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

Suppose you are in a building and that building is on fire. There is a 5 year old child in one room and a jar containing 1000 embryo's in another.

You cannot save both as by the time you save one the fire will prevent you from saving the other.

Which do you choose. A) save the child or B) save the 1000 embryo's.

 

12 views so far an no replies -and not a single vote

The anti-aborts are such a disingenuous bunch.

 

They’re pro life. They consider embryos to be humans. They would choose to save the thousand embryos because 1000 people is more than one person.

I’m not sure how this destroys their credibility. Maybe almong the pro choice crowd, but their credibility with eh pro choice people is already as low as it can go.

 

Considering that the five year old is in kindergarten, and has been through many fire drills. I would trust that the child knows how to exit at the sound of the alarm and save the embryos.

Any other stupid questions?

 

Well, two voted to save the 5 year old....they sure are picky about what is "precious life" and what isn't....here I thought they thought ALL life was precious

 

"They"? Were only pro-life people meant to answer?

I don't think this question picks a particularly large hole in the pro-life arguments. The fact that people often have unpredictable or contradictory moral intuition is pretty standard in any moral argument. Sure, it opens up a valid question, but I think there are interpretations of pro-life that work with either answer.

 

I believe that is who the OP is addressing with his question.

Maybe it doesn't open a large hole...it doesn't have to....their whole argument is one large hole, a black hole with nothing in it but hate.


You: "" The fact that people often have unpredictable or contradictory moral intuition is pretty standard in any moral argument."

I hope an Anti-Choicer or two reads that....

 

Probably. He wasn't explicit.

As much as I don't agree with them, I'd like the arguments to be coherent and well structured. Especially when they're labelled as "destroys the credibility of the anti-abortion crowd".

 

The title of this thread : """One simple question that destroys the credibility most of the anti abortion crowd ""


Seems explicit to me...

Maybe you should ask the Op how it does that.
But most arguments against Anti-Choicers pretty much destroys any argument they may have.

 

Kinda reminds me of another question posed once. Say your two kids are drowning and you can only save one, which one do you save? Or say one is your wife and the other is your kid. Or say one is your sister and one is your brother.

When I was asked this hypothetical question, I refused to answer it because it was hypothetical and the only way I would ever know the right answer is if it actually happened to me.

 

I read that as the thread being about them rather than to them. I wouldn't be surprised if the same were true for others who voted.

Ah, given the avatars, I mistook you for the OP.

 

Save the embryo's of course.

If the numbers are the only factor here.

How is this a tough question?

 

Especially human life !

 

And you would be rightly charged with negligent homicide Who said numbers were any factor here ?

The question who you would save, now how many. We both know you would save the child - unless of course you are seriously deranged.

 

No they wouldn't. They would save the child. Anti aborts - despite their protestations - value the life of the child more than the 1000 embryo's.

 

What is stupid is assuming that a frightened child will escape on his own - knows the way out of a building unfamiliar to him - or just one who can not figure out what a hypothetical is.

 

The point is one of relative value. A single human child is worth more than 1000, 10,000 or even 1 million embryo's.

You raise a correct point though - our moral intuition tells us that a child is more valuable - that the two are not the same - that a single human cell (zygote) is not the same as a child.

 

The difference here is that the question you pose is difficult to answer .. this one is a simple. It is a no-brainer that an embryo is not the equivalent of a child.

 

Being charged with homicide wasn't part of the OP's question.

Obviously that would alter my answer.

However it would be stupid to save 1 over 5,000, that would be deranged. That would have to be one super special human to be worth 5,000 of them.

 

I guess you are speaking of frozen embryos? If so, right. Development has stopped, no cell division, no process going on of the human being developing. No heart beating and no brain developing. So yes, I would save the 5 year old. Easy peasy. Right?

I think there is some difference though between a frozen, non developing embryo and a developing human being in a mother's womb, especially if the heart is beating.

So what if there was a 5 year old child and a pregnant mother carrying a 8 month old developing fetus? Would you save the mother and her soon to be born fetus, or the 5 year old. One way you save two humans, the other, one human. Which way would you go?

 

So you are claiming you would save a jar of embro's instead of a 5 year old child. I don't believe you.

 

What if the embryos are from a $hithole country?

 

The question in the OP didn't state that.

 

No, I would be saving the lives of 5,000 children unfortunately I wouldn't be able to save the last one.

 

As much as I agree that it is better to save the 5 year old child, and as much as I share your skepticism, what use is it asking the question if you are going to dismiss such an answer?