>in a burning building
>trying to escape
>hear a screaming child
>find child, scared and alone.
>also see a storage incubator with 300 embryos that just need more time before they are born
>have enough time to save one, the storage container or the child
What do? Why? Are embryos more or less important than the child? Are 300 potential babies worth more than the one child?
Other urls found in this thread:
the kid is 1 year old and the number of embryos is usually 100, nigger. here's your (you)
Fine. Its a 1 yr. Old baby or 100 fertilized human embryos. Answer the question.
Why couldn't the child hold the storage container?
Leave them both and save myself.
What race is the child?
>have enough time to save one
then you're slow and you should burn in the fire.
Runaway because I am pro abortion.
I know this is a question for pro-lifers but I'm curious how pro-choicers would answer this.
>yfw the child is a girl and has tens of thousands of unfertilized eggs inside of her
Checkmate athiests
the answer of solomon the king
Save the child, no question.
The child will die and suffer greatly. Embryos will feel nothing.
The 1 year old child. Why the hell are there 100 embryos in the first place is the question. Complete degeneracy that forces an immoral dilemma.
Embryos need 8+ more time plus they'd have to be unplugged and replugged in somewhere so wouldn't just unplugging them to save them kill them?
This is stupid.
This has nothing to do with abortion because you are not actually willfully harming whichever you do not choose. Choosing the child does not equate to destroying the embryos.
Is there any way i can know if they will be placed in wombs and carried to term? If yes, then save the embryos. A developing human is a developing human, regardless of the stage of development.
Thats like saying would you save a baby or two 90 year olds? Oh you'd save the baby? I guess that means its noe morally acceptable to go around and murder every old person that I don't want to exist...
>all this coy question dogging disguised as finding "holes" in the question by cognitively dissonant pro-lifers
Never change
Original question says the kid is 5. The answer is . You kid, grab onto me and follow close. While you carry or push the cart of embryos.
Embryos are by definition fertilized. The girl has ovaries.
>Burger education
I pick the actual, living, breathing, human being, lol, what did you expect us to chose?
Seeds aren't trees, eggs aren't chickens.
no doubt the embryos are supported using a specialised system that, without it's intervention, the embryos would all perish.
So the child.
>seeds arent trees
If you took a picture of a tree every day from the day you planted it until it was fully grown, could you point to one specific picture and say "thats the day that seed became a tree"?
youtu.be
Imma just leave this here.
The child is probably a freebirth.
Save the 300 future trueborn clan warriors.
You're starting the story in the middle.
Seeds exist long before being separated from the parent tree and are ready to be planted.
The day it could survive without an attachment to the parent tree would be the day I could call it a tree.
The army would probably save the life of the President over the lives of 100 ordinary Americans. That does not mean that the lives of 100 ordinary Americans are worthless and we have a right to abort them.
>Using an impossible hypothetical scenario to try and make an argument for like the 5th time today
SAGE
So then a seed is a tree, by your own definition. Therefore embryos are human by that same rationale
Life is always life, but all life is not equal. This is what differentiates us from the socialistic philosophy on life. We value some lives more than others, no one is equal and as much worth just because they are alive. A living child is worth more than those 300 embryos, and thus the choice is a very easy one. Still doesn't justify abortion, since that is voluntary killing of life, while in your mentioned situation there is a only a binary choice between bad and less bad.
I'd save the embryos because as soon as a child is born, suffering is how he gets into Heaven
What part of "could survive without an attachment to the parent" was confusing, brainlet?
Also, the "can survive independently" meme is such bullshit. No child can survive independently of its parents until its at least 5. Should abortion be extended to kill toddlers?
See
>Should abortion be extended to kill toddlers?
You're memeing, but there are sections of the abortion lobby, at least in academia, that says yes, infanticide is OK.
The slippery slope is real.
Best answer so far swede
I fucked it up. See
I semi-agree.
Abortion should be seen as a unfavorable last resort but should still be an option so that people who know they're gonna be shit parents can avoid making a future welfare-dependent, criminal and more effectively work on becoming less welfare-dependent themselves.
Abortions literally save you money.
A birthed child can exist for 1 millisecond without it's parents.
An embryo literally cannot.
Pretty clear distinction if you're being objective but go on ahead and just accuse me of "memeing" or whatever you faggot kids like to say to discredit people making better points than you.
See
Embryos have potential for personhood, children have actual personhood.
You don't just get to end somone's potential for personhood because you feel like it, or because it's convenient.
