Just out of curiousity...here's a little thought experiment:Originally Posted by sturg33
You're in a hospital which is overtaken with a rapidly spreading fire. You're in a room with a six-year-old child and a refrigerated container containing 200 human embryos. You don't have the time or the physical strength to grab both. What do you take?
Take the boy by the hand and have him hold the embryos.
The triple is the most exciting play in baseball. Home runs win a lot of games, but I never understood why fans are so obsessed with them.
-Hank Aaron
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
Why I dignify this nonsesne with a response is beyond me.
Basically the same as me asking the same hypothetical, where you can save one adult or a 9 month pregnant adult. WHAT DO YOU DO
Except it's not.
Oh... Well, that's convenient I guess
So, yeah...let's consider. A 9-month-pregnant person is materially different than a fertilized egg, yes? Or is it? Your logic, as I understand it, ascribes personhood to embryos. So your answer, I guess, is clear. You go for the frozen embryos, right? Not sure what's so hard about answering the question.
I noticed you haven't answered either.
But im happy to play your 4th grade game when you do
I'd help the nine-months-pregnant person. Your ball.
I'd help the kid.
Because the embryos require medical intervention for survival.
On the other hand, abortion requires medical intervention in order to destroy. Its literally intentionally disrupting a natural and healthy process to destroy a living being.
Why would you choose the pregnant lady? At what point are you no longer ok with an abortion happening? Why at that point?
Hm, well, I appreciate the honest answer, although I must say it surprises me. You've been so adamant about the full personhood of fertilized eggs that I thought that you would unblinkingly save 200 lives at the cost of one.
So what you've told me is that you are in a position that is not unlike mine, and not unusual: unable, perhaps, to fully accept an absolutist point of view and left to struggle to find a morally permissible position in between.
My position is informed by the individual bodily soveriegnty of the person carrying the fetus. The rhetoric of "choice" is actually meaningful to me. I consider the medical and legal framework that has arisen around the issue...28 weeks being the legal standard around Roe, with the understanding that medical procedure has advanced to extend the possible viability (with extreme medical intervention and 50% rate of success) a couple of weeks sooner.
So, I've made a choice that is to some degree arbitrary. The thing that my thought experiment was designed to underscore is that, despite your previous protestations, so have you. Everyone without an extremist point of view has done the same.
It's interesting that your Procrustean libertarian ideology does not extend to this issue. Welcome to the real world.
I think my answer is both reasonable and consistent. Those embryos require a lot of help in order to make it.
The more realistic question is the 1 month old pregnant lady, against another person.
In that situation, I take the pregnant lady.
Whew, don't it just suck when you're always getting called a racist for no reason.
I mean, maybe it is. But that's not really the message I've gotten from you over the years.
One academic question that is nonetheless possibly still important. How do you know a month-pregnant person is pregnant? She might not even know.
Not really sure I see the relationship between the questions.
Here's a more reasonable hypothetical. You have a chance to save a human embryo that will likely become a six year old human child or you have a chance to live a life that may be more personally comfortable and convenient. What do you choose?
thank you weso1!
And to answer this question, it depends on the future likely outcomes of the embryos and my emotional decision at the time. I may run out with the six year old for emotional reasons. But it doesn't make it the better moral outcome.
thank you weso1!
That's fine, but that's not really the point of the question. Sturg has indicated, in effect, that he believes that a fertilized egg = an independently viable human being. The question is designed to test that conviction.
No i havent. I've never said a fertilized egg is independently viable, and you know that
I've indicated that a fertilized egg is a viable living being that, without the forced destruction of it, will become a living human being that walks the earth.
Um, you're misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying you believe a fertilized egg is viable, I'm saying you believe it is equivalent to any other human life. Fertilized egg=hypothetical 6-y-o=sturg or Julio.
"deal with it yourself"
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote