Would Jow Forums save 1,000 embryos or one child in fire?
Other urls found in this thread:
Is the child white?
What do abortions have to do with embryos?
Would you have 1,000 pregnant women or one child?
morality is based on emotions so people save the baby, people dislike abortion because of muh feelings, cant change that just present them with the facts
1000 embryos outside the uterus are already as good as dead. Stupid question.
The child because it's conscious and faces imminent painful death.
If it's white, that is. It really depends on if the embryos are white too, I guess... but assuming they're all the same race, the child in the fire.
That's not the choice a woman makes when she opts for abortion, sci-fi retard.
What a dishonest question. I'll save the dog.
I would kill 1000 jews to save one white baby.
would you fuck 1000 whores and get them pregnant
or jack off and forget the whole thing
>What do abortions have to do with embryos
I actually used my brain for once.
an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).
So yes I would save 1000 testube babies/pregnant women if I had to pick one.
If killing an embryo or fetus is not offensive then don't charge men who throw pregnant down stairs for murder.
>mfw this is posted dozens of times
>Jow Forums has never been able to form a coherent argument or even answer
This place is pathetic
OH SO DO YOU EQUATE EMBRYOS WITH HAVING THE SAME CAPACITY FOR LIFE AS A CHILD :^)
None.
I don't think pro-lifers necessarily consider embryos and born children to be the same. At least not all of them.
But there is an issue in this question's attempt to defeat the other side's argument by claiming their resolve is contradicting itself, in that the pro-lifer is probably not starting the fire.
> Baffling question
> doesn't mention race of children
What a faggot.
Oh look, another hypothetical situation that will never ever happen. Why do Lefties argue like this?
I'd block the exits so it takes longer to put out the fire, ensuring maximum damage
How is that a hard choice? The Embryos obviously.
Because a fetus outside of womb is dead, kill the child and ask what corpse would you save - now that's a better question.
>Pro-lifers
No user, it's ZOG'd and Anti-Semites now. There are only two sides in this debate.
>whataboutism
>You can't answer this riddle to my liking so you must accept baby murder
I'd save the child and then ban abortion lol.
I'm assuming for this that I have the technology to make sure all the embryos fully develop into children, since otherwise the question doesn't make sense since they'd presumably all be useless and dead.
If that's the case then yes.
That's I toughie, I guess I'd just say fuck it and marinate the baby with embryos and hope it God I find some toast to put it on. You can't have a BBQ baby sandwich without bread.
Wow, a hypothetical situation that would probably never never happen. You sure showed me, I'm okay with people murdering babys now.
Saving doesn't equate to purposefully killing
Would you save a 60 yr old man or a 5 yr old child?
let the child die in the fire
[spoiler]abort the embryos anyway[/spoiler]
One child duh
Unless the embryos were all supermodel clones
Well at least I'm not on the side that would unironically start said fire to prove a point about "hurr durr we don't kill babies" if they had the chance
I would save myself. I can always make more babies latter.
Stupid proposition. They could also make the argument that pro-lifers want women to be charged with involuntary manslaughter if she has a miscarriage.
I would increase the flame with a fart you sack of shill crap!
GFY!
*snap*
I would sacrifice six billion kike babies to save the centre of a doughnut.
Saving unborn life =/= death of born life
death of born life =/= saving unborn life
>here is a made up scenario and 2 choices without any options that both will end badly
>oh you chose that one? heheh, guess youre not so pro-life afterall
faggot
if they're outside the womb they're as good as dead, how fucking retarded is this question?
>1000 dead babies
>1 kid
obvious answer is the one child but
>1000 pregnant women with developing embryos
>1 kid
i forgot the left can't even make apt hypothetical situations without retardation
>Would i save the live baby over the embryos
Yes
>Would i purposefully kill 1000 embryos
No
It's a loaded question which doesn't equate to abortion, you aren't required to choose one or the other in an abortion scenario unless it involves the mothers life which it usually. doesn't.
The embryos. Is there some kind of trick to this question I'm not getting?
Why is this a hard question?
If I had the option to save an elderly man or a child, I would choose the child. That doesn't imply we should start a program called 'Planned Elderhood' where we kill our unwanted elderly.
So is he just going to ignore that his entire argument is based upon an emotional response while at the same time claiming that pro-life arguments are all emotional responses and therefore dumb? From a purely logical stance saving 1000 developing children will result in more lives saved in the long run even if 99% faio to develop fully. However his argument is constructed to make you "feel" more for the fully developed baby because it is making noise. If the pro-life argument is that life begins at conception then the only difference between the groups is age, the question could be changed to 1000 babies vs 1 teenager who makes more noise and nothing would be different.
save all the embryos
hatch them
raise them
make them all your sex slaves
plot twist you raced super models... they are all males
Perhaps a better question: would you rather kill one person or be forced to perform 1000 abortions?
this, and it just shows how stupid leftists are. removed from cold storage because a fire or not in a women and every single embryo would be invalid.
Looking at who gets abortions in an pro abortion. Fuck the left and the unborn of the left.
Damn, 1000 whores sounds like a chore.
I gotta choose the fap.
yeah, it's retarded. it's predicated on the idea that pro-lifers believe that life starts at conception, which is simply a liberal/humanist excuse for a religious belief. the life of a child is clearly worth more than a billion embryos, but retarded rightwing mutts 4d chess themselves into losing situations all the time.
Goddammit, this faggot's from Wisconsin.
an embryos life is not equal to that of a child however, that does not make it okay to kill them.
Pimpin ain't easy y'all
Embryos outside the womb are not going to be killed by rabid feminists.
I’ll default to my standard position. Is the child white? Or are at least two of the embryos white? Because if the embryos are all non white I’ll save the white child and then run back in to throw the embryos further into the flames.
Bruh look at this dago
Abortionists seem to think we live in an infinite universe where human life can be produced indefinitely.
pro-life: wants to save both
pro-choice: would let them both burn if saving either required even minor effort before or after.
Are his books this bafflingly retarded?
Did I start the fire?
false dichotomy
"c'mon kid grab an embryo"
>would you kill 10 old bedridden people or one child???
>o wow you chose the old ppl?? proof that it should be legal to kill old people
Faggot.
Sci-fi writer baffles death penalty foes with simple question: Would you save 1000 pedophiles or one child?
There's no guarantee that the embryos will become human/adults. In fact they are probably more likely to be thrown out eventually. Therefore if the child is White it is correct to save the child.
Idk I think most of the time the thread totally btfos the author, it's really not that hard considering the situation.
just turn the question around on him. since leftists would have aborted the child already there is no child
You have two options:
>Run into a burning building to save a child
>Try to stop me from killing 1,000 potential babies
Times running out, Batman. . . .
False dichotomy.
Saving both the one child and the 1,000 fetuses is also a logical option, as is simply putting out the fire.
WHAT RACE IS IT?
>1000 white embryos
>1 black child
Well Jow Forums?
>Implying I'd save anyone other than myself in a fire
Leftist accidentally admits that lives are not all equal.
Black kid will be as bbqed as the chicken they so love.
sci fi writer is retarded, we kill him and keep the 1001 humans
Pro common sense wants abortions for white liberals and POC.
MUH TROLLEY LOGIC
Hell no, why do we want mod democrat voters?
I would save and protect them all.
That is the only korrekt answer.
DELET THIS!
>cliam
what an illiterate fucking faggot
tchild has used up more resources than the 1000 embryos have, has proven potential for life and is in a good condition
the embryos have potentially been compromised by the heat effects of the fire, especially if you dont have time to save both
if they havent succumbed to the effects of the fire, they most likely will be in a subpar storage condition meaning the odds of succesfully moving them to a holding location within the timeframe required are lowered
I save the child because of sunk cost and certainty
This isn't even a dilemma.
/thread
people choosing embryos please tell how you'd save an embryo from a fire? removed from liquid nitrogren cold storage the embryos would be non vital or dead within minutes, the authors question is science fiction you couldn't save embryos unless you implanted them into women at which point viability still isn't guaranteed. there's a reason when women have ivf they usually implant multiple embryos because the failure rate is higher than the success rate of viability and successful implantation. also if you left a child to die in a fire you'd get charged with murder but remember the left lets you murder children so they don't even consider that aspect
This shit is so old though? Would you recommend to your own wife pregnant with your kid to get an abortion? How about your daughter. If the option presents itself, is it the right thing to pursue? I couldn’t imagine that it should be “safe and rare” if there were anything the matter with it.
>If you value different types of humans differently then you must be okay with killing the low-value humans
Hmmm
>baffles
I've heard this argument made back in 2007. Is it a good point though and why I am pro-choice.
>If I ask them this, they will inevitably picture their own child burning alive, and will of course choose to save their child
>I WIN!
Wow... I wish my daughter to have 1000 abortions now...
Depends. What race/ethnicity are they?
> If you answer like I want, I accept answer
> If you answer in a way that doesn't prove my point, you just didn't answer honestly
Why even ask, if he doesn't accept honest answers? The 1000 developing babies are to be saved of course.
>not killing the kid AND the embryos
what kind of pro-abortion fraud is he anyway?
In what actual scenario does a 5 year old burn alive because Stacy wasn't allowed to pay the doctor to rip a premature baby from her pregnant womb and tear it apart?
What a stupid question, the 5 year old kid. Why would you save 1000 frozen corpses?
>how
It doesn't matter he gives us the option and we can only choose one.
Here's how you actually formulate this question:
You are in a pharmacy preparing medicine for 1000 pregnant women. A man runs in holding a child with a gun to its head and tells you to add abortifacients to the medicine for the 1000 women so they're pregnancies are disrupted and their unborn children die or else he shoots the little girl. What do you do?
>You can grab one or the other but not both
Okay I would grab the 1000 embryos while telling the 5-year-old kid who can respond to verbal commands and has been able to run for at least 3 years to follow me. Once outside, the embryos die anyway because I can't keep them frozen. I took them just to spite this guy.
>>If I ask them this, they will inevitably picture their own child burning alive, and will of course choose to save their child
Never even crossed my mind but that’s probably because my five year old child wouldn’t be in a fertility clinic.