I've had an epiphany

[fncceo]

1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy

Embryo

Foetus

Neither of which is morally equivalent to this:

The difference being ... I'd only eat the first and last one.

 

[Czernobog]

Apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response? Tell you what. Go back, and read the entire response, then you decide if you still need to ask that question.

apparently you never got past the first sentence in my response?

The part where you killed a fetus?

Is the fetus a baby/child/person?

If not, what is it?

So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question? You find yourself in a position where a phial of 1,000 frozen ready embryos, and a child are in mortal jeopardy. You can only save one. Which do you save?

So you are going to be intentionally dishonest, and pretend that you don't know the answer to your question?

I want to know YOUR answer to my question.

No. It is not a baby/child/person. It is an embryo, or a non-viable fetus. And you know this to be true, or you would have answered the question posed before pretending that you think they are the same thing.

It is an embryo, or a non-viable fetus.

An embryo of a baby/child/person

An embryo that will become a baby/child/person. The distinction matters. It is the embryo of a human. Simply being human does not confer the moral equivalence of a child.

 

[flacaltenn]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

Nice Encore performance and victory lap. But that's not even CLOSE to what the former argument was. In that "experiment" you compared EMBRYOS to children. Not fetuses. There actually is more involved in going to this NEXT battle.

That's a difference without a distinction. Allow me to clarify even further, that I only refer to non-viable fetuses. After about the 23rd week, I concede that the moral difference between a fetus, and a child is negligible, at best. Which is why I do not, nor have I ever, been opposed to an abortion ban after the 23rd week.

Well there's the burden of this goal post move you've done here. Fetal "viability" outside the womb does not determine when there is a 'child'.

I'm NOT anti-abortion. I'm mostly pro-choice, but believe the practice should be minimized as much as possible. Also believe govt should largely bow out of the decisions AND the funding. BUT ---

We're talking about terminating a child. NOT when modern medicine can "support it" in a neo-natal lab. Because a decade ago -- that measurement was different. Terminating a growing fetus is at some point deeply related to taking of a life. Even if it's NOT "viable" outside the womb. Because of the highly advanced ability to sense, to react, to feel pain at some point. I'm not comfortable determining that point. I leave that up to debate. You can't TERMINATE that debate by waving your arms and claiming 23 weeks and doing a victory dance.

It's completely indifferent and callous to the gravity of the situation and WHY this topic is so volatile.

 

[flacaltenn]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

 

[Spare_change]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

"Well, let me see how I can phrase this so as to box in the responder, where he is forced to give me the answer I want."

Except that only works if the respondent is lying about his position. If the respondent truly believes that a single embryo/non-viable fetus is the moral equivalent of a single child, then a thousand embryos/non-viable fetuses has a thousand times more moral value than a single child. Which means I was not boxing the respondents in to anything other than honestly indicating the moral value they give to an embryo/non-viable fetus compared to a child.

It's not my fault that your attempts to draw a moral equivalency between a fetus/embryo and a child is intellectually dishonest.

See?

Your ASSUMPTION that I am pro-abortion, you think, gives you permission to avoid the comment about the value of your tirade. Your original question was phrased so that it neatly prevented any serious discussion - which, in the end, is exactly what you wanted. You got your podium - you spouted your nonsensical diatribe.

There was nothing nonsensical about my post. and I notice you aren't denying being an anti-abortionist.

Now, shut up and go away.

How about you shut up, and go away, or quit hiding in the weeds, and tell everyone your actual positions.

My position is irrelevant when discussing your intellectual corruption .... if you want to discuss abortion, let's do it, but let's do it in an open and uninhibited discussion, not one boxed in by your tyrannical re-definition of the issue.

I'm not interested in playing your game --- but I will be glad to discuss the actual issue with you.

 

[flacaltenn]

As with ALL threads on this topic -- don't make it personal. If you do you'll be ejected and/or warned.

 

[Spare_change]

Mods, please close the thread after this. I also think Cerzhog might be able to charge Vastator with mental cruelty, assault and battery

Please don't. I think this topic is worthy of discussion, and I refuse to let a racist troll every thread I am involved in, and force it closed. just so he can succeed as a troll.

Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

You have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to me, and the racist. So how about you **** off with your ignorant bullshit.

Once again, you prove my case.

When challenged, you immediately resort to emotional and sophomoric vulgarisms instead of presenting a logic and reasoned support for your own position. As I said, clearly, you really aren't interested in discussion. You're just waiting for a response so you can start talking again.

 

[Spare_change]

Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Hardly trolling. You deemed yourself as the arbiter of moral equivalence. So relevant background regarding your moral hierarchy is as relevant as it gets.

