Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sci-fi-writer-baffles-abortion-foes-with-simple-question-would-you-save-1000-embryos-or-one-child-in-fire/

Thoughts?

The dude himself even admits embryos have value, so he kinda tanks his own argument given that an abortion isn't a question of whether or not a human child dies or if an embryo dies.

Still better then the several other shitty pro-choice arguments I've seen.

Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them.

Seems like now there is a question for both sides.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The dude himself even admits embryos have value, so he kinda tanks his own argument given that an abortion isn't a question of whether or not a human child dies or if an embryo dies.

Still better then the several other shitty pro-choice arguments I've seen.

Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.

So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.

So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.

So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them.

Seems like now there is a question for both sides.

Assuming there is a way to prove that the assault caused the miscarriage without a doubt, no I still don't think that's quite the same as murder.

Originally posted by Surtur
Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.

So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.

So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.

So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.


I'm pro-life but absolutely support abortion in the case of danger to the mother's life.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Assuming there is a way to prove that the assault caused the miscarriage without a doubt, no I still don't think that's quite the same as murder.

I agree, problem is people have indeed been charged for causing the death of a fetus. So in a state where that is possible abortion should be illegal. You can't murder something that isn't a life.

Originally posted by Surtur
Thinking about it more...I do see some flaws. A lot of people against abortion are in favor of it if the mothers life is in danger. If they are willing to put the mother above the fetus, I can't see why they wouldn't be willing to put a child above embryos in a life and death situation.

So actually wait, this is kind of retarded lol. It doesn't take into account people tend to be against an abortion when it's being done for no other reason than the person was irresponsible with their sex life. I am sure some are hardcore and would say even if the mothers life is at risk she can't abort it, but most are not that extreme.

So this seems quite silly, they have already shown they will put the mothers life ahead of the fetus, so the embryo thing is weird. It assumes everyone against abortion would be against it in any circumstance, that is the only way I can interpret the life and death scenario the guy put forth.

So this seems like something where on the surface it makes sense...until you thik more about it and it starts to fall apart.
victory by strawman.

good job, squirt

I'm not even sure Surt is pro-life lol, I think he just thinks this guy's argument is retarded.

that's why nobody on the pro-life side can seem to confront it honsestly and answer it. because as the author states: it's obvious to everyone that the correct answer is to save the child, vs 1000 embryos and vs 1000000 embryos.

someone wanna prove the author wrong without all the weaponized fallacies?

A stupid comparison.

Many would probably save a child over 1,000 full grown adults. No one was ever arguing human beings are able to form attachments with an unborn child in the same way they form one with children.

It's like asking, would you save 1,000 people or your own child? Or 1,000 babies, or your baby.

Originally posted by cdtm
Many would probably save a child over 1,000 full grown adults.

No, that would be idiotic. If the goal is to minimize the amount of suffering that would be an idiotic decision.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
No, that would be idiotic. If the goal is to minimize the amount of suffering that would be an idiotic decision.

Many of those 1,000 full grown people would probably wish the child saved over themselves, too.

Very idiotic. But feelings usually are.

Originally posted by cdtm
Many of those 1,000 full grown people would probably wish the child saved over themselves, too.

Very idiotic. But feelings usually are.

Yes, but we're not talking about each of those adults' opinion. We're talking about a dispassionate, logical means of minimizing suffering. 1,000 adults wins over one child. End of story.

1 Child vs 5 Old people (over 80)

Go!

I was talking about the books logic. If there's another argument going on, I'm not in it.

My main point is, yes, we feel differently about a fetus then we do with a baby we can hold in our arms, or a child we can see or conceptualize.

Just like we feel.differently about a middle aged homeless begger junkie or a bright eyed child with the world ahead of them. (Edit: Or what Bently said. Good one.. )

It's an unfair comparison to prove a political point.

Especially since this dude even admits Embryos have value, and is thus tanking his own argument since abortion is not a situation such as this.

no, he really didn't.

anyone want to actually confront the question with intellectual honesty?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no, he really didn't.

anyone want to actually confront the question with intellectual honesty?


Originally posted by Bashar Teg
that's why nobody on the pro-life side can seem to confront it honsestly and answer it. because as the author states: it's obvious to everyone that the correct answer is to save the child, vs 1000 embryos and vs 1000000 embryos.

someone wanna prove the author wrong without all the weaponized fallacies?


Tag, nothing "intellectual" here. You're talking about feelings.

'intellectual honesty' as in 'how would you likely confront the situation if actually forced to it.'

so yes: intellectual

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm not even sure Surt is pro-life lol, I think he just thinks this guy's argument is retarded.

Indeed, I'm not pro life. I'm pro choice, at least if it's done within the first trimester.

But the more one thinks about this the less sense it makes. Because a majority of abortions done aren't actually performed because there is a danger to the mother. So this is silly. We already favor saving the person over the fetus if there is danger. So he doesn't actually accomplish what he thinks he does if a person says "save the child". He acts like posing this question is going to cause a pro life person to have some sort of meltdown or epiphany about life. Epic failure lol.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed, I'm not pro life. I'm pro choice, at least if it's done within the first trimester.

