Originally posted by SurturI 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.
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.
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:
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.
Originally posted by juggerman
Here's one guy's rebuttal: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.
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.
Originally posted by juggermanThat would mean you’ve evaluated the worth of each life differently. The Christians argue that ALL life is sacred, regardless of its form. So by that logic, a Christian MUST go for the embryos and leave the child to their death.
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?
Meanwhile, in reality if the average Christian was put in this situation they would almost always undoubtedly go for the child.
So ultimately, the Christian wants to control women’s bodies in the name of a principle that he himself does not intrinsically follow.
Originally posted by FlyattractorWhen you have consciousness, awareness of yourself and some degree of intelligence, you are not just a clump of cells.
[b]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"? [/B]
That would mean you’ve evaluated the worth of each life differently. The Christians argue that ALL life is sacred, regardless of its form. So by that logic, a Christian MUST go for the embryos and leave the child to their death.Meanwhile, in reality if the average Christian was put in this situation they would almost always undoubtedly go for the child.
So ultimately, the Christian wants to control women’s bodies in the name of a principle that he himself does not intrinsically follow.
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:
Originally posted by juggermanYeah there's some truth to this
Quote function is acting upInteresting 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