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

 

[Czernobog]

f you want to discuss abortion, let's do it, but let's do it in an open and uninhibited discussion...

The problem is that open uninhibited discussion is impossible so long as one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child. As long as you're willing to give that false equivalency up, I'll have any discussion about abortion you want. Or. let me even qualify that further, so long as you are, at least, willing to admit that that equivalency is a matter of personal opinion, I'll be happy to have that discussion. It is the presentation of that equivalency as a matter of fact that I have issue with.

 

[Czernobog]

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

No I didn't. you are lying again. Logic, and reason is the arbiter of moral equivalency. That is the beauty of facts. Kinda like the fact that you are an ignorant, racist troll. Your own admission is the evidence of your racism. Your inability to comprehend hyperbole is the evidence of your ignorance.

See what I mean?

You prove my own case for me.

Ohhh, but you did. You see... Others including myself are bringing logic, and reasoning to bear on this issue. And many are coming up with a much different answer than you.
BTW... There's a difference between a persons "statement of fact", and hyperbole.

You bring what you PERCEIVE to be logic and facts ... when, in fact, it carries no more credence than your opinion.

Wrong again. The only one here spouting unfounded opinions is you, hiding in the weeds, and just sniping instead of taking an actual position.

Were you the least bit interested in honest and open discussion, here I am ....

You aren't. I have offered no opinion on abortion - I have only commented about your intellectual dishonesty (but then, that's a proven fact).

Honest discussion can only start where there is no dishonest false equivalency being attempted. So long as you don't go there, I'm all good.

 

[Czernobog]

I presented a variation on a Sophie's Choice thought experiment, yesterday, with the intent of demonstrating the intellectual dishonesty of morally equating an embryo, or non-viable fetus with an actual child. When presented, I thought it wasn't a big deal. All I was doing was removing an irrational argument. I was confident that anti-abortionists would still argue against abortion; they would just use one of their other arguments. I realised that equating a fetus with a child was an argument of anti-abortionists, however dishonest it may be. What I did not realise, it appears, is that it is their only argument.

I am beginning to believe this is why so many of them are angry, and are accusing me of trying to force them to give up their anti-abortion position with the experiment. Because the only case they have against abortion is to create the false equivalency of a fetus to a baby, or child. Once you remove that false equivalency, anti-abortionists have no other argument.

I invite the anti-abortionists to prove me wrong. By all means defend your position that abortion should be prohibited by law using any argument that isn't "because they are babies/children/persons".

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

 

[fncceo]

one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child

If you unlawfully terminate the life of a fetus in most states, you can be charged with homocide.

So, the law must obviously see a moral equivalency between the life of a born or unborn person.

 

[Czernobog]

one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child

If you unlawfully terminate the life of a fetus in most states, you can be charged with homocide.

So, the law must obviously see a moral equivalency between the life of a born or unborn person.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 specifically precludes a fetus from being considered a person. Which means there is no such thing as an "unborn person".

 

[fncceo]

one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child

If you unlawfully terminate the life of a fetus in most states, you can be charged with homocide.

So, the law must obviously see a moral equivalency between the life of a born or unborn person.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 specifically precludes a fetus from being considered a person. Which means there is no such thing as an "unborn person".

Explain why Fetacide is a crime in most states.

 

[Vastator]

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

One person cannot legally own another.

 

[Czernobog]

one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child

If you unlawfully terminate the life of a fetus in most states, you can be charged with homocide.

So, the law must obviously see a moral equivalency between the life of a born or unborn person.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 specifically precludes a fetus from being considered a person. Which means there is no such thing as an "unborn person".

Explain why Fetacide is a crime in most states.

Because Pro-Choice activists were morons. They were sold a line of bullshit that the laws were only designed to protect expectant mothers who suffered miscarriages due to violent criminals. It was assured to them that the Anti-Abortion activists never had any intention of attempting to use the laws as an excuse to further their agenda. You know...what you're trying to do now. And the Pro-Choice activists believed them, and supported the laws. Trust me, without that support, those laws would never have existed. You know why every fetal homicide law across the nation makes an exception for abortion? Because the laws were never meant to confer personhood to fetuses; they were only meant to protect pregnant women. You know, the only actual person harmed by someone forcibly ending their pregnancy against their will.

Further evidence of this is the Born Alive Act of 2002, which unequivocally denies personhood to fetuses. Sorry. Your attempt to equate a fetus with a person fails.

 

[Vastator]

one side keeps trying to create a false sense of moral value for an embryo or a fetus by equating it with a baby/child

If you unlawfully terminate the life of a fetus in most states, you can be charged with homocide.