But the more one thinks about this the less sense it makes. Because a majority of abortions done aren't actually performed because there is a danger to the mother. So this is silly. We already favor saving the person over the fetus if there is danger. So he doesn't actually accomplish what he thinks he does if a person says "save the child". He acts like posing this question is going to cause a pro life person to have some sort of meltdown or epiphany about life. Epic failure lol.

I am in full support of this....The apparant IGNORING of a certain Poster in this thread that is. hee hee

good, now learn to ignore your crack pipe for a bit.

Yep....great new trend.

Originally posted by juggerman
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sci-fi-writer-baffles-abortion-foes-with-simple-question-would-you-save-1000-embryos-or-one-child-in-fire/

Thoughts?

On the grounds that a pro-life person believes an embryo is equal to a human life; which is often the anti-abortion argument, this guy

http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/af843f3a-faee-4be6-8e2a-8cb27c2a07ad/16e8c22f-641c-4324-b962-b6db22bba1bf.png

So in your "LEARNED OPINION" Robbie. When does "It" become a "Human"? Pre or Post Birth?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
So in your "LEARNED OPINION" Robbie. When does "It" become a "Human"? Pre or Post Birth?

The hilarious thing is the guy didn't nail it at all.

Yeah but the baby pic was cute.

Originally posted by Surtur
The hilarious thing is the guy didn't nail it at all.

This is why you had to strawman his actual argument/point to counter it?

still waiting for a single honest answer

here, watch: i would save the kid and leave the embryos. in fact i would save a kitten and leave the embryos.

Watch that Daily Post Count there Bashy....

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still waiting for a single honest answer

here, watch: i would save the kid and leave the embryos. in fact i would save a kitten and leave the embryos.


You don't see an embryo as being equal to a human life, so this question doesn't really pertain to you. While a pro-life person's argument is many a time that "human life starts at conception", ergo their choice as proposed by this person's argument is: "save one human life or save 1,000 human lives", when we all know none of them would likely choose the embryos over the child.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is why you had to strawman his actual argument/point to counter it?

I used common sense and facts to counter it. He is describing a situation where it is a human life vs embryos. But most pro life people already concede abortion should be done if it's a danger to the mother.

But most abortions aren't life or death. He failed in his attempt. It's time to accept that.

Originally posted by Surtur
I used common sense and facts to counter it. He is describing a situation where it is a human life vs embryos. But most pro life people already concede abortion should be done if it's a danger to the mother.

But most abortions aren't life or death. He failed in his attempt. It's time to accept that.

Incorrect, many a time the pro-life argument is that life starts at conception; this is the argument he's attacking.

You failed in your strawmanning again as obviously he's not talking to people who are okay with abortions in the first 8 or so weeks or people who are okay with exchanging one-life for one-life.

Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect, many a time the pro-life argument is that life starts at conception; this is the argument he's attacking.

You failed in your strawmanning again as obviously he's not talking to people who are okay with abortions in the first 8 or so weeks.

No, it's not incorrect. Most pro life people support abortion if it is a danger to the mother. You are done, it failed. I know you wanted a "gotcha" but it won't be here. Sucks for you.

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't see an embryo as being equal to a human life, so this question doesn't really pertain to you. While a pro-life person's argument is many a time that "human life starts at conception", ergo their choice as proposed by this person's argument is: "save one human life or save 1,000 human lives", when we all know none of them would likely choose the embryos over the child.

Hah, I never subscribed to the conception argument.

More a "I think, therefore I am. Which would never have happened if my folks got an abortion."

I'm well aware there's an entire mess with this logic where gallons of wasted sperm and eggs may also have resulted in my non existance.. It's pretty hard to wrap ones head around, much less take seriously.

All I know is, I was that egg once. I happen to value my existence enough to wonder "what if", and can't really say "heck with that case, scrape them out."

Originally posted by Surtur
No, it's not incorrect. Most pro life people support abortion if it is a danger to the mother. You are done, it failed. I know you wanted a "gotcha" but it won't be here. Sucks for you.
This is why he said "1,000 embryos" and not "1 embryo" you flipping fool, he's not taking about a single life for a single life. Try and attack the argument he made; not the one you invented.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is why he said "1,000 embryos" and not "1 embryo" you flipping fool, he's not taking about a single life for a single life. Try and attack the argument he made; not the one you invented.

It doesn't matter, we still have people putting the life of the person before it. It failed. Like I said: there will be no gotcha.

Originally posted by cdtm
Hah, I never subscribed to the conception argument.

More a "I think, therefore I am. Which would never have happened if my folks got an abortion."

I'm well aware there's an entire mess with this logic where gallons of wasted sperm and eggs may also have resulted in my non existance.. It's pretty hard to wrap ones head around, much less take seriously.

All I know is, I was that egg once. I happen to value my existence enough to wonder "what if", and can't really say "heck with that case, scrape them out."

Hence his argument doesn't really apply to you, he's arguing against the 'life beings at conception' type of mindset

the cognative dissonance on display here is astounding. lots of chest-pounding and no answers to a very simple question. 'nailed it" indeed.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the cognative dissonance on display here is astounding. lots of chest-pounding and no answers to a very simple question. 'nailed it" indeed.

The irony overload of this statement is astounding too.

Originally posted by Surtur
It doesn't matter, we still have people putting the life of the person before it. It failed. Like I said: there will be no gotcha.

