Well Sup Forums? Do we just admit he has blown pro-lifers the fuck out?

Well Sup Forums? Do we just admit he has blown pro-lifers the fuck out?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=8N-H1lz3OJ4
johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro
dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm pro-abortion.

Of black children.

A or B, motherfucker

embryos, not fertilized
save the 5 year old, beat the retard that left them in there, then beat the kid for not running when they shouldve

False equivalency much?

The options should be: a the child and a pregnant woman screaming for help. Now choose.

Hey look, it's the tired old implication that abortion is only done on tiny, barely formed embryos.

False equivalency/False Dichotomy

*Yawn.

What race is the baby?

Damn. What a great argument. It actually almost happened to me once. I was in a fertility clinic and a fire alarm went off. I ran down the hallway and saw a five year-old child. Luckily, in the other corner was a container labelled "1000 Non-viable Human Embryos." So I just grabbed the kid and ran. God works in mysterious ways sometimes.

>grab the embryos
>they all perish from the sudden rise in temperature
brainlet

Except this has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. With abortion you're not killing a baby to save a toddlers life. This is just a retarded argument.

You won't get a straight answer with a retarded question like that. First of all, there would never be a container labeled "viable human embryos" out in the open. They would be in an unlabeled liquid nitrogen tank, which would likely have wheels and be insulated so it would retain the temperature for a decent period of time. Second, you can guide the child out while wheeling the container, effectively saving both. Unless the child is crippled there is no reason why they can't walk out under their own power if someone shows them the way. So yes, the correct answer is C.

>not choosing c, ending your own life and taking 1001 people with you
C
C
C
C

i was there to eliminate all the viable human embryos, good thing i found them. its why i set off the fire alarm
no witnesses
they made a pretty good sandwich

How about

Option A: two children
Option B: A very pregnant woman

OP is using a false equivalency. However I propose that my dichotomy I just gave is far more equivalent. The leftist will choose the two children, the rightist will save the pregnant woman, perhaps?

What kind of facility has a lone kid in a room full of embryos? who started this fire? How many pizza code words can i find in the room before we burn? This all smella like a deep state cover up to destroy evidence

asking the important questions

Why not just guide all three out of the building?

>yfw you just kidnapped a five year old kid
He wasn't trapped under a beam or lost, just in a room

>he thinks abortion doesn't save children from horrible initial living conditions

nothing does more harm to a child than a life in which it is not wanted

You just can't do it.
You'll try to change the question, or give yourself more choices, or change the scenario. Anything except answer a simple question - because you know even 1000 embryos aren't worth a single human's life.

The two children stand a better chance than a heavily pregnant one, especially if it involves taking the stairs.
That's a far more tricky one.

It's not about killing a baby. It's about which is more valuable. A single child or 1000 unborn embryos

Definitly c

but wouldnt taking the frozen embryos out of the container destroy them anyway?

I agree.

I'd save the 2 kids.

Also abortion should be legal because it is dysgenic.

It's a dumb question because you can do both.

Embryos are fertilized dumbass. Gametes are the unfertilized reproductive cells.

Embryo is fertilized by definition though.

>A potential embryo = a concieved life
lol wat.

I only skimmed the beginning, but isn't this just the trolley problem n an abortion clinic? And thus just a paradoxical result, and not proof against prolife beliefs?

um how the fuck are the embryos gonna grow outside of the lab

this is stupid

A

embryos anyday.
the potential of 1000 whites outweighs that black crying child

wrong cuck
youtube.com/watch?v=8N-H1lz3OJ4

Embryo means it has been fertilized.

saving 1000 pregnant women vs saving 1 child.

Embryos not attached to a womb are already dead.

Even artificially inseminated zygotes need to be injected as quickly as possible.

So? Why the fuck does it matter? What does this have to do with abortion?

You don't abort things that aren't inside of Women.

We don't care any more about your free healthcare than you care about all those children you abort.

That has nothing to do with what that retard on Twitter is saying. And abortion isn't saving anyone's life considered the fact that the process of abortion is literally killing a living thing. You're an idiot.

Same situation, but there is a nigger and a normal white kid. You can only save one. Which do you chose?

