beings in an early stage of development. Their value is equivalent to an actual child because they are an actual child in an earlier stage of development. This is fact. How do you think humans are made?

Regardless that your scenario takes place in a fertility clinic, it's obvious you're speaking about abortion. How does saving a born human but leaving the pre-born to die equate to intentionally killing a pre-born human? When one has an abortion, one intentionally kills the preborn.

Now you're just making a presumption, and drawing the wrong conclusion. No, I'm correct. You are talking about abortion. I am not suggesting that you abandon your anti-abortion position. Only that you cease using the dishonest attempt to draw a moral equivalence between a non-viable fetus, and a child. The reason a fetus becomes non-viable is because it is ripped out of its environment (where it was perfectly viable) via abortion. Abortion MAKES a pre-born non-viable. You wanna oppose abortion? Fine. Find a new argument that doesn't rely on intellectual dishonesty in order to attempt to elicit an emotional response. That you don't think abortion should elicit an emotional response speaks volumes.

If there was a 3 week old baby and a 93 year old person I'd save the baby. The 93 year old has had their life, the baby has not.

Yup. Makes perfect sense. The moral calculation is sound.

Does that mean I do not value the older person? Of course not. Does that mean the older person's life has no value? Of course not. It means I had to make a decision based on emergency and emotion. That decision is not the intentional, deliberate taking of life.

No one is saying that you are, again, confusing relative value with absolute value. For example, make that old man your father. That changes the moral calculus some, no? I mean, I think, rationally the end result is the same, but it gives a bit of pause. Because the relative value has changed. Their value remains the same, regardless of how I personally view them. Why? Because they are human beings. As are the pre-born. Difference is a) where they are developmentally and b) location. NEITHER makes them "not a human", no matter how many time you squeal otherwise.

Why do you guys always, always go for the extreme scenarios? Did this actually happen? What about the vast, vast, VAST majority of abortions that are done simply because having a child would be an inconvenience? You guys dodge that all the damn time.

Because it is the extreme scenarios that challenge our moral calculus, to insure that we are making rational, logical choices. Because the fact that most abortions occur due to 'inconvenience to the mother' is a much harder argument to make. THAT'S the reason for the 'ain't never gonna happen' scenarios. smh

Abortion kills a pre-born human being.

Sorry, that is just more false moral equivalency in order to elicit an emotional response. It's like you have no clue how humans are made, where they come from. Incredible.

They are human from the get go, the do not "turn into" or "develop into" a human. Humans beget humans, that's how the hell it works. You are okay with abortion. That means that you are okay killing/terminating/snuffing out/destroying/ending the life of a pre-born human being. Your type constantly tries (and fails) to present abortion as ANYTHING other than what it is ... horrid, disgusting, intentional killing of a pre-born human. smh

Bullshit. "Pre-born human being" is just a semantic play of words in an attempt to assign a greater moral value to a non-viable fetus than it deserves. Just stating the facts, Jack. All human beings have the same intrinsic value; their location doesn't make one morally greater. Again, pre-born humans are perfectly viable when they are left in-utero, until they are ready to be born. Abortion - the act of killing/destroying/ending the life of the pre-born causes them to become non-viable. If I took you, as you are now, and dropped you in Siberia, you'd become non-viable mighty fast. But it wouldn't make you any less human, just less of an alive human.

Well, I'm still waiting, then, for you to tell us that given the scenario in the OP, you would choose to save the phial of "one thousand preborn children", rather than the single five-year-old child. I notice you still haven't said that. Why is that?

Answered in a different post you made

 

[Czernobog]

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

 

[hadit]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

 

[hadit]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Abortion is designed to kill the developing baby, not give him/her a chance to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hadit]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child. Your logic says whoever is left behind MUST have less value, or I would have taken them instead.Your logic is flawed and I gave you my reasoning for why I would grab the child. Go back and re-read my previous post. Oh wait, I see you completely left it out when you quoted me. Coward taking my words out of context. Try addressing everything I said. The rest of my post:

"That does not mean the embryos have no - or less - value than the child. How I view them personally doesn't matter. Their intrinsic value does. I value my family more than I value your family but that does not mean your family has less value. BOTH have THE SAME intrinsic value. I am making my decision based on emergency and emotion. I can see him, I can hear him screaming, I can see him burning. Yes, I grab him to save him. I can not hear the pre-born scream, I can not know are they going to be implanted, I can not know if they are alive at that exact time. I am human and would respond to the child. How do you equate this decision with the intentional killing of a pre-born human via abortion? They are not in anyway the same thing.

All human beings have intrinsic value. ALL. They do not suddenly develop this value, they have it from the beginning, from the moment they begin to exist. And when is that? If they do not have value, or if their value is less, then their value is not intrinsic and never will be. If they do not have it then the five year old does not have it nor the 90 year old. It must be all or none, there is no other way."

It's moral to commit a good act (saving the child) which may indirectly lead to something bad (the embryos being destroyed). In that case, my intention was to save the child, not to kill the embryos. Indeed, I did not kill the embryos. I just failed to save them from being killed. Again, my decision is an emotional one rather than a moral one. Why? Because the building is burning and the child is on fire.

Your scenario is the polar opposite of what abortion is and what abortion does. Abortion IS the intentional killing of a pre-born human being.

 

[Zoom-boing]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

Your stats prove my point, the majority of pre-born are perfectly viable while in-utero, exceptions are not the rule.

 

[Chuz Life]

I nominate this thread be moved to the rubber room. Any seconds?

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Abortion is designed to kill the developing baby, not give him/her a chance to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what? Your statement implies that the only reason fetuses fail to come to term, and survive is abortion. That is demonstrably not true, as the data demonstrates.

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

 

[Czernobog]

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child.

If agreed that an embryo has the same moral value as a child, I would grab the phials saving a thousand children, and let the child die, as grabbing the phial does the greater good, by saving more children. And you know that. However, you also know that you don't perceive an embryo as morally equivalent to a child, which is why you choose to save the child.

You can try to cover your dishonesty any way you like. Either stop referring to fetuses as children, or know that every time you do, I will recognise that you are being intentionally dishonest.

 

[Czernobog]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

I'm saying that it doesn't take an abortion for a fetus to be no-viable.

 

[hadit]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Abortion is designed to kill the developing baby, not give him/her a chance to survive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what? Your statement implies that the only reason fetuses fail to come to term, and survive is abortion. That is demonstrably not true, as the data demonstrates.

No such implication exists. Abortion is nearly 100% fatal to the unborn child. That's not even controversial.

 

[hadit]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zoom-boing]

Then, if they are morally equivalent, you should have no problem saying that you would save the phial of 1,000 "preborn children". I eagerly await your statement of such.

I would save the child. That does not mean that I do not value the embryos.

You, sit, are a liar. I could have excused before your position as one you had not thought through. However, you fully admit that you value an actual child more than you value embryos. This does not mean that embryos have no value. Only that you recognise that the child has more value. But you keep wanting to pretend an embryo has the same value as a child. If you truly believed that you would recognise that a thousand embryos have a thousand time more value than a single child. But you recognise that even a thousand embryos do not have the same moral value as a single child.

So, for you to keep insisting that an embryo has the same moral value as a child demonstrates that you are a liar, and are incapable of honest discussion on this matter.

Wrong. By your logic if I grabbed the embryos then I MUST value the child less ... because I didn't grab the child.

If agreed that an embryo has the same moral value as a child, I would grab the phials saving a thousand children, and let the child die, as grabbing the phial does the greater good, by saving more children. And you know that. However, you also know that you don't perceive an embryo as morally equivalent to a child, which is why you choose to save the child.

You can try to cover your dishonesty any way you like. Either stop referring to fetuses as children, or know that every time you do, I will recognise that you are being intentionally dishonest.

Once again, you cherry pick my post while completely ignoring everything else I've said then have the balls to turn around and call me a liar.

When you grow a pair, let me know.

 

[Zoom-boing]

How then do you define viability if not total dependence? Reeve couldn't even breathe for himself.

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

The pre-born are perfectly viable when they are in-utero. Abortion makes them non-viable.

smdh

You know that's not true, right? 11% of pregnancies end in miscarriages without any interference from anyone. And another 23% end in premature deliveries. Viability is the measure of a fetus to survive outside the womb, whether through abortion, or other means.

Are you actually saying that abortion DOESN'T make a fetus non-viable?

I'm saying that it doesn't take an abortion for a fetus to be no-viable.

I never said it did.

I'm saying abortion makes them non-viable.

Do you dispute that?

 

[Zoom-boing]

See, this is the problem when people attempt to use medical terms for which they have no understanding. Vibility is not a possible definition for a human adult. It is a specifically pre-natal determination: viability is the measure of the likelihood that a ZYGOTE will survive and develop into a adult organism. For example, seeds become less viable as they get older, and a diminishing percentage actually germinates.

Once a fetus is born, viability is no longer a valid measuring scale. For adults, like Christopher Reeves, the issue considered when determining whether to keep them alive, or disconnect the machines, and let them die is higher brain function.

Interesting. The likelihood that a zygote woo survive and develop into an adult organism is immeasurably higher when abortion is not involved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is demonstrably not true.

A million plus dead babies every year would disagree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I rather doubt that, since a million plus babies have never been killed. You are just dishonestly calling something a baby that you have, yourself, demonstrated you know is not the same as a baby.

I have done no such thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those in favor of abortion can't stand to have the truth spoken. They duck, dodge, and cherry pick what they respond to.