IOW: "I dismiss the meat of his argument so I can feel like I've won."

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "I dismiss the meat of his argument so I can feel like I've won."

No, the argument ends up failing. If we knew a woman was pregnant with twins or 3 kids or that she'd have 8, I think people would still favor abortion if giving birth would kill the mother.

I know you wanted a gotcha, and I know why you wanted it with this, but it's not going to happen. But hey Bash will praise you, that counts, maybe?

Originally posted by Surtur
No, the argument ends up failing. If we knew a woman was pregnant with twins or 3 kids or that she'd have 8, I think people would still favor abortion if giving birth would kill the mother.

I know you wanted a gotcha, and I know why you wanted it with this, but it's not going to happen. But hey Bash will praise you, that counts, maybe?


Look at these twist. The number isn't two, three or eight, sport, it's 1,000. Again, try and attack the argument he made; not the one you've invented.

If you believed an embryo is the same as a human life, would you save one life to sacrifice one thousand. That's his argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "I dismiss the meat of his argument so I can feel like I've won."
https://i.imgur.com/WehXjph.png

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at these twist. The number isn't two, three or eight, sport, it's 1,000. Again, try and attack the argument he made; not the one you've invented.

If you believed an embryo is the same as a human life, would you save one life to sacrifice one thousand. That's his argument.

And I'm saying people already choose the mother over the life inside her, so yes they'd choose the child, and it would prove nothing.

But hey, Bash bingo'ed you. Props.

His argument is that no "life beings at conception" anti-abortion believer is going to choose the 1,000 embryos over the 1 child, despite the crux of their anti-abortion argument being that there's no difference between a born child and a clump of cells, when we know any sane person would choose to save the 1,000 lives, personal attachments not being in play. These are the people he's targeting in his point.

If you still can't get this, then check your brain.

Rob, accept the loss. Maintain some dignity. It just won't be happening.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, accept the loss. Maintain some dignity.

IOW: "I have no valid counter so I'm going to dodge the actual points, maintain my strawman argument and declare I've won."

Rob, put the shovel down please.

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, put the shovel down please.

^ Surtur feeling that shovel bashing against his head

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Surtur feeling that shovel bashing against his head

Are you threatening me with violence now? Typical leftist, maybe throw on a black mask too.

Choosing 1 child over 1000 embryos is irrational though. Just going by statistics even if you have 3/4ths that die before birth that's 250 rich full lives with a variety of a gene pool that we will just dump.

I think people don't understand what this kind of number and this kind of population means, potentially.

Originally posted by Bentley
Choosing 1 child over 1000 embryos is irrational though. Just going by statistics even if you have 3/4ths that die before birth that's 250 rich full lives with a variety of a gene pool that we will just dump.

I think people don't understand what this kind of number and this kind of population means, potentially.

Also people tend to not always act rationally during a disaster like a fire. They won't be thinking "oh well the statistics!". It's another reason why this fails.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also people tend to not always act rationally during a disaster like a fire. They won't be thinking "oh well the statistics!". It's another reason why this fails.

^

https://media.giphy.com/media/mHjBdBZuqBvJC/giphy.gif

Do you think people act rationally during an emergency, Rob? Because asking someone who is calm and cool the question is f*cktarded kinda. But hey keep on pretending.

Originally posted by Surtur
But hey keep on pretending.

said the silly squirt parading around with his imaginary "i won the thread" trophy.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
said the silly squirt parading around with his imaginary "i won the thread" trophy.

Lol, you aren't to be taken seriously. Especially when you consistently bring up this "winning" shit. You celebrate more pretend victories than anyone here. There is no debate in that lol. There is no clever quip or meme you can post to negate it. How's that feel?

Originally posted by Surtur
Do you think people act rationally during an emergency, Rob? Because asking someone who is calm and cool the question is f*cktarded kinda. But hey keep on pretending.

^

Doubling down on the foolery

Rob, take the loss.

anyone care to pause with the fright-barking and answer the question?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
anyone care to pause with the fright-barking and answer the question?

Bash, help your pal take the loss. I'd assume he would be used to it but I guess not. Guide him, teach him. He's Wolverine and you're Professor X. Help the guy out.

I know I know..you'll respond with what you feel is a clever quip. It's okay, it's valid. I am validating you.

Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. It reminds me how one way to truly test someone who is pro abortion is to ask if someone who physically assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to miscarriage should be charged with murder. Their answer usually tells you all you need to know about them. Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

Actually no, it's not. It's only murder if it's a life. Not hard to get. If it's a life, it's not lawful to kill it unless it's a threat to you. It's no threat if you were irresponsible and didn't use protection.

Anything else? Coffee? Tea?

Originally posted by Surtur
Actually no, it's not. It's only murder if it's a life. Not hard to get. If it's a life, it's not lawful to kill it unless it's a threat to you. It's no threat if you were irresponsible and didn't use protection.

Anything else? Coffee? Tea? No, murder is an unlawful killing. I can forward you some links if you like; every dictionary agrees with me.

Originally posted by Scribble
Not really, 'murder' is a term used to describe an unlawful killing. If abortion is legal, then it isn't murder; on the reverse side, the person assaulting the pregnant woman (if they kill the unborn child) is committing an unlawful killing, therefore it is murder. It's pretty simple, really.

