1 Child vs 1,000 Embryos

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.

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?

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

Only if they giver her the option of being the one to throw the switch on the electric chair of the Rapist.

And I will ask You again Robbie. When does "IT" aka The embryo/baby become an Actual human? Pre or Post Birth?

The Left seems to have probs with this question.

Originally posted by socool8520
I'm pretty sure DDM answered it as well.

He is the only one who answered it honestly, and with any principled consistency. Everyone else is just dancing.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He is the only one who answered it honestly, and with any principled consistency. Everyone else is just dancing.

I answered it in the first sentence of my first post.

Coming from Adam this is pretty rich.

Originally posted by socool8520
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.

If the embryos cannot survive then there isn't a moral dilema at all and this thread would make even less sense. You cannot be held responsible of a live that you cannot save.

Originally posted by socool8520
I answered it in the first sentence of my first post.

You also refused to confront the moral dilemma by stating that without access to the proper technology, the embryos would not be viable anyway; effectively reframing the argument as saving the life one person or saving 1,000 people who are going to deny even if you extricate them from the life-threatening situation. That falls under this:

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.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You also refused to confront the moral dilemma by stating that without access to the proper technology, the embryos would not be viable anyway; effectively reframing the argument as saving the life one person or saving 1,000 people who are going to deny even if you extricate them from the life-threatening situation. That falls under this:

Those are the actual circumstances in this argument though. Bring up a better one if you want a more morally wrenching answer.

Now if it's my child I don't care what the 1000 other things are I could save. I'm choosing my child. The one time I can say my emotional connection trumps a moral conundrum.

it's an unwinnable scenario for pro-lifers, so much like kirk did with the kobayashi maru, they cheat and hack the test rather than accept defeat.

Originally posted by Bentley
If the embryos cannot survive then there isn't a moral dilema at all and this thread would make even less sense. You cannot be held responsible of a live that you cannot save.

Absolutely. The posed question is stupid if you have read anything about embryos outside of the womb. From what I have read, there isn't even a 50 percent or better chance at survival until the 24th week of gestation.

Originally posted by socool8520
Now if it's my child I don't care what the 1000 other things are I could save. I'm choosing my child. The one time I can say my emotional connection trumps a moral conundrum.

This is also why I don't see the point of "engaging one's self" to an specific answer. For all you know I kill kids on my spare time for the lols.

If the argument is valid and relevant it'll remain so disregarding who among the audience sides with it or against it.