The RNC could come out tomorrow advocating for eating babies and not lose 95% of their voters including most of the evangelicals. ANYTHING is better than a filthy Democrat.
The RNC could come out tomorrow advocating for eating babies and not lose 95% of their voters including most of the evangelicals. ANYTHING is better than a filthy Democrat.Because most republicans won't break rank and vote for a democrat. They'd literally vote for a child molester over a democrat.
If you there was a fire where a living baby and 100 fertilized embryos are both present which would you save? If you claim the embryos, you’re a psycho, if you say the baby then you’re admitting I’m right.Science says that life begins at conception.
If you there was a fire where a living baby and 100 fertilized embryos are both present which would you save? If you claim the embryos, you’re a psycho, if you say the baby then you’re admitting I’m right.
You’ll never answer this because you’re a dishonest person.
I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.If you there was a fire where a living baby and 100 fertilized embryos are both present which would you save? If you claim the embryos, you’re a psycho, if you say the baby then you’re admitting I’m right.
You’ll never answer this because you’re a dishonest person.
Just waiting for you to force blood transfusions and marrow donations since you care so much about saving lives.I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.
As far as science knows, life has started once on Earth, about 4 billion years ago. Both the sperm and egg are alive prior to conception. Many conceived embryos have zero chance of becoming human, some will even become cancerous to the mother of not removed.I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.
But if you had to choose one and if they're all lives of equal value, would it not be more logical to save 100 embryos since you'd be saving 100 lives instead of just one?I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.
So you admit it’s a lesser form of life.I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.
just to make sure you're being consistent here..you're oppposed to IVF, then?I'd save them all of course, but if i had to choose i'd pick the baby. It doesn't change the fact and the science that life begins at conception.
This is a disingenuous argument, IMHO. None of the fertilized eggs/blastocysts will survive after being removed from their cryogenic stasis. Perhaps there is a better argument to be made. As you we’ll point out, anyone who chooses not to save the living breathing baby before them has some sort of mental defect. This choice is like proposing that one much choose between saving an 86 yo man (or even 10 of them) and a 12 yo child. Everyone in their right mind would save the child. That is the instinctual behavior of human beings.If you there was a fire where a living baby and 100 fertilized embryos are both present which would you save? If you claim the embryos, you’re a psycho, if you say the baby then you’re admitting I’m right.
You’ll never answer this because you’re a dishonest person.
Then we can go back to the procreation argument. Nobody gives a shit how many fertilized egg “children” spontaneously abort (die) while trying to get pregnant.This is a disingenuous argument, IMHO. None of the fertilized eggs/blastocysts will survive after being removed from their cryogenic stasis. Perhaps there is a better argument to be made. As you we’ll point out, anyone who chooses not to save the living breathing baby before them has some sort of mental defect. This choice is like proposing that one much choose between saving an 86 yo man (or even 10 of them) and a 12 yo child. Everyone in their right mind would save the child. That is the instinctual behavior of human beings.
The truth is, basically no one would risk any harm to themselves to save a bunch of embryos. However, people do risk bodily injury to save 86 year olds.This is a disingenuous argument, IMHO. None of the fertilized eggs/blastocysts will survive after being removed from their cryogenic stasis. Perhaps there is a better argument to be made. As you we’ll point out, anyone who chooses not to save the living breathing baby before them has some sort of mental defect. This choice is like proposing that one much choose between saving an 86 yo man (or even 10 of them) and a 12 yo child. Everyone in their right mind would save the child. That is the instinctual behavior of human beings.
Outside the immediate parents no one gives a shit about a miscarriage either.Then we can go back to the procreation argument. Nobody gives a shit how many fertilized egg “children” spontaneously abort (die) while trying to get pregnant.
A born child dies and they’ll grieve the rest of their life.
None of them, too high a chance they'll grow up to be as stupid as taj.But if you had to choose one and if they're all lives of equal value, would it not be more logical to save 100 embryos since you'd be saving 100 lives instead of just one?
Then we can go back to the procreation argument. Nobody gives a shit how many fertilized egg “children” spontaneously abort (die) while trying to get pregnant.
A born child dies and they’ll grieve the rest of their life.
