An moral and ethical conundrum for those who believe that human life begins at conception..........................

D

Deleted member 45466

[video=youtube;DZ9bht5H2p4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ9bht5H2p4[/video]
 


raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,264
What rights are involved in this case?

You do realise that people like firemen face similar decisions all the time - they can't save everyone, so they have to prioritize. Is there some right to be saved during a fire?
Yes but which would you prioritise? The living, breathing child. or the jar of embryos?
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Aha! I think you've cracked it. The infant and the precious jar of would be babies can be saved by the one armed hero.

Next!
Or you could use one of your feet to nudge/kick the infant along to the door. The OP will probably now be changed to exclude the use of feet.
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,439
Or you could use one of your feet to nudge/kick the infant along to the door. The OP will probably now be changed to exclude the use of feet.
He doesn't own the scenario. You could introduce a robotic personal assistant that he doesn't know about.

That... and the alien.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Yes but which would you prioritise? The living, breathing child. or the jar of embryos?
I wouldn't have to. I could nudge or kick the infant along to the door while I carry the embryos.

BTW
Abortion isn't about prioritising who lives in an emergency situation. It's all about killing inconvenient children in usually non-emergency situations.

Nobody has to abort an unborn child as a choice between doing that and saving a post-birth child.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
This “conundrum” is on the same low level as one where a suicidal pregnant woman is taking increasing amounts of arsenic, endangering her foetus and 6 month breastfeeding born baby - at what stage does the State intervene and deprive her of her choice?
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Unoriginal, uncredited and irrelevant “conundrum”.
Im fascinated as to why some internet users think it’s a killer point in a debate about protecting a developing foetus (aka baby) which tends not to co-exist and compete for life with a born infant, or an embryo for that matter.
Exactly.

Is the point of the OP a desperate attempt to portray that because many people would save the infant that it's OK to kill embryos via abortion?

Not saving someone because you have to make a choice in an emergency situation does not translate into justification for proactively killing off that someone when no such choice has to be made.
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,264
Unoriginal, uncredited and irrelevant “conundrum”.
Im fascinated as to why some internet users think it’s a killer point in a debate about protecting an embryo - which tends not to co-exist and compete for life with a born infant or a developing foetus (aka a baby)
Typical bullsh1tting blusterer who cannot answer the question. You will not give the logical answer because it would challenge you to face up to uncomfortable truths about your sanctimonious hypocrisy. :p
 

Munnkeyman

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
6,992
I'd let the baby die and take my 1,000 Munnkey embryos, grow them in a bigger jar and conquer the world.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Human infants are not self aware, or sentient being in any sense of the word. And thus presumably, worthy of no legal protections at all by pro choicers.
Correct.

Everyone knows that it would only be a matter of time before abortion would be extended to cover inconvenient children who dared to be born but the mother doesn't want them any more, and so she should be able to make a "choice" as the infant can't fend for itself in the world. Post-birth termination is what it would be called.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Typical bullsh1tting blusterer who cannot answer the question. You will not give the logical answer because it would challenge you to face up to uncomfortable truths about your sanctimonious hypocrisy. :p
There is no logical answer.

There are 2 possible answers. I'd save the embryos since they are mine. Why should I save some infant that the parents cared so little about that it was left alone?
 

Bill

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 1, 2009
Messages
8,115
A good point.

Say there wasn't a baby there, but rather a pregnant mother. She says to you "forget me, save the embryos".

Do you follow her instruction on the basis of being pro-choice (a woman's choice) and do what she says? It's her body after all.
Yeah I wouldn't be giving that much thought if the building was on fire, which one is closet?
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Typical bullsh1tting blusterer who cannot answer the question. You will not give the logical answer because it would challenge you to face up to uncomfortable truths about your sanctimonious hypocrisy. :p
The answer is blindingly obvious. A born child is top trumps to a jar of embryos - even if the jar is owned by a couple consisting of a 45 woman on her last few cycles and a man who has lost his testicles to an accident involving two bricks. Next.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Is that the right answer?
It's right for you.

And that's what a free society is all about.

Like you, I'd save my own.

Why save the infant? It could belong to Shinners or some other reprobates.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
The answer is blindingly obvious. A born child is top trumps to a jar of embryos - even if the jar is owned by a couple consisting of a 45 woman on her last few cycles and a man who has lost his testicles to an accident involving two bricks. Next.
But the embryos belong to you.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top