One simple question that destroys the credibility most of the anti abortion crowd

I don't understand how this is even a question, The Embryos are in a jar, and so they are all DEAD and cannot even be rescued.

 

Why? I don't disagree....who ARE you arguing with?

Good to know we agree that each stage of the cotton plant has a name....seed , seedling or sprout, plant....a gestating human has names for it's different stages also because one stage is not all the stages.

I never said it wasn't human nor life....it's just not a born person with rights.

]

Yes, a born person's rights are THE most important thing, without them we have nothing.

Well, of course it's for convenience!

If having a kid is inconvenient then the woman gets an abortion.

What do you think women get abortions for , the fun of it???


NOW do tell me how you have done everything in your life as inconveniently as possible.

YUPPERS! That's what freedom and liberty are all about...owning your own body.

LOL! I hardly think humans quit valuing life over abortions.....there's those nasty little things you want to ignore like war, rape, murder, torture, hatred,etc.

Humans devalued life without the aid of abortion.

Only what the woman it's in gives it....you are correct.

Thanks for the flamebait….but I only delight in keeping nosy interfering control freaks from taking away women's right to their own bodies so they have the same freedom you have to their own bodies.

 

No .. you just like to troll around You would save the child.

 

At the end of the day - the vast majority of those claiming to be pro life are going to save the child. Denial of this reality is akin to denying that water is wet.

 

1) there is a difference between a cotton plant and a human.
2) you are diverting the thread -- answer the question - would you save the child or the jar of embryo's.
3) in the case of the plant - as it grows all the cells are part of the structure of the plant - in the case of a zygote - this cell will never be part of the structure of the human being created. Not one single cell exists. The cells that make up the structure of a human will not start to be produced until after the blastocyst has formed - the hollow sack of cells in which the embryoblast will form. When the blastocysts starts spitting out differentiated cells - starts to create the embryoblast - now we have some cells that will make up the structure of the human.


So then - if there is not one single cell in the structure of the human under creation ... now can that human be said to exist ?

The human is being created. At the zygote stage there is no human because not one human cell that will be part of that human structure has been created.

 

Definitely. The point of the question is to show how the anti-aborts lack credibility. This is obviously shown by someone answering "the child". It shows that the embryo and the child are not of equal status which contradicts their continuous claim that they are. The point of 1000 embryo's shows how little status these people actually attribute to the embryo.

The other way in which this lack of credibility is shown is by the various mind bogglingly dumb and pathetic attempts to avoid the question. Many of these people are not stupid - they realize the implications of answering the question and so they engage in disingenuous avoidance tactics and denial.

Either response demonstrates a lack of credibility.

 

The question doesn't destroy anything. The child has a family who love him and would suffer his loss and he would suffer a horrible death. The embryos - not so much - not enough developed brain matter.
The child has a soul, the embryos don't - in my beliefs.
A pro lifer like myself would rather save them all but the question, designed to box us in and elicit a 'gotcha moment', doesn't allow saving them all.
It's so transparent - but I'm sure you were impressed by such a simple trick.

 

Wow, I'm being accused of no imagination, that's funny. OK, I'll play the game your way.

Too bowerbird first, no most 5 year olds don't wander away from their parents into strange buildings. Parents sometimes lose track of their children at the mall, but a fertility clinic, now who is spouting rubbish. For one thing, even a five year old knows what a doctor's office is, do you really believe they would willingly walk in and ask for a shot.

Giftedone, I love how you are accusing me of no imagination...so I'll play the game your way.

I work at the fertility clinic, as soon as the alarm goes off I start removing the embryos which are in a large container on wheels. Per your scenario I am exiting the building when I see the five year old in a corner. I grab the child and rush out the door with the child and the embryos.

The problem is like I said, the scenario is too generic and the OP wants to prove that a child is more important than a fetus. He set it up to get the answer he wants, that a fetus is not human and therefore not important.

I think outside the box, in hypothetical situations, you have to be very specific. Otherwise it is not a true way to measure responses.

There is a difference between literal and interpretive. I am not a literal person. Take this experiment here...write down the next thing I say "color", it would be about 50% would write the word color "literal" and the rest would write down blue, red, yellow "interpretive". Both technically are correct. There are no absolutes in life except death.

 

The question is not complicated - despite your disingenuous attempts to avoid it.

In a situation where someone put a gun to your head and said "choose" - you can save the life of a 5 year old child or this Jar of embryo's. What is your choice?

The child is not your child -although this has been previously stated.

And I suppose the third option would be to tell the gunman you refuse to choose and die.

 

What a nonsense. The moral problem "abortion" exists because every human being starts with a fertilization and lives in the first months of existence in the own mother. And this is the unreasonable side of the problem "abortion": A human being has to die in case of abortion. Someone kills intentionally a human being - and this is without any bad consequence for the killer. Do you really think someone had the right to kill you when you was -3 month old, but not so when you was +3 month old?

Your example had to be "save the child or save 1000 pregnant women". I would chose in this case the including "or" (and-or) and not the excluding "or" (xor) and try to save as many lives as possible.

 

And your answer to the question is ?

 

I'll play, I would choose neither. I as a combat veteran would choose to fight, shifting my weight from one foot to the other as this would be a difficult decision. When the gun came off the centerline of my head, I would spin off and proceed to kick the crap out of this person...and then I would probably shoot them.

You're right the question is not difficult, the problem is I have an imagination, and there are no absolutes in life. You or OP cannot make me answer the way you want me too, there are always options.

 

Maybe you should read post 81....

It wasn't a gotcha question it was a question to show how phony Anti-Choicers are....I do not recognize the term "pro-life" since most of them aren't pro-life once it leaves the womb.

 

And there is the problem with this whole scenario, it is geared to get the response the OP wants. Like I've argued throughout there is never just 2 choices.

 

So, just saying, but likely, taking the "Jar of embryos" would most likely kill them. Right? Why would there even be a need for a decision?

 

Yes, because at 24 weeks a fetus is still inside a woman and her rights count more than an unborn.

Once it's born, becomes a legal person, it is not legal to kill it..

 

Yes, in his example there are only two choices.....if you want 10-100 more choices then start another thread and ask your own question

 

Exactly right. And of course, it doesn't offer the respondent the liberal choice which would be to save neither and run away...

 

Just to give you a heads up, Democrat governor of Louisiana just signed a 15 week law. No abortions allowed past 15 weeks. The law was authored by another Democrat.

 

Of course it is a "gotcha moment' It shows the complete disingenuous nature of those who claim that a child is equivalent to an embryo (obviously you are not included because you answered the question correctly - only a deranged human would put an embryo on par with a living human child.

The fact of the matter is that even if it was 1000 embryo's - the child would be chosen. The fact of the matter is that an embryo is not the equivalent of a human child in the minds of those who claim it is.

That is the point. We can debate some kind of relative value but - the fact of the matter is that it is obscene nonsense to claim that an embryo "a human" such that it has the same value as a born living child.

The fact of the matter is that there are no valid arguments (in a legal sense) that justify banning abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. The reason for this is because there is no way to prove that the zygote is the equivalent of a child - or even that it is a human.

There is no consensus among subject matter experts on the issue - Biology/Philosophy/Bioethics. The best place anti aborts can get to is "experts disagree" = "we don't know"

While one can hold a personal belief - "we don't know/ we don't know otherwise" are not valid legal arguments - not valid arguments by which we should allow the state to use physical violence to force personal or religious beliefs on others.

The fact of the matter is that not even anti aborts agree with their own ridiculous claim - "Its a baby - Its a child"

If they truly believed this - they would save 1000 children over 1.

 

I never claimed all Democrats were smart or for American values like liberty and freedom, there are always exceptions.....may they rot in hell

 

No it is more fun to agitate people like you that are posting "gotcha" questions to try to prove a point that makes you feel superior. When confronted with other logical choices that you cannot refute other than to call names and tell me to go away.

And you say I have no imagination

 

Your answer is to avoid the question because you are disingenuous and lack credibility - which is exactly what the question is designed to show

There is no fourth option. You are tied up securely by other combat veterans - 5 of them in the room with multiple guns pointed at your head- there is no escape for you !

Choose - No Wait .. let me answer for you... You magically turn into Superman - break the binds that hold you and slow down time so you can dodge all 5 bullets coming at you.

 

Its a hypothetical .. I suppose we could research - say the embryo's were frozen - one could probably get them to a freezer in time to save most of them .. but this is not the point.

Dream up what ever situation you want - someone puts a gun to your head and forces you to choose between killing the 5 year old child or destroying the embryos.

Bottom line is that the vast majority of anti-aborts are going to choose the child.

 

So, again, the scenario doesn't allow for all options. Like why not simply run away? I know most every liberal I know would. Why not give them the opportunity to be truthful here? More, the other likely option is that you would save both, and die. So, the premise is severely compromised by the lack of potential reactions, or responses.

How about this one. You're wicked drunk in your drive it home Jeeve's Tesla, when the homeless woman walks out in front of your speeding smug mobile. Do you A) quickly take the controls to avoid the homeless woman from being run down, or do you B) not even notice because your Chateau Lafitte is "to die for" and it would be criminal to spill just a drop...

Ill make it even harder. The local klan members are having a rally, and you're worried you'll stand out because your high thread count percale from RH might not blend in with the others. Do you A) run immediately down to the dollar store, or B) to target to find appropriate sheets so you can participate?