Those are much better points. And I honestly agree with them. I just object to that other argument, which is setup as a 'trap'.The truth is, basically no one would risk any harm to themselves to save a bunch of embryos. However, people do risk bodily injury to save 86 year olds.
No, it’s the exact opposite - it forces pro life people to confront the fundamental dishonesty of their position.This is a disingenuous argument, IMHO. None of the fertilized eggs/blastocysts will survive after being removed from their cryogenic stasis. Perhaps there is a better argument to be made. As you we’ll point out, anyone who chooses not to save the living breathing baby before them has some sort of mental defect. This choice is like proposing that one much choose between saving an 86 yo man (or even 10 of them) and a 12 yo child. Everyone in their right mind would save the child. That is the instinctual behavior of human beings.
Lol pro life saying woman getting abortions just before giving birth isn’t a trap? Get realThose are much better points. And I honestly agree with them. I just object to that other argument, which is setup as a 'trap'.
Sigh. It just shows what people are hardwired to do. If you are not hardwired that way, I don’t know what to tell you - but almost everyone else is. So, this argument is pointless. Every pro-lifer has seen this 100 times. We will behave in a manner that every other sane person would. You are not making the point you think you are. EOL.No, it’s the exact opposite - it forces pro life people to confront the fundamental dishonesty of their position.
Just assume that the embryos can be preserved in their cryogenic state if that’s the part that bothers you.
It makes the fundamental point that embryos are not as valuable as born children. You can claim it is due to hardwiring or whatever else but that is beside the point. It shows that death is preferable to suffering. That's why in war killing people isn't as big of a deal as torture.Sigh. It just shows what people are hardwired to do. If you are not hardwired that way, I don’t know what to tell you - but almost everyone else is. So, this argument is pointless. Every pro-lifer has seen this 100 times. We will behave in a manner that every other sane person would. You are not making the point you think you are. EOL.
I most certainly am - I am saying that this is an explicitly revealed preference that shows when people make the claim that they consider both equal they do not. If they did view the two as equal they would act differently.Sigh. It just shows what people are hardwired to do. If you are not hardwired that way, I don’t know what to tell you - but almost everyone else is. So, this argument is pointless. Every pro-lifer has seen this 100 times. We will behave in a manner that every other sane person would. You are not making the point you think you are. EOL.
‘just because when forced to choose people will always choose born children over an infinite number of embryos doesn’t mean they actually value them differently’It makes the fundamental point that embryos are not as valuable as born children. You can claim it is due to hardwiring or whatever else but that is beside the point. It shows that death is preferable to suffering. That's why in war killing people isn't as big of a deal as torture.
All moot anyway unless you are willing to force blood transfusions against the donor's will to save lives.
If you would like to explain what you think is wrong with my example I’m open to hearing it. That’s how you have constructive debate!Okay, I was just expressing my annoyance with what I thought was an argument that didn’t make the point it appears to make. That was supposed to be it. I’m not going to play ring around the rosie with arguments wherein we have two different and opposing world views. It’s not going to lead to any constructive debate. My bad - sorry; at this point we are all just dug into our respective corners.
This isn't about opposing world views. It isn't about opinions or anything else. It's about denial of logic that contradicts something you believe to your core, which is painful. I don't know you from Adam, but I know lots of pro-lifers with the exact same issue. Even if they wanted to be logical/rational it isn't just about them. It's about family/spouses that share the same delusion and accepting the logic doesn't just mean a hit to their ego, it could mean tearing families apart. Rather than face that it is preferable to argue that since 1 + 1 = 11 in certain circumstances that we can't "prove" 1 + 1 = 2.Okay, I was just expressing my annoyance with what I thought was an argument that didn’t make the point it appears to make. That was supposed to be it. I’m not going to play ring around the rosie with arguments wherein we have two different and opposing world views. It’s not going to lead to any constructive debate. My bad - sorry; at this point we are all just dug into our respective corners.
Thats true, but once conception happens a new DNA strand is created independent of mother and father.As far as science knows, life has started once on Earth, about 4 billion years ago. Both the sperm and egg are alive prior to conception. Many conceived embryos have zero chance of becoming human, some will even become cancerous to the mother of not removed.