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

The choice is not both it is either

Obviously you are unable to choose

 

Partial birth abortion was a rare procedure that was done for gross abnormality

It is now illegal in the USA

Are YOU ok with the more normal procedure of "medical abortion" which occurs within the first wight weeks and involves the woman taking two tablets?

 

((((((((((Sigh)))))))))))

What a Troll farm response

Designed to inject more division into America - Russian win

 

There is a way to win. The way to win is to choose the 5 year old child thus saving the life of that child by rescuing him from the burning building.

It is a win for logic, reason and rational thought to understand that the life of a 5 year old child is worth more than cluster of a few human cells.

Its a win for science over superstition to realize that this small cluster of a few cells has almost nothing in common with a child having no thoughts, no feelings, no personality, no hands, no brain, no heart or any other characteristics that make a human - a human (except perhaps that this cluster is similar to the few human cells that die when one cuts their finger or when one has part of their liver removed)

Its a win for secularism over religious extremism, for secular law over the kind of religious sharia practiced by Islamist's - Islamist's who hate individual liberty and want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law).

 

It is not a ridiculous scenario as it points out the the fact that a child and small cluster of a few human cells are not equivalent. See post 119

 

Suppose that choosing (3) results in the death of both the child and the embryo's in the Jar. Would you still selfishly refuse to save the 5 year old child because "no one can force me to do anything - I will die first" ?

 

It is not because I approve of the choice, it is because you are being disingenuous about the choice that you would make.

 

Oh! Wow!!


Pro- life actually starts with looking after those currently living

 

Do you know WHY "partial birth abortions" were performed??

Are you aware they are no longer performed because the procedure is illegal?

 

Then what are you complaining about. Contraception and/or abortion reduces the amount of welfare the state pays out.

 

Ahhh .. what joy .. back to the days of Oliver Twist ...

 

There is no scenario that forces a person to do what someone else wants them to do. So I would try to save both. The first would be the closest to me. Also, it is not a jar, it is a large stainless steel container filled with liquid nitrogen. It can survive several hours without resupply. But if it heats up too fast, it is essentially a bomb. So I choose both.

This gotcha thread is disingenuous, and filled too many literal liberals that cannot think for themselves.

 

Ah we now get to the ad homs or rather the Troll farm fodder designed to divide America

It is a hypothetical.

BTW you did not answer my questions to you on partial birth abortion

 

Yes I know why it was started and that partial birth abortion or D&X was made illegal in 2003.

 

You do???

Then you would understand that the overwhelming majority were done for foetal abnormality incompatible with life

 

Yes but things have progressed in the past 15 years where diseases and abnormalities can be detected much earlier. As they say that was then, this is now.

 

I wouldn't choose because my only option would be to save the 5 year old child. You can't store 1000 embryos in a jar. I'm assuming the embryos are cryopreserved and therefore would be in numerous large tanks which would be impossible for me to move in one trip. Even if they haven't undergone cryopreservation they would still be in numerous containers and incubators. 1000 embryos in a jar would not be viable so there is no point in saving them. FWIW

 

I would save the older child.

If we were talking about choosing between a 6 month old baby or 5 year old child....I'd choose the five year old. Your argument means nothing. If two children are in danger and you have to choose one, you go with the one where you have a stronger relationship. Does not mean it's ok to kill your child at will.

 

Yes so banning the procedure did not stop late term abortions neither did it stop the necessity for them

Now I have to wonder why you even brought them up in a thread dedicated to a hypothetical situation

 

It is a hypothetical designed to show that often women have to choose between the needs of the living children and a potential child

 

No they don't if that 5 year old child were starving to death because his parents didn't make enough money to feed him, and the only assistance available to them was public welfare, most of the anti-abortion crowd would happily watch him die, because most of them are also the same people who preach that welfare is evil and if you poor it's because you are too stupid and lazy to be rich. To these scumbags, a child is only worth protecting until it pops out of it's mommy.

 

"Legal" is often only another word for "criminal". The problem is to think so is unreasonable. Tell me the exact reason why an evolving human being is not a human being before it is born. You are misinterpreting that a doctor has first to save the life of a mother before he is able to save the life of her baby. An unborn baby will under normal natural conditions not survive the death of the own mother, that's why her life counts on pragmatic reasons more. Even if a mother likes to give her life for the life of her unborn baby this is in most cases impossible. I heard in this context by the way from a pregnant woman, who decided to die on cancer instead to do an abortion.

My question was very concrete: "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?"

 

Makes no sense what you say here. Did you read, what I said?

 

Maybe so, I'm just questioning whether this destroys the anti-abortion position.

 

Yes and no

Most "anti-abortionists" do not want to acknowledge that there can be reasons for abortion. When you look at the statistics and realise that 75% of women seeking abortion are at or under the Federal poverty level then economic hardship is a real determining factor into whether or not a woman will choose to have an abortion