So, the law must obviously see a moral equivalency between the life of a born or unborn person.

And the Born Alive Act of 2002 specifically precludes a fetus from being considered a person. Which means there is no such thing as an "unborn person".

Explain why Fetacide is a crime in most states.

Because Pro-Choice activists were morons. They were sold a line of bullshit that the laws were only designed to protect expectant mothers who suffered miscarriages due to violent criminals. It was assured to them that the Anti-Abortion activists never had any intention of attempting to use the laws as an excuse to further their agenda. You know...what you're trying to do now. And the Pro-Choice activists believed them, and supported the laws. Trust me, without that support, those laws would never have existed. You know why every fetal homicide law across the nation makes an exception for abortion? Because the laws were never meant to confer personhood to fetuses; they were only meant to protect pregnant women. You know, the only actual person harmed by someone forcibly ending their pregnancy against their will.

Further evidence of this is the Born Alive Act of 2002, which unequivocally denies personhood to fetuses. Sorry. Your attempt to equate a fetus with a person fails.

Wrong again... Fail train rolls on! The born alive act removes any wiggle room for murderous mothers, and conspiratorial doctors, of murdering a child who didn't stay in utero for the full gestation period. Nice try.

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe it would help to describe the experiment.

Is it the one about a child vs 1000's of embryos in a fire? If so, it is expected that no answer will be offered.

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

 

[Czernobog]

It is, and very few were. Even those who answered tried to insist that it proved nothing, and I constantly had to explain the difference between intrinsic moral value, and relative moral value. I also was accused repeatedly of trying to force abortionists to change their stance on abortion. I honestly didn't see it that way.

It wasn't until one of the people I was engaging immediately altered his argument, when I finally got him to understand the importance of relative moral value, to "killing them is different from just letting them die" That was when I realised that this false moral equivalency is the only argument against legalised abortion they have, and forcing them to give that up, effectively does force them to alter their position. Which is why they cling so desperately to the false equivalency.

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

Clearly you don't understand how thought experiments work. You work through the experiment with only the parameters set. You don't try to reset them in order to make them more palatable for you. I set the parameters. You're only decision is to make a choice, based only on the parameters set. Your attempt to try to cheat the scenario is not a fault my set-up. It only demonstrates your disinclination to deal with the scenario that was set, presumably because you don't like what it reveals about your moral calculus.

You can ask all of the "What ifs..." that you like. Amy one would, likely, change the moral calculus of the choice. But, none of those "what ifs..." alter the fact that the scenario was not presented with any of those in its parameters.

 

[flacaltenn]

Are we gonna go back an REDO that thread? That thought experiment is ALWAYS subject to "relative moral value". Put 1 child against 1000 old folks. Or 1 child against 1000 convicted murderers. Or 1 child against 1000 dying cancer patients. It is ALWAYS relative. I told you WHY those embryos had value. You took a pass.

Great! then if you concede that the moral value of embryos/non-viable fetuses is less than the relative moral value of a child, then you will stop trying to create a false moral equivalency between the two, right? glad to hear that.

Now, I look forward to hearing your argument in favour of banning abortion that does not rely on creating that false moral equivalency.

Didn't concede that. Pointed out the value of embryos in a fertility lab. People put their life savings into that effort. That's QUITE a lot of "value". Don't appreciate you changing my comments. I also pointed out that the example is but one of a spectrum of moral tests that could be postulated about RELATIVE value of life. Many in which the single child would be the loser. Happens all the time in war. Would happen if the child was up against 1000 elderly people or handicapped. So --- the RELATIVE value matters.

If you can't get past the first thread -- maybe you didn't NEED the 2nd one..

I don't disagree, and if one of the parameters was that you were the owner of one of those embryos, that would entirely change the calculus. I don't remember making that one of the parameters. Did I do that, and forgot?

The fact that you didn't indicates the fluidity of your scenario. If you were responsible for PROTECTING those 1000 investments -- there would be a moral excuse for your actions. Maybe not a good one. But it exists. Folks would be financially and mentally harmed. And their lives changed.

You did understand my other comment that in many alternate scenarios, the child comes out the loser --- right?

Clearly you don't understand how thought experiments work. You work through the experiment with only the parameters set. You don't try to reset them in order to make them more palatable for you. I set the parameters. You're only decision is to make a choice, based only on the parameters set. Your attempt to try to cheat the scenario is not a fault my set-up. It only demonstrates your disinclination to d3eal with the scenario that was set, presumably because you don't like what it reveals about your moral calculus.

Way ahead of you. I know the method. That's my life's work. The NEXT thing you do is VALIDATE those parameters by varying them. See how solid the GENERALIZATION was. Get to it...