^ Using logic and legal reasoning instead of emotions

Originally posted by Scribble
No, murder is an unlawful killing. I can forward you some links if you like; every dictionary agrees with me.

So why is it lawful for some irresponsible chick to get rid of a kid cuz she is too dumb to use protection?

I see nothing lawful about killing something just cuz you're an irresponsible douchebag. If it's a health threat? Sure. If not, explain it, have it make sense, spare me the links.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Using logic and legal reasoning instead of emotions That's something I don't understand: most of the right love to harp on about how the left allows emotion to taint their views on matters, and yet most of the right fall into that same hole when discussing abortion.

Raisen is a good example of someone on the right sticking to their principals: his stance on abortion is in line with the whole idea of not letting emotion cloud rationality.
Originally posted by Surtur
So why is it lawful for some irresponsible chick to get rid of a kid cuz she is too dumb to use protection?

I see nothing lawful about killing something just cuz you're an irresponsible douchebag. If it's a health threat? Sure. If not, explain it, have it make sense, spare me the links. It doesn't matter what you think should be right, at the moment abortion is legal and is thus not murder.

The reason why abortion is across the board legal is because of cases such as rape or medical issues. It's either all okay, or none of it's okay. Forcing a woman to prove she was raped so she can have a baby is pretty bad, and not always possible. We have to take the right with the wrong; I disagree with people getting abortions willy nilly, but it's necessary in a civilised society.

So that is your defense? I expected more. I'm kinda disappointed lol.

if there happens to be a pro-lifer with any self-respect and personal integrity, please answer the question. surely you must exist.

Originally posted by Surtur
So that is your defense? I expected more. I'm kinda disappointed lol. Posted more bro

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
if there happens to be a pro-lifer with any self-respect and personal integrity, please answer the question. surely you must exist.

Since you're someone without either, who are you to ask? Serious question.

Originally posted by Scribble
Posted more bro

But it's just...ugh lol. It's dumb, for you. It's dumb for you to say this, I'd expect it from others. You should know medical issues and rape do not make up most of abortions bro.

zero-substance and personal attacks. the cry of the defeated.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
zero-substance and personal attacks. the cry of the defeated.

So you aren't self aware, okay.

Originally posted by Surtur
But it's just...ugh lol. It's dumb, for you. It's dumb for you to say this, I'd expect it from others. You should know medical issues and rape do not make up most of abortions bro. I know they don't, but my point stands. Abortion disgusts me as a concept, I've said this before. But with overpopulation getting increasingly worse, and poor people less able to access contraception, it's a necessary evil to keep society stable. Banning abortion wouldn't stop abortion, it never has, it only makes it more dangerous for those who are forced to undertake it.

Originally posted by Scribble
I know they don't, but my point stands. Abortion disgusts me as a concept, I've said this before. But with overpopulation getting increasingly worse, and poor people less able to access contraception, it's a necessary evil to keep society stable. Banning abortion wouldn't stop abortion, it never has, it only makes it more dangerous for those who are forced to undertake it.

I get all that, but if momma can snuff out it out with zero consequences even if it's no threat to her, do you agree it makes ZERO sense to charge someone with murder if they punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries?

It was not a threat to either of them. Why's momma get killing privileges?

This is more about the rationale of pro choicers. Either it's a life or it is not.

Well I'm heading out for the night, but I will say this one more time: this is about rationale. I'm pro choice. This is why I know the pro choicers argue it's not murder because it's not a life. The argument is not "it's lawful". That is the problem. The argument from a majority of them is that it is not a life and thus not murder.

If it is not a life it cannot be murder no matter who destroys it. That is my thing. These are inescapable truths. This is why the only way to justify this all is if you acknowledge it's a life, but that you're lawfully taking it. If that's what they want to argue okay, but we all know the pro choicers do not argue that,they argue it is NOT a life. When they begin to agree that it is a life and they are taking it anyway, we can talk. Have a nice night.

Surtur's weird punching pregnant woman in the stomach fetish resurfaces yet again...

It's a basic point of consistency of principle. If the fetus has no right to life, you shouldn't be charged with murder. If it does you shouldn't abort it.

Originally posted by Surtur
I get all that, but if momma can snuff out it out with zero consequences even if it's no threat to her, do you agree it makes ZERO sense to charge someone with murder if they punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries?

It was not a threat to either of them. Why's momma get killing privileges?

This is more about the rationale of pro choicers. Either it's a life or it is not. I mean it is her body, she's carrying the life and is primarily responsible for it. She's the mother, for Christ's sake. If anyone has a right to take that life it's clearly the mother. I think that a father should have equal say in abortion, since the role of the father seems to be mentioned a lot less in arguments for abortion. But seriously, how could you not see the difference between the mother choosing to safely (for her) abort the child and some random person punching a pregnant woman? Do you have any sense of parenthood at all? The random person had no part in the creation of the life, they have no say in the extinguishing of it either.

Originally posted by Surtur
So that is your defense? I expected more. I'm kinda disappointed lol.

...for those who don't speak snark, if you have no self respect, by all means answer him.

So wait....


1000 embryos?


I don't understand the scenario. Are we pretending that these are in storage or something? Won't they all die anyway regardless if we save them?


I think the scenario means; "If every single one of these could become a human life through magic technology, which would you save during a fire:

1. Child.

2. The case of 1000 human embryos.

You can only save 1!"


Two answers:

1. I have the child carry the case of embryos and I carry the child. Simple.

2. I tell the child goodbye and save the 1000 embryos.



Seems rather simple. Why is this so hard to answer? Why does it seem like it is a "gotcha" question?

No feelings required. If he is a sci-fi writer, then he intends for this to be a future tech question, right? Then that should mean all 1000 are viable human lives. So the question is no longer a question of difficulty at all: you save the greater human life quantity.


But it would get much more interesting if this was 2 embryos and the human child.

Now we have a proper scenario. Same technology. Same scenario. Now which is more valuable? That's tough. I don't know which to save. I would need more information. Are the embryos related to me? Is the child? Do I know the child? Is the child fully healthy (if the child is very disabled and the embryos are special or something, then they should probably be saved...who knows, this is sci-fi shit).

Here's one guy's rebuttal:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#exit-modal

Thoughts?

I would choose the child. The only way I'm choosing a bunch of embryos is if there is a crazy population shortage, and I have the tech available to nearly guarantee development of the embryos will be successful.

As for pro-choice/pro-life, I would prefer a person give a child a chance at life, but not so far as to tell someone else what to do with their own body.

I say screw the embryos. You give me a thousand hot babes and I will replace each and every one.

^ There is always that. Even if they aren't hot, the embryos can be replaced with a little alcohol.

Well if they aint hot. The Booze will most def help....

Originally posted by juggerman
Here's one guy's rebuttal:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#exit-modal

Thoughts?

It is the same cowardice and intellectually dishonesty on display in this thread.

The notion that life begins at conception, and therefore human embryos have a right to life, is the entire premise of the Pro-Life argument.

It is the reason the Catholic Church opposes reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, which result in the destruction of human embryos; and why numerous Evangelical Christian organizations seek to adopt unused embryos.

These groups actually refer to in vitro fertilization clinics as "holocaust centers."

To someone who truly believes that life begins at conception, each of those 1,000 human embryos is a "pre-born" baby that deserves all the same rights as that five-year-old child.

If you do anything other than save the embryos in this scenario, you are demonstrating that you do not hold embryos to be as valuable as born people, and by extension, that you do not truly believe that life begins at conception.

It is to wake you up to what everybody already knows: that embryos are not persons.

By that same argument, if I saved one child over 1,000 men over the age of 60, would that mean I don't think the men are not persons?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
anyone care to pause with the fright-barking and answer the question?

Originally posted by Bentley
Choosing 1 child over 1000 embryos is irrational though. Just going by statistics even if you have 3/4ths that die before birth that's 250 rich full lives with a variety of a gene pool that we will just dump.

I think people don't understand what this kind of number and this kind of population means, potentially.

I always like it when they use the "its just a clump of cells" argument. Because it can be argued that "when are you NOT just a Clump of Cells"?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I always like it when they use the "its just a clump of cells" argument. Because it can be argued that "when are you NOT just a Clump of Cells"? When you have consciousness, awareness of yourself and some degree of intelligence, you are not just a clump of cells.

I for one will make the sacrafice and not save the life that life is ...ohhh say......some one like......oh geee....

Quote function is acting up

Interesting point. I don't think Christians believe embryos are equal to born babies, just that they are human life and shouldn't be killed. So if a child is considered a 10 and an embryo is considered an 8 then they should care about the child first but they still care about the embryo. It's just a different level. Same as saving the elderly vs children

Ben Shapiro's thoughts. Start at 2:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3X-BzsJCE

It is always enjoyable to see the Left try to show how they Value Life while at the same time doing all that they can to Devalue it as well.

Originally posted by juggerman
Quote function is acting up

Interesting point. I don't think Christians believe embryos are equal to born babies, just that they are human life and shouldn't be killed. So if a child is considered a 10 and an embryo is considered an 8 then they should care about the child first but they still care about the embryo. It's just a different level. Same as saving the elderly vs children Yeah there's some truth to this

Originally posted by Firefly218
Yeah there's some truth to this

Which is the point Bently's been trying to make, but keeps getting ignored.

It's obvious reading the sci-fi writers words, as well as people here like Adam Poe or Tag, that this question isn't in good faith. They say outright there's only one correct answer, and one answer, that "everyone" knows to be true, and that answer destroys their position.

May as well flip them the bird while they're at it, as proof of their sincerity.

Originally posted by Bentley


^^can't answer a very simple "this or that" question?

it's mind-numbingly simple. save the baby or save the embryos. no third choice. no hacks. no special abilities and upgrades.

Originally posted by Scribble
I mean it is her body, she's carrying the life and is primarily responsible for it. She's the mother, for Christ's sake. If anyone has a right to take that life it's clearly the mother. I think that a father should have equal say in abortion, since the role of the father seems to be mentioned a lot less in arguments for abortion. But seriously, how could you not see the difference between the mother choosing to safely (for her) abort the child and some random person punching a pregnant woman? Do you have any sense of parenthood at all? The random person had no part in the creation of the life, they have no say in the extinguishing of it either.

It's not that I do not see the difference. What I'm saying though is that a lot of pro choice argument revolves around it not being an actual life.

So if it's not a life...it's not a life under any circumstances. It wouldn't matter who is responsible for destroying it if it's not a life. That is my point.

The thing is that those who genuinely believe that a fetus is not just alive, but also an actual human being, will also naturally believe that a woman's body doesn't belong to just her alone once she's pregnant. They believe that the fetus deserves protection from abuse just like a child who's already out of the womb does.

Originally posted by Surtur
It's not that I do not see the difference. What I'm saying though is that a lot of pro choice argument revolves around it not being an actual life.

So if it's not a life...it's not a life under any circumstances. It wouldn't matter who is responsible for destroying it if it's not a life. That is my point. Well, personally, I disagree with those pro-choice arguments, we we're agreed there. It is a life... science back that up a fair bit. A life that sadly, due to our highly imperfect society, may have to be denied entry.

Honestly, saying it likes that almost makes me want to be pro-life, but I know it's not sustainable or feasible to have a pro-life country at the moment, so I gotta go with practicality on the matter.

You said that you're pro-choice too, right? It's just that you find some of the most mainstream pro-choice arguments to be flawed? If so, we are pretty much on the same page.

Originally posted by Scribble
Well, personally, I disagree with those pro-choice arguments, we we're agreed there. It is a life... science back that up a fair bit. A life that sadly, due to our highly imperfect society, may have to be denied entry.

Honestly, saying it likes that almost makes me want to be pro-life, but I know it's not sustainable or feasible to have a pro-life country at the moment, so I gotta go with practicality on the matter.

You said that you're pro-choice too, right? It's just that you find some of the most mainstream pro-choice arguments to be flawed? If so, we are pretty much on the same page.

Indeed yeah, I'm pro choice. I just don't like the fact there are some pro choicers who seem to think whether or not it's a life depends on the circumstances of its demise.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
The thing is that those who genuinely believe that a fetus is not just alive, but also an actual human being, will also naturally believe that a woman's body doesn't belong to just her alone once she's pregnant. They believe that the fetus deserves protection from abuse just like a child who's already out of the womb does.

If someone needs an organ, you can't volunteer someone for their kidney.

So it's hard to argue a woman should be forced to give herself over as an incubater.

Of course, the reality is more complex, with various agendas and "don't give a ****" finger pointing to go around (As a sexually active male, are you going to back the option that puts you on the hook, or that has a built in exit strategy?), but where's the fun in sublety?

Originally posted by cdtm
If someone needs an organ, you can't volunteer someone for their kidney.

So it's hard to argue a woman should be forced to give herself over as an incubater.

Of course, the reality is more complex, with various agendas and "don't give a ****" finger pointing to go around (As a sexually active male, are you going to back the option that puts you on the hook, or that has a built in exit strategy?), but where's the fun in sublety?
And this is why I don't push the pro-life position in the case of rape, because the woman had no autonomy in that instance, and is in no way responsible for the situation.

What you described to me with the kidney is a false equivalency to most situations, because presumably the hypothetical person someone is trying to volunteer for their kidney is not completely responsible for the situation where this other person needs a kidney. The pregnant woman in this situation has much more of an ethical obligation, being both this child's mother and not just some person, and through being completely responsible for the situation (assuming lack of rape). Plus this would be an active killing of the child as opposed to just not being willing to help.

Men should be held to the same standard though IMO. If you get someone pregnant, then either help them raise the baby, pay child support, or the both of you put it up for adoption.

And I'm sorry this isn't the cheap easy answer some people want where they can go out and **** whoever they want with no consequences because there are always potential consequences for sex and people just have to deal with them. I morally disagree with casual sex, but this isn't me "wanting to punish people for having sex" (which is one of the stupidest accusations I've ever heard), and I actually long for the day when this no longer needs to be a debate because birth control has been perfected or something.

Originally posted by Surtur
Indeed yeah, I'm pro choice. I just don't like the fact there are some pro choicers who seem to think whether or not it's a life depends on the circumstances of its demise.

Well Surtur, if you take a hammer to your car's windows and smash em all out, that's not a crime. If someone else does it to your car, it's a crime(vandalism) and they can/will be charged.

By your logic, I should be able to smash up your car without repercussion simply because you can. But I can't, because we have legal factors like intent, lawful and unlawfulness in the real world.

Wow I didn't think pro-choice people would actually try to defend this stupid double standard.

I actually didn't. I actually thought, defending this is beneath them.

Kinda the same thing when Antifa got brought up, I was completely caught off guard when people actually jumped to their defense like "How could you be against antifascists?!"

Huh... Ben Shapiro debunks Pro-Choicer's argument.

Starts at 2:15 mark:

Jf3X-BzsJCE



/thread

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Wow I didn't think pro-choice people would actually try to defend this stupid double standard.

I actually didn't. I actually thought, defending this is beneath them.

Kinda the same thing when Antifa got brought up, I was completely caught off guard when people actually jumped to their defense like "How could you be against antifascists?!"

Instead of just flapping your arms about, can you address the point? Intent factors in our legal system. It's why two people can kill and one person could be charged with Manslaughter while the other could be charged with First Degree Murder, despite each having killed another person

oh yeah? which did he choose? or did he dodge the question and tell a long cool story?