That said, actuality trumps potentiality, so in this case you should choose the child.
This argument is a false dichotomy; fuck off and die.
...
...
who's leave out jars of fertilized eggs? especially next to babies
>you'd chose this in a moral lose - lose dilemma
>it is therefore okay to willfully murder your own children if a woman regrets her actions
Im not seeing your point. So its ok to kill humans so long as you are sure they will not survive without the help of the parent? Should we be killing people in comas now? Even better, people in comas who we KNOW are going to wake up in 9 months?
Was literally discussing this in an an ethics class the other day.
This shit is real.
uk post best post
Sup Forums : "We hate degenerates"
also Sup Forums : "This practice that directly reduces the number of degenerates is evil cuz muh Abrahamic dogma said so"
Stop thinking about hypotheticals and get on with my life.
But I'll bite. If you have to save your kid or another man's kid, who would you save? Your own obviously, but that doesn't mean the other kid isn't worth less.
save both so you can abort them all later
>inb4 anti after birth abortions trolls
t. librule
>Save the kid
>Kill every (((doctor))) who authorized the unethical embryo extraction/fertilization and accuse them of their deaths
Problem solved.
Question implies I give a fuck about either an not my own ass.
1. Bash fire exit open using childs head.
2. Throw said child at batch of embryos knocking it over.. the water reduces the spread of fire buying me time.
or...
Get that little fuck to earn his rescue.. make him carry the embryos thus saving both.
It's not rocket science.
>humans
>people
Embryos are, objectively, neither of these.
Nice try, champ.
They are objectively human you illiterate retard
It has human dna, the differences between what you call human and embryo are superficial, its the exact same construct simply at a different stage of development. If humans have rights then those rights should naturally come into effect the moment you begin your development and end the moment you stop development. Whats the difference between an embryo at 8 weeks and a feotus and 8 weeks and one day? The same as you today and tomorrow. Prove me wrong faggot
Once upon a time the same was said of negroes. Some still say it to this day.
>arguing with MUHH FEWWINGS instead of scientific fact like a woman
kek, have a (You), why not
I guess we assume it has a battery pack? Iunno, definitely a stupid scenario
I am arguing with scientific facts. An embryo is OBJECTIVELY human. It's a living organism of the human species with unique DNA.
You're the one arguing like a woman going COME ON GUYS COME ON IT DOESN'T LOOK HUMAN IT DOESN'T FEEL HYMAN COME ON
Doesn't make sense, beign against abortion =/= killing newborns
It should be:
>1 fertylized human embryos or a whore's freedom to be a whore
Negroes are human because they can produce non-sterile offspring with other humans. That's the scientific definition of a species, brainlet.
>the differences between what you call human and embryo are superficial
They're not superficial in the world of facts. If anything with human DNA (your uneducated definition of a human) is a full blown human, then sperm cells are human. Prove ME wrong.
Sperm cells have the DNA of the man who shot them. Embryos have unique DNA that no other human on the planet has.
There, you were just proven wrong
>An embryo is OBJECTIVELY human
Except in any biology textbook, sure.
So twins aren't humans?
I love arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about.
>Eheh me so smart
The only difference between a fetus and a baby is 9 months
Potential human life is still human life, and even if it's not ,or even if human life doesn't matter on objective level (that's my stand btw) less abortions = increased birth rates
Personhood theory? Australia's most famous philosopher, Peter Singer, is a fan. It's more intellectual larping in bioethics than anything taken too seriously.
>be on a deep space research station doing genetic research
>Xenomorph is created using human embryos
>everyone gets eaten
>On way to escape pod
>Hudson's freaking out over the radio
>Go past medbay, its on fire. See child standing next to embryos
>can only pick one thing, because Xenomorph ate right arm
>Hudon dies over the radio
>get to escape pod with child
>greeted by some smug virtue signalling piece of shit smirking that the child was saved and not the embryos
>Xenomorph gets in the pod and kills everyone
>wake up in a cold sweat
>start laughing because in reality there would be no kid to save because he had already been aborted
I should have worded it better. It's a living organism of the human species with unique DNA. Sperm isnt. What is your definition of human?
>if I say it's biology then it's true!
Open up any biology text book right now and see. A dog embryo is a dog. A human embryo is a human.
I'd save the child not the embryos
so, sure, I consider a child more valuable and deserving of life than an embryo, when put into some bizarre scenario in which I have to choose one or the other. But that doesn't mean that embryos are worthless. I just value a human with thoughts and feelings more than a human that does not yet have thoughts and feelings.
Pro-choicers, if you're escaping a burning building and on the way out you're passing a container that has an embryo, do you pick it up and save it? Or just lol and let it burn and die?
Where's Ben Shapiro when you need him?
none. the human species has proven itself to be a cancerous plague on Gods Earth. we deserve extinction
>Potential human life is still human life
By that definition, any man and woman that want to fuck have already made a human life.
I'm MUCH smarter than you. Keep feeling me (You)'s to further elucidate that fact.
You don't have to let a baby die to stop 300 abortions. When has any pro-life person recommended leaving a baby in a fire?
I'm sorry you're stupid. I support abortion (even though it's murder) because it culls the scum. It should have culled you.
All I know is that I was complicit in snuffing out two of my own potential children, and the thought of it will usually bring me to tears if I don't block it out
>better points
>a creature who's gonna be a child in no time it's no different then a chicken egg
>better points
The child, obviously. The soul enters the body at birth.
The child.
Is this supposed to make a point about abortion?
You walk in to a room with loads of embryos. Everything is fine. Do you destroy them for no good reason?
damn, that's rough
do you have any kids now?
Twins are one human before they split. Once they split they're different because they survive independently.
>I love arguing with people who have no idea what they're talking about
Says the guy who thinks a Sperm is the same as a fertilized embryo. LMAO
No, and I probably never will barring something bordering on the miraculous
>in reality there would be no kid to save because he had already been aborted
kek, so true.
Read this,retard
yeah, I probably won't either
feels bad man
>It's a living organism
No it is not. A living organism MUST be able to (or at one point have been able to) live for a period of time without assistance from a separate organism. That's the line between life and death as defined by modern biology AND the judicial system, brainlet.
>Open up any biology text book right now and see.
Name me ONE book used in accredited academia that is stating that there is no difference between embryos and living organisms.
Should be easy considering "any" of them say it.
I'll wait.
So should we allow one conjoined twin to "abort" the other surgically against the other's wishes?
Been there, but only one. Will regret it forever.
Sorry user
Children have feelings
Embryos don't
Eh, we have it good in this lifetime in 1st world countries. Everyone has their struggles, I consider myself pretty blessed despite anything shitty in my life
>A living organism MUST be able to (or at one point have been able to) live for a period of time without assistance from a separate organism.
that's LITERALLY not true. Jesus Christ you just make up what ever the fuck you want and then pretend it's fact. No where is that the definition of living organism
Did you bill nye made a special about sperm and eggs
>Inb4 i have actually a made up degree in biology therefore all shit i say it's true
So we should just be able to throw out any retarded false dichotomy we want in an argument and jerk ourselves off like we made a point?
>No it is not. A living organism MUST be able to (or at one point have been able to) live for a period of time without assistance from a separate organism.
A feotus could probably survive a couple minutes after being aborted whole. How long is the period of time in this shitty definition? Are toddlers living organisms?
Btw i asked you what your definition of human was, not living organism. And all that biology textbook shit was another user.
Consistency in principles is important. If there is an inconsistency, an exception, then there should be a good reason.
If it were possible to extend the period of viability from immediately after conception, would it be ethically necessary to perform an invasive procedure on a woman to save the embryo?
>i'm MuCh smarter than you
Lmao, btw, now I now you don't have even potential kids lol
Also you know that a fetus in a womb who gonna be a person in 9 or less months is different than the possibility of two people making a child
Or maybe you don't becuase you're a dumb roastie
Ok then, show me, with a source, where I'm wrong.
2 people wanting to fuck has POTENTIAL for personhood. Is that a human being? It is by your definition, lol.
>Twins are one human before they split
I'm done with you lol, you're too deluded to even save. You just tack the word "human" on to anything that triggers your feefees instead of using biological definitions.
also.
>Sperm is the same as a fertilized embryo
I literally never said that. Show me where I said that.
>in a burning building
>trying to escape
>see a storage incubator with 300 embryos that just need more time before they are born
>also see a full grown adult woman screaming
>ask her whats wrong
>she says that she wants to be carried out of the building
>ask her if shes hurt or anything
>she says she isn't, she just doesn't feel like walking down all the stairs and out of the building, it might tire her out
What do you do? You can only carry one, the embyos or the woman.
Bitch, YOU were the one that said "Potential human life is still human life".
So by YOUR definition that YOU provided, 2 people wanting to fuck IS human life.
Get on my level, brainlet.