Just because one is more important than the other doesn't mean they aren't both important. It also makes sense from an evolutionary perspective to save the oldest child because most babies used to die anyways.

>1000 viable human Embryos

I thought it was okay to kill Embryos because they aren't viable?

So which is it?

I throw both at the fire to distract it while I continue to loot the facility, and posssibly set a few additional fires to compliment the one I've already started. .

It still has absolutely nothing to do with abortion at all.

I'm a dummy, let's see who truly values life and what kind of life

A building is burning and you have the strength of two men but only time to pick one option

Option A: Two (2) women
Option B: A pregnant woman

Anti-abortion isn't about saving lives, its about preventing murder dipshit.
Grown men, cripples or elderly is also not equivalent to a child, does that means its ok to kill them at any point in life because of arbitrary definition of age dependent value of human life?

How long is my refractory period in this scenario? I might have to time to save two pregnant women.

The man who set the fire is the killer. The option is A because there is no refrigerating unit outside. Pregnancy doesn't kill anymore, hence being forced to choose changes nothing of the value discrepancy between irresponsibility lifestyle of the mother, and dehumanizing life to kill it. And you're a retard.

here's another good question, you HAVE to choose one

a) punch a pregnant woman in the stomach, killing the embryo
b) punch a three year old child to death

How the fuck would you carry 1000 embryos? are they in some sort of container? how much does all this shit weigh? Even if I low ball the number at one pound per embryo i'm looking at around 1100 to 1200 pounds to carry counting whatever is containing them. If they were transportable however I would tell the faggy little kid to follow me as i carried out the embryos, he has legs

>5 year old in a fertility clinic
Is she black or mexican?

>Make abortion illegal
>No more abortion clinics to spontaneously catch fire with 5 year olds in them

One pregnant woman and one regular.

Pregnant women only weigh 20 pounds extra.

The pregnant woman because why the fuck can't the two otherwise healthy women help themselves?

B: child may be male, worth more than all of them.

What's impeding the two women from walking?
Until a new variable enters the thought experiment, I will continue to assume they can act independently.

I would save neither. Because not saving a life and murdering out of convenience are two completely different things and still false equivalence in any form.

But I would also save the child over a newborn infant, over a thousand infants.

And I would save my own newborn infant over any number of strangers of any age.

So maybe these thought experiments prove nothing about what counts as human.

It's a pointless question to ask and not particularly relevant to the overall debate on abortion. It's obviously been thought up by someone who's either incredibly disingenuous or an actual brainlet who thinks very highly of himself. To equate this scenario with the larger abortion debate you have to start from a point where several assumptions have already been made.
>That abortion is only performed on tiny, non-viable embryos.
>That recognizing a difference between these embryos and a five year old child means that you must be okay with their indiscriminate extermination
>That this is an all or nothing debate

I reject all of these premises because they're not logical. OP is essentially saying that if you think murder is okay with rape then you must accept rape as being moral and legal. It's fundamentally ridiculous.

You can't
They're women that's why, they probably choked on smoke because of screaming

>False Dichotomy

nope, it is a fictitious scenario... within the constraints of the question/the world in which you've ended up with this bizarre choice/dilemma you can chose one or the other

>False equivalency

yes, there is a false equivalence and that is what the author highlighting - an actual child is in no way equivalent to an embryo or multiple embryos

i'll save the 100 pregnant woman over the one child.

He left out skin color, not enough data to solve the problem.

If it's crying nigglets then who cares. An empty embryo container is probably worth more.

>You can't
You don't know that.

>you think murder is okay with rape
Is worse than rape*

The real answer is to get the fuck out of the building as fast as possible so you don't risk the life of a highly trained firefighter because he has to carry your fat ass down a flight of stairs after you pass out because you stopped to take the time needed to read a sign on a random embryo storage container while a fucking fire alarm is going off...
>also...
>why the fuck is a child alone in a sperm/egg donation clinic...

Change embryos with Children.
Change children with old people.
Does it mean you want to kill old people because you'd rather save the children?

Your country is a cesspool by your own design and hand. The purpose of the question is to create some kind of logical paradox for a pro lifer.

The problem is that it destroys itself on asking. My correction fixes the issue. The original faggot who presented the question knew it was broken and included the clause you presented as a response. This only proves how wrong he is and more importantly that he was wrong from the start.

That faggot and you both seem to believe that a fertilized egg and a baby growing in the womb are the same thing. They are not.

Equal rights.
Fuck them bitches.

That's the point of this moral question. I don't care if you're irl Rambo or Boogie1986

What color is the kid?

>You can't
Explain why.
Thought experiments involving fires are usually shit because the maker doesn't lay out what you can or cannot do, just like OP's b8post

depends on the race of the kid

Embryos outside of a mother are not actually 'viable'

johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
>98.3% of abortions in the US are elective
averaged from every state
abortion doesnt save lives as much as it takes them, by a margin as wide as your mom
i dont need some intellectual with a stupid false equivalency question to know that

Try this one weird thought exercise that makes carving a baby out of a womb a totally moral, mundane event!

I don't get it, why is choosing A implying that I am a hypocrite for being anti-abortion?

It's a goddamn QuickTime event. I can't believe is the only one to answer the question

A, Obviously. But it is a false equivalency. Abortion isn't a "Choose one, a child or an embryo" situation. There isn't a child who will die if a fetus isn't aborted. The fetus is being killed for no reason. Here's a better scenario

>You're in a fertility clinic, and the fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit, and as you run down the hallway, you notice a doctor throwing children into the fire. Do you A. Stop him, or B. not stop him.

Is the child white?

What percentage of the embyros are white? if I am saving 200 white embyros but saving 800 nigger embryos at the same time, then it isn't worth it.

They needed to be more specific.

Now make the choice between a bed-ridden, 90 year old and a 5 year old child and you will see the complete retardness of this 'thought experiment.'

>Pick the two women
>Impregnate them
>Now you have 2 pregnant women

ben shapiro already ripped this guy to pieces.

dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro

>1. Moral Instinct Does Not Always Mean Correct Moral Decisionmaking. We all have the moral instinct to save the child. That does not mean that the instinct is either correct or justifiable. A few quick thought experiments suffice to prove the point.

>...Or, say that instead of the box of random embryos, there are two embryos – and they are yours and your wife’s, your only potential children, and as in Tomlinson’s example, we know they will come to fruition. Your instinct could easily be to save the embryos rather than the five-year-old child. Would Tomlinson then say that the five-year-old isn’t a human?

>... 4. The Hypothetical Isn’t Reality. This is the most obvious rebuttal to the implication Tomlinson draws from the hypothetical: the case of pro-abortion advocates isn’t a choice between a five-year-old and a thousand fetuses. It’s a case of killing a fetus, by itself. No such hard choice exists in 99.99 percent of abortion cases. Which means that using such a hypothetical to justify a doctor killing thousands of fetuses out of pure convenience is simply ridiculous.

Sup Forums BTFO nice

let the embryos burn and save the living child. I would also choose the child over an 80 year old grandma. That doesn't mean I would murder the 80 year old grandma in a separate situation.

You didn't answer the question in my post and until that is established, we do not know whether it is possible or not. You are a shitty DM.

>You can't

No fuck you retard. In a real life scenario there are far more factors at play. You didn't specify, you don't get to take it back.

Two other two women can be overweight, rendering your "strength of two men" argument null. Anyone with a moral compass doesn't just stop at one, they do their best to save as many as possible.

slow ass abortion

dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#

That question has nothing to do with embryos or children, and everything to do with logistics, and the political environment. Are the units self-contained and self-powered? Will the embryos be taken to term and delivered, or are they there for experimentation? If I had guarantees that they were allowed to continue to grow (which is currently illegal) and become children, then yes, I'd take the embryos.

POP QUIZ HOT SHOT

>they don't even get it and try to argue against it

One of them has dyed haired and the other is wearing a hijab

Based Jew

this is a false dichotomy because practically no woman who seeks an abortion is in danger of dying if she doesn't receive one. the cases where this is true are extraordinary exceptions which no person can name because they are so rare.

kek

That won't impede my efforts.

The embryos will die if removed from their frozen container. A thermos bottle will not keep then cold enough.