• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The fire choice.

Lursa said:
Again, you dont understand the purpose of the scenario HOWEVER you do have a point.

If people honestly considered their reply AND why they chose it, they *might* change their perspective on abortion. Maybe not change their position, but some of their preconceived notions.

But since it seems most people wont touch it, at least without changing it so they can fulfill their own beliefs instead of supporting them honestly, I think you're right. It wont change anything.

Are you not going to answer it? If not, why?

And you didnt answer this:
Click to expand...

The highly complex scenario is a thinly veiled disguised portrayal of a simple event with a question to an instinct or feeling. I’m not interested in it because it doesn’t uncover or accomplish anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Screw that! We intentionally chose not to have kids! LOL

Sorry, couldnt resist.
Click to expand...

Ha, I have a good one for you then.

You are at the vet's office and it catches fire. You have 2 options, go to the kennels and save the family dog that you love as your own child or stop to help the stranger (adult) who is pinned down and needs assistance to be able to escape the fire.
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
Another variation of the fire thought expirament that gets a little messy is this.

Imagine that you and your partner have become sterile and the only hope for being able to produce your own child is one of the embryos. You have time to go and save that embryo or the child that you hear crying down the hall in the opposite direction.
Click to expand...

Totally the child. I have adopted sisters and feel (obviously) from my previous post, no need to procreate.

IMO it would be selfish to do the former in your scenario but that's just my perspective.
 
Nap said:
Ha, I have a good one for you then.

You are at the vet's office and it catches fire. You have 2 options, go to the kennels and save the family dog that you love as your own child or stop to help the stranger who is pinned down and needs assistance to be able to escape the fire.
Click to expand...

Have thought about that many times and as much as it pains me, of course I'd save the person.
 
Stopandthink said:
The highly complex scenario is a thinly veiled disguised portrayal of a simple event with a question to an instinct or feeling. I’m not interested in it because it doesn’t uncover or accomplish anything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So you refuse to commit to the hard decision. The complexity IS the point. THe fact that it's not black and white and you need to justify your decision. (except that few people will)

Well good for you. Thankfully, women who need to make a hard decision regarding abortion are allowed to make their own.
 
Lursa said:
Totally the child. I have adopted sisters and feel (obviously) from my previous post, no need to procreate.

IMO it would be selfish to do the former in your scenario but that's just my perspective.
Click to expand...

I agree that it would be selfish, but it is a dilemma that would change the opinion of what some would do in that situation.
 
Lursa said:
Have thought about that many times and as much as it pains me, of course I'd save the person.
Click to expand...

I would like to say I would, but honestly if it were my dog over a complete stranger I don't believe that I could make that choice. If it were a child I could likely see my determination waver, however if it were an adult then I would hope they would be able to find a way out while I saved my dog.
 
MrWonka said:
https://www.rawstory.com/2017/10/sc...d-you-save-1000-embryos-or-one-child-in-fire/

If you were a firefighter in a burning building, and you had to choose whether to save a jar filled with 1000 fertilized embryos or a newborn baby which would you choose?

How about three fetuses that had reached viability and could be incubated to self-reliance or a single 1-year-old child?
Click to expand...

new born and child everytime :shrug:

but i dont think this really does much to the abortion debate. While most will save the the newborn or the child it doesn't mean that much.
Honest prolifers and prochoicers no its impossible to grant equal rights to both at the same time so we admit that we simply choose which we value more at different times.
 
Nap said:
Assume this lab has the technology for an artificial womb and the necessary supplies and guides to show you how to operate them. I should have made that clear in the actual thought expirament.
Click to expand...

I would still either save the child and myself or I will down with the ship.
 
minnie616 said:
I would still either save the child and myself or I will down with the ship.
Click to expand...

Do you recognize that your position is irrational, or do you believe that your position is the correct response?
 
Nap said:
Do you recognize that your position is irrational, or do you believe that your position is the correct response?
Click to expand...

IMO her choice of 'going down with the ship' is something that affects only her, and not another person or potential person, and as such, is outside of the scope of this thread and this sub-forum.
 
Lursa said:
IMO her choice of 'going down with the ship' is something that affects only her, and not another person or potential person, and as such, is outside of the scope of this thread and this sub-forum.
Click to expand...

Going down with the ship kills her, the child, and by extension the future of the human race. I don't see how you can say the decision only affects her.
 
Nap said:
Going down with the ship kills her, the child, and by extension the future of the human race. I don't see how you can say the decision only affects her.
Click to expand...

It was "if" she cant save the kid. And apparently she also doesnt buy into the 'raising 1000 kids' by herself. It's easy to imagine that that would have many negative outcomes for those 1000.
 
Nap said:
Going down with the ship kills her, the child, and by extension the future of the human race. I don't see how you can say the decision only affects her.
Click to expand...

