1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

Started by Bashar Teg25 pages

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."

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.

^

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