Originally posted by Robtard
Instead of just flapping your arms about, can you address the point?
If it counts as another human being with a right to life, both abortion and punching a pregnant woman and killing the fetus should be considered murder. If the fetus is just considered part of the woman's body or her property, it should not be considered murder to assault a woman and cause a miscarriage, even if it's still a crime.

The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).

Originally posted by Robtard
Well Surtur, if you take a hammer to your car's windows and smash em all out, that's not a crime. If someone else does it to your car, it's a crime(vandalism) and they can/will be charged.

By your logic, I should be able to smash up your car without repercussion simply because you can. But I can't, because we have legal factors like intent, lawful and unlawfulness in the real world.

A car is a piece of property. Do not come at me with another asinine example you're embarrassing yourself.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If it counts as another human being with a right to life, both abortion and punching a pregnant woman and killing the fetus should be considered murder. If the fetus is just considered part of the woman's body or her property, it should not be considered murder to assault a woman and cause a miscarriage, even if it's still a crime.

The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).

You'd be correct if we ignored that intent is a HUGE factor in our legal system, otherwise there would be no separation between the crime of Manslaughter and First Degree Murder as an example. When in reality and because of intent, the later carries a very much heavier penalty.

Originally posted by Surtur
A car is a piece of property. Do not come at me with another asinine example you're embarrassing yourself.

Look at you dodge my point on the legal factors of intent. But it was expected.

Originally posted by Stigma
Huh... Ben Shapiro debunks Pro-Choicer's argument.

Starts at 2:15 mark:

Jf3X-BzsJCE



/thread

No surprise, Ben Shapiro is intellectually honest.

I disagree with him on many things, but I can never call him insincere.

Originally posted by Robtard
You'd be correct if we ignored that intent is a HUGE factor in our legal system, otherwise there would be no separation between the crime of Manslaughter and First Degree Murder as an example. When in reality and because of intent, the later carries a very much heavier penalty.
Okay then if intent is important, then consider it manslaughter, but it should still be illegal and punishable by law.

Originally posted by cdtm
No surprise, Ben Shapiro is intellectually honest.

I disagree with him on many things, but I can never call him insincere.
Agreed

still nobody can answer the simple question of which they would save, but all of them are pretend-winning the shit out this. cowards.

Consider what manslaughter? I think we might be flipped on each other here.

Originally posted by Robtard
Look at you dodge my point on the legal factors of intent. But it was expected.

Rob, my car is a car. Whether I smash the windows or you do, it never stops being a car.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still nobody can answer the simple question of which they would save. cowards.

Shocking, I know.

Originally posted by Robtard
Shocking, I know.

https://media.tenor.com/images/3332cba8c30ea6266cb86695bb59871e/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, my car is a car. Whether I smash the windows or you do, it never stops being a car.

The car scenario was just an example of intent and it's legal ramifications; which is the issue/point, do continue to ignore that and do your pretend wins.

Originally posted by Robtard
The car scenario was just an example of intent and it's legal ramifications; which is the issue/point, do continue to ignore that and do your pretend wins.

And you quoted me specifically saying I do not like pro choicers who decide if its a life or not based on the circumstances of demise lol.

So why would you pick that quote to give your asinine example to?

Let me say again: either it's a life or it isn't. It does not magically become a life if someone else kills it, but if momma does it's just a bunch of cells.

And I'm talking more about the stupidity of some pro choicers views.

Because intent... which you're ignoring... because you're Surtur....

Originally posted by Robtard
Because intent... which you're ignoring... because you're Surtur....

And Rob, intent does not dictate whether or not something is a life. It either is or isn't.

Again: either it's a life or it's not.

The point: Intent factors in when something is a crime or is not a crime or is a lesser crime or is a greater crime. It's why a person can kill another person and get off free or life in prison or something in between. Your myopia won't change that.

So you're just going to have to keep your gut-punching of pregnant women fetish as a fantasy. Maybe write your congressman.

are we talking about sentient life or just life in general? because bacteria are living things as well, also just about as sentient as an embryo.

Originally posted by Robtard
The point: Intent factors in when something is a crime or is not a crime or is a lesser crime or is a greater crime. Your myopia won't change that.

So you're just going to have to keep your gut-punching of pregnant women fetish as a fantasy. Maybe write your congressman.

And with intent, if you consider it a life...snuffing out the life because you were dumb and irresponsible is no better intent than some dude who just wants to punch a pregnant lady.

But that isn't my point. Either it's a life or it is not. If they do not consider it a life then it can't be killed, no matter who destroys it.

I feel like I'm being pretty clear here: you don't get to dictate whether or not it is a life based on WHO kills it. That is insanity.

Originally posted by Surtur
And with intent, if you consider it a life...snuffing out the life because you were dumb and irresponsible is no better intent than some dude who just wants to punch a pregnant lady.

But that isn't my point. Either it's a life or it is not. If they do not consider it a life then it can't be killed, no matter who destroys it.

I feel like I'm being pretty clear here: you don't get to dictate whether or not it is a life based on WHO kills it. That is insanity.

As noted above, it's why someone can kill another person and they could get off free, life in prison or something in between; we don't have just one sentence for killing a person, there are many factors. Same applies to other laws obvs. I do like how you're back to exposing your true motive of always blanket blaming the woman as "dumb and irresponsible". Anyhow, intent.

Intent, lawfulness and unlawfulness say otherwise. That's how the legal system works.

The only one trying to dictate something here is you, sport.

This is a somewhat silly thread. Life begins at conception... No life began before that as both the eggs and sperm are living cells, the zygote and early stages of development are merely a shared diploid life. They are not in anyway a developed human and often self-abort anyway, sad for parents trying to have children as that may be. Every time Surtur wanks he is aborting his genetic potential to procreate... hurrah! Present laws re: abortion are just about right.

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
This is a somewhat silly thread. Life begins at conception... No life began before that as both the eggs and sperm are living cells, the zygote and early stages of development are merely a shared diploid life. They are not in anyway a developed human and often self-abort anyway, sad for parents trying to have children as that may be. Every time Surtur wanks he is aborting his genetic potential to procreate... hurrah! Present laws re: abortion are just about right.

^ Reasonable

Originally posted by Steve Zodiac
Every time Surtur wanks he is aborting his genetic potential to procreate... hurrah!


https://i.imgur.com/BVgCYsk.gif

Originally posted by juggerman
I don't think Christians believe embryos are equal to born babies, just that they are human life and shouldn't be killed. So if a child is considered a 10 and an embryo is considered an 8 then they should care about the child first but they still care about the embryo. It's just a different level. Same as saving the elderly vs children

That is precisely what they claim to believe. That is why they refer to embryos as "pre-born" people. It is the entire premise of their anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia arguments. They do not believe in levels of personhood or value. In fact, that is one of the charges they make against people who are Pro-Choice, that they believe some human lives are more important than others. Stop dancing.

Originally posted by juggerman
Ben Shapiro's thoughts. Start at 2:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf3X-BzsJCE

I could not care less what that intellectual lightweight thinks about anything. I do not know why conservatives are so impressed with him, just because he can articulate a coherent thought.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
If it counts as another human being with a right to life, both abortion and punching a pregnant woman and killing the fetus should be considered murder. If the fetus is just considered part of the woman's body or her property, it should not be considered murder to assault a woman and cause a miscarriage, even if it's still a crime.

The thing is, this dude even admits in his tweet storm that embryos have value, just that they don't equal the value of people who are already born, which completely undermines his point because in almost every case abortion isn't a decision on which life gets saved and which life gets terminated. It's a complete false equivalency to the actual ethical decision of abortion. Nobody dies by not getting an abortion (except for rare cases in which I think abortion is justifiable to protect the life of the mother if she'll die if she doesn't get one).

If it counts as another human being with a right to life, then there should be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the health or life of the mother, yet here you are with your Pro-Life* with exceptions position.

Originally posted by Surtur
A car is a piece of property. Do not come at me with another asinine example you're embarrassing yourself.

Fine. Your cat is a living thing. You can take your cat to the veterinarian and have it euthanized, but your neighbor cannot shoot in the head with a pistol.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^can't answer a very simple "this or that" question?

it's mind-numbingly simple. save the baby or save the embryos. no third choice. no hacks. no special abilities and upgrades.

The question you're asking is simple.

1000 embryos have a much higher chance of living longer than a kid ever would. A single kid can randomly die more easily. You don't know if you are buying 100 years, 10 years or 10 days. Put this question into terms that a law insurance policy would cover and the relative prize of a kid vs 1000 embryos would be. That's just hard rationality.

The fact remains that you don't need to consider that embryos are full human lives to choose the embryos over the child. That makes it so this isn't actually a rebuttal of christian beliefs at all -something you're fully aware of-.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it counts as another human being with a right to life, then there should be no exceptions for incest, rape, or the health or life of the mother, yet here you are with your Pro-Life* with exceptions position.
Because the mother also has a right to life. If the pregnancy is going to kill her she can act in self-defense. In the instance where it's not one life or the other though, I don't support abortion. I never supported an exception for anything other than if not having an abortion will kill the mother.

And only the Mother has the ability to determine it is an ACTUAL Human Life as well.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
still nobody can answer the simple question of which they would save, but all of them are pretend-winning the shit out this. cowards.

Lol. I answered it. I'd save the child. I'm pretty sure DDM answered it as well.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Because the mother also has a right to life. If the pregnancy is going to kill her she can act in self-defense. In the instance where it's not one life or the other though, I don't support abortion. I never supported an exception for anything other than if not having an abortion will kill the mother.

So you'd force a girl who's the target of an incestuous rape to carry to term?

Originally posted by Bentley
1000 embryos have a much higher chance of living longer than a kid ever would. A single kid can randomly die more easily. You don't know if you are buying 100 years, 10 years or 10 days. Put this question into terms that a law insurance policy would cover and the relative prize of a kid vs 1000 embryos would be. That's just hard rationality.


A vial of 1000 embryos does not have a higher chance of survival than an already living child. The longest I have heard of embryos surviving out of the womb is like 13 days. The embryos would most assuredly die, and because of some 1000 to 1 morality scale people are trying to use, you would have saved absolutely no one by choosing the embryos.

Originally posted by Robtard
So you'd force a girl who's the target of an incestuous rape to carry to term?
Rape is a conflicting point of two different principles for me and it's not something I'm comfortable holding a solid stance on either way.