Quote (fender @ Jun 24 2022 06:03pm)

what a dumb non-argument. that still means a child growing up in poverty, suffering hunger, a loveless childhood, a depressed / suicidal mother, a life in crime and prison... or whatever. it still means desperate young women killing themselves because they see no other way, unsafe abortions, lifelong suffering. again, it's almost adorable how unaware you are (or pretend to be) regarding the realities of life. it's one thing to have those simplistic religious morals and wanting to impose those on others, which is bad enough, but it's a completely different thing to just ignore the real life outcomes of the government enforcing those on the people.

anyway, we've been over this before, and obviously there is not much of an argument to be had with religious zealots, i just wanted to remind you of the fact in reality this won't result in "lives" being "saved", but whole existences being destroyed and devastated, actual lives of persons with thoughts and feelings being lost.

Quote (IceMage @ Jun 24 2022 03:19pm)

I don't know. As for the thought experiment, I would save the toddler.

But what is the argument leading to? Because a woman has a higher chance of dying in a back-alley abortion procedure, I should not oppose the legality of ending innocent human life?

Quote (IceMage @ 24 Jun 2022 22:52)

It's definitely an argument, and I think a persuasive one. I support human life, even in bad circumstances, whereas you apparently support offing humanity if circumstances are not optimal.

And the last line supports what I said... you do not view unborn human beings as lives having moral value, and I do, so our viewpoints on abortion are obviously never going to be reconciled.

Quote (theCrossbones @ Jun 24 2022 06:56pm)

the logic dilemma here is if your truly believed the embryo's to be = toddler you just saved the 1 life over the life of thousands..
Bad choice? inherently you deemed the toddler to be a more valuable life form.

Quote (IceMage @ 24 Jun 2022 16:00)

I could be mistaken morally in that decision, that's why I said "I don't know". It would be an instinctual decision, but instinct does not equate to morality.

But even if I were to acknowledge a fully-grown adult female has more moral value than her embryo, it doesn't necessarily justify the morality of an abortion.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jun 24 2022 04:07pm)

The question he's asking is just a stupid one. Those embryos are from harvested eggs/sperm and cannot become live without being implanted in people via IVF. In their current state they are not viable period.

The better question to ask is toward ^theCrossbones and is simply: A building is burning down and there is a woman, and a pregnant woman, but you can only save one. Which do you save?

For those who hate other people having children, the answer would be the woman who is not pregnant. For non-sociopaths, it'd be the pregnant woman, as you are saving two lives rather than one.

Quote (theCrossbones @ 24 Jun 2022 16:10)

I didn't ask the question, Bob clarifying the post of Fender's which is a meme that poses the logical dilemma.
oh.. and your question isn't' better its the same dilemma. But by the logic of embryos=toddler saving the toddler is the wrong answer using your logic that pregnant women is worth 2 lives.

Quote (InsaneBobb @ Jun 24 2022 04:16pm)

Embryos do not survive or grow on their own or in the lab. They are not viable babies period.

It's not the same question. One is in regards to two lives vs 1, one is in regards to a lab experiment vs a life.

Your lab experiment can burn. It's neither murder nor a choice between lives. It's simply more evidence of man attempting to play god.

Quote (theCrossbones @ 24 Jun 2022 16:18)

Its not my lab experiment. It's not my question for the 2nd time.

Quote (theCrossbones @ 24 Jun 2022 15:56)

the logic dilemma here is if your truly believed the embryo's to be = toddler you just saved the 1 life over the life of thousands..
Bad choice? inherently you deemed the toddler to be a more valuable life form.