A question for pro-lifers:

Gerrup Outta Dat!

A fertility clinic goes on fire.

A five-year old boy is screaming in the flames, beside him, 100 fertilised embryos are going to be burnt.

You can only save one. Do you save the boy or the 100 fertilised embryos?

Mitch Connor

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

A fertility clinic goes on fire.

A five-year old boy is screaming in the flames, beside him, 100 fertilised embryos are going to be burnt.

Do you save the boy or the 100 fertilised embryos?

A pathetic question - exact same as those stupid kill 100 old people to save one kid 'moral' questions, and I thought the same when I read it on twitter a few days ago.

And I say that as an atheist, pro-choice, person.

Its a stupid question, aimed at doing nothing but making your smug-self feel smart.

What would YOU do in the same situation? You gonna kill the kid? If not, your question is pathetically moot.

Gerrup Outta Dat!

Mitch Connor wrote: »

A pathetic question - exact same as those stupid kill 100 old people to save one kid 'moral' questions, and I thought the same when I read it on twitter a few days ago.

And I say that as an atheist, pro-choice, person.

Its a stupid question, aimed at doing nothing but making your smug-self feel smart.

What would YOU do in the same situation? You gonna kill the kid? If not, your question is pathetically moot.

I, and most people, including pro-choices would rescue the child, this confirming that the embryos aren’t actually real children.

BoatMad

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

I, and most people, including pro-choices would rescue the child, this confirming that the embryos aren’t actually real children.

Hypothetical seanarios are just that , hypothetical .

seamus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

What would YOU do in the same situation? You gonna kill the kid? If not, your question is pathetically moot.

Kill the child?

It's a pretty facile question, but its aim is not so much to destroy pro-life arguments as opposed to make them think about it from first principles.

The idea is that if you're pro-life, then you consider an embryo to be exactly the same as any other given human, and deserving of full rights.

So if you had two children and you could only save one, that's a gut-wrenching decision, one that will haunt you for the rest of your days.

But if it's a child and 100 embryos, you will choose to save the child. It's a no-brainer, and save from a few odd individuals, even the most ardent pro-lifer wouldn't think twice about it.

So the aim is not really to go, "Haha! Checkmate pro-lifers!". But rather to prompt them to think about why it's such an obvious choice to put the life of a single child above the "life" of 100s or even thousands of frozen embryos. Their head tells them that the embryos and the child are equal, but their heart tells them they'd save the child. Why?

Mitch Connor

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

I, and most people, including pro-choices would rescue the child, this confirming that the embryos aren’t actually real children.

So there is a train going to kill either 1 kid or 100 adults depeding on which switch you flip - which you gonna save eh? EH? Ohhhhhh what a smarts questions I've provided you with there. WHICH YOU GONNA SAVE? EH?

lawred2

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

A fertility clinic goes on fire.

A five-year old boy is screaming in the flames, beside him, 100 fertilised embryos are going to be burnt.

You can only save one. Do you save the boy or the 100 fertilised embryos?

Everyone is pro-life. Some people are pro-choice.

That question is an insult to everyone.

Lu Tze

seamus wrote: »

Kill the child?

It's a pretty facile question, but its aim is not so much to destroy pro-life arguments as opposed to make them think about it from first principles.

The idea is that if you're pro-life, then you consider an embryo to be exactly the same as any other given human, and deserving of full rights.

So if you had two children and you could only save one, that's a gut-wrenching decision, one that will haunt you for the rest of your days.

But if it's a child and 100 embryos, you will choose to save the child. It's a no-brainer, and save from a few odd individuals, even the most ardent pro-lifer wouldn't think twice about it.

So the aim is not really to go, "Haha! Checkmate pro-lifers!". But rather to prompt them to think about why it's such an obvious choice to put the life of a single child above the "life" of 100s or even thousands of frozen embryos. Their head tells them that the embryos and the child are equal, but their heart tells them they'd save the child. Why?

Indeed, though despite the portrayal, most people aren't hardline pro lifers where this scenario might be a dilemma, but may have reservations about absolute unfettered access to abortion.

The debate is already old and it hasn't even started. Both sides painting the other as extremist. For some form abortion to be allowed, a line will have to be drawn somewhere on what is allowable. I don't think a straight repeal will pass, as in essence it would be the last time anybody with reservations would have a say. They need to propose legislation at the same time. Or an amendment to the 8th.

SpannerMonkey

Mitch Connor wrote: »

A pathetic question - exact same as those stupid kill 100 old people to save one kid 'moral' questions, and I thought the same when I read it on twitter a few days ago.

And I say that as an atheist, pro-choice, person.

Its a stupid question, aimed at doing nothing but making your smug-self feel smart.

What would YOU do in the same situation? You gonna kill the kid? If not, your question is pathetically moot.

^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shield

This is pulled from this tweet:

https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672

Despite the number of times this particular scenario has been torn apart as a false hypothetical, the moral superiority complex remains.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Tough question. Is the child a ginger???

Manach

This question, which the OP borrowed, was rather decisively refuted in detail by Ben Shapiro when it was posed : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZP-FhMKxac&t=975shttps://youtu.be/hZP-FhMKxac?t=0m2s
When Mr. Shapiro tried to engage with the author who created the question, he was blocked by him on twitter. In summary, creating facile & weighted thought scenarios are a disservice to both sides.

jimmycrackcorm

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote:

I, and most people, including pro-choices would rescue the child, this confirming that the embryos aren’t actually real children.

Answer this. You are swimming with three of your kids in the sea when the current drags them out.

Which one will you attempt to save, given that expendng the effort to save all three will drown you and all of them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

It's an idiotic question. There are only wrong answers, no matter how you look at it.

It's a loaded question which only serves the person asking it.

Press_Start

STRAWMAN FALLACY

What a baited, weighted and fully loaded question.
Same as
"Are you against abortion?"
"Yes"
"Are you against Hitler"
"Of Course"
"So if you had the knowledge that the next hitler would be born, would you abort that child"

Either answer will generate an explosion of insinuations eg
"You're actually for abortion? Where draw the line" or
"You'd allow Hitler to be born just for some moral high ground?"

Absolutel rediculous post. There are questions like this for any situation. A living boy has memories, his enire life ahead of him, friends, parents, accomplishments and can feel pain, hurt and emotions.

If the option was to burn an orphanage, or to burn a clinic, everyone would pcik the orphanage.
It does not black and white mean they are\ aren't people/ living beings.
I'm an Agnostic leaning towards Atheist, and disagree with abortion as a form of birth control, not nessessarily Pro-Life, and your question pissed me off, smelling simply like flame bait.

c_man

So the aim is not really to go, "Haha! Checkmate pro-lifers!".

.... That's the stupidest thing I've read in this thread, and that's really saying something.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Locking this thread as I'm not convinced the OP has much interest on a Christian/ biblical discussion on the question posed.