Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's the purpose of this exercise? I'm pro life, but a fully developed living breathing human being who feels pain should be valued over undeveloped human lives that have yet to reach sentience. That decision doesn't mean that the undeveloped lives are worthless or disposable. Nor does it mean that the embryos aren't human life.
Would you rather save your own child or 2 random strangers? Does your choice invalidate the notion that every person is valuable?
There is a fire at the fertility clinic. Your options are ...
Save the child.
Save the container of 1,000 viable human embryos.
Should there be an emergency at a hospital, would you:
1. Save one fully rehabilitated patient in good health.
2. Save 1000 intubated ICU patients in an anesthetized state, an unknown proportion of whom will make a full recovery.
If a respondent chooses the first option, is it necessarily because he considers anesthetized patients to be less qualified for personhood than conscious, rehabilitated patients? Or might he do so for reasons unrelated to the ethics of personhood?
Your thought experiment doesn't work because you haven't thought this possibility through.
It needs to present a watertight dilemma concerning the personhood of the unborn.
Who's no one? I believe that life does begin at conception. Embryos are still human. Why would anyone want to control women? If you think that's the agenda of the pro-lifers you are badly mistaken. This is about preserving life, not destroying it.
But I would save the child if I had to make a choice and that's the way I voted in your poll.
You're totally WRONG. This is due to the fact a court ruled that embryos are not human.
Yes, of course, it's true banning abortion is about the desire to control women. It's also about the desire to deny women their children. Are you so ignorant that you don't know may people who want all abortion banned want women to get up to life in prison from getting abortions? If they have any kids at home they will be denied those children for the rest of their lives. The children will also be without their mothers.
You're totally WRONG. This is due to the fact a court ruled that embryos are not human.
Yes, of course, it's true banning abortion is about the desire to control women. It's also about the desire to deny women their children. Are you so ignorant that you don't know may people who want all abortion banned want women to get up to life in prison from getting abortions? If they have any kids at home they will be denied those children for the rest of their lives. The children will also be without their mothers.
There is what is legally/scientifically deemed a human and what is spiritually/religiously deemed a human. Both forms have valid points on what it means to be a human but I honestly opt for the latter example as I was raised in a religious conservative home. FTR, I am not religious.
save one child, or save 1000 embryos. an interesting question to be sure, but what are the parameters here? is their time to try and save both? what if one was willing to sacrifice their life to go back and save the embryos? and what if in that act of sacrifice, they do save the embryos, after saving the child.
Who's no one? I believe that life does begin at conception. Embryos are still human. Why would anyone want to control women? If you think that's the agenda of the pro-lifers you are badly mistaken. This is about preserving life, not destroying it.
But I would save the child if I had to make a choice and that's the way I voted in your poll.
If it is about preserving life, (and that life begins at conception) then why did the Alabama law specifically exclude the destruction of IVF embryos? Why is is perfectly legally to destroy as many of those as you like?
Of course the correct answer is to save the child.
A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos. Or ten thousand. Or a million. Because they are not the same, not morally, not ethically, not biologically.
No one actually believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate and control women.
Interesting scenario.
One of my coworkers recently donated part of her liver to her child. She was not pregnant at the time but was told if she was pregnant she might not be able to safely continue the pregnancy. Under the new Georgia law a pregnant mother in the same situation would not be able to choose to save her living breathing child without risking jail time for potentially harming the fetus.
Hmmmm...would you rather save a jar of 100 million sperm that have the potential to fertilize a million eggs? No? Because of the magic of the fertilized egg? I guess potential doesn't really matter?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