If I cannot save the child ,I will go down with ship.

The child and I have bonded.i will not abandon the child.
 
Last edited:
minnie616 said:
If I cannot save the child ,I will go down with ship.

The child and I have bonded.
Click to expand...

I can understand the reasoning behind that, this was pretty much the point of the thought expiraments I have added to the thread to illustrate that value is subject to the person making the choice and that by not picking one it does not suddenly render the other as having no value. However, it is hard for me to imagine there are people that weigh the value of one child (even if it is their own) versus the future of the species. I think most rational people in this situation would ultimately choose the future of mankind over the life of a single child.
 
Nap said:
I can understand the reasoning behind that, this was pretty much the point of the thought expiraments I have added to the thread to illustrate that value is subject to the person making the choice and that by not picking one it does not suddenly render the other as having no value. However, it is hard for me to imagine there are people that weigh the value of one child (even if it is their own) versus the future of the species. I think most rational people in this situation would ultimately choose the future of mankind over the life of a single child.
Click to expand...

Well so far you have 2 participants and neither is sacrificing a born child for the future of mankind.

My decision is the same whether I even know the child or not. Could be a complete stranger.
 
Lursa said:
Well so far you have 2 participants and neither is sacrificing a born child for the future of mankind.

My decision is the same whether I even know the child or not. Could be a complete stranger.
Click to expand...

I see that and honestly, I find that rather shocking.

To see if you are consistent, I have another one:

A child has a rare disease, scientists were able to create an airborne virus using his cells that if released would certainly wipe out the human race. Because the virus is made from his cells he is immune to it and there has only been time to create 1 vaccine that you took as the first human trial so therefore you have a reasonable assumption that you are immune. The child somehow makes it into the lab and breaks a vial that exposes the air to the virus and the room locks down to prevent the virus from escaping. There is an issue with the sprinkler systems that is causing the room to flood, you have roughly 2 minutes to open the door to save the child and no time to figure out another option and execute it. Do you save the child from drowning and release the virus that will ultimately kill off all of humanity save for you and the child, or watch the child drown?
 
Nap said:
I see that and honestly, I find that rather shocking.

To see if you are consistent, I have another one:

A child has a rare disease, scientists were able to create an airborne virus using his cells that if released would certainly wipe out the human race. Because the virus is made from his cells he is immune to it and there has only been time to create 1 vaccine that you took as the first human trial so therefore you have a reasonable assumption that you are immune. The child somehow makes it into the lab and breaks a vial that exposes the air to the virus and the room locks down to prevent the virus from escaping. There is an issue with the sprinkler systems that is causing the room to flood, you have roughly 2 minutes to open the door to save the child and no time to figure out another option and execute it. Do you save the child from drowning and release the virus that will ultimately kill off all of humanity save for you and the child, or watch the child drown?
Click to expand...

Please do not further dilute this thread. If you are so fascinated with this line of questioning, start your own thread.
 
Nap said:
I see that and honestly, I find that rather shocking.

To see if you are consistent, I have another one:

A child has a rare disease, scientists were able to create an airborne virus using his cells that if released would certainly wipe out the human race. Because the virus is made from his cells he is immune to it and there has only been time to create 1 vaccine that you took as the first human trial so therefore you have a reasonable assumption that you are immune. The child somehow makes it into the lab and breaks a vial that exposes the air to the virus and the room locks down to prevent the virus from escaping. There is an issue with the sprinkler systems that is causing the room to flood, you have roughly 2 minutes to open the door to save the child and no time to figure out another option and execute it. Do you save the child from drowning and release the virus that will ultimately kill off all of humanity save for you and the child, or watch the child drown?
Click to expand...

Now you are talking about one born child vs millions of born children and adults.
Not even close to an anology of one born vs an embryo or a thousand embryos.
 
Lursa said:
Please do not further dilute this thread. If you are so fascinated with this line of questioning, start your own thread.
Click to expand...

Yes start you own thread or threads.
 
minnie616 said:
Now you are talking about one born child vs millions of born children and adults.
Not even close to an anology of one born vs an embryo or a thousand embryos.
Click to expand...

The end result is the same, the future of the species vs the life of one child.
 
Nap said:
The end result is the same, the future of the species vs the life of one child.
Click to expand...

That is not the topic of discussion on the abortion sub-forum.

Homo sapiens is in no danger of extinction.
 
Nap said:
The end result is the same, the future of the species vs the life of one child.
Click to expand...

To you maybe but not to me. To me an embryo is just a maybe. A born child is born.

I had 6 known pregnacies. I had 2 miscarriages between my second and third child. One was at about 4 to 5 weeks and the other at 20 weeks. I know an embryo is a maybe. The embryo might become a born but they might not. I am going to save the born not a bunch of maybes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom