• 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.

Stopandthink said:
It's amazing that anyone would think this scenario has any effect on facts
Click to expand...

Facts? Well no. But facts are not what drives the abortion debate.

Do you know what does?
 
year2late said:
I am curious, when people find out that "facts" they have been told are untrue....do they ever go back to the source and educate them?
Click to expand...

I have not seen one pro-life poster even acknowledge that the "20 weeks-pain threshold" abortion legislation is worthless and a deliberate lie because the procedure can be done without pain, just like most other medical procedures. Heaven forbid any 'facts' get in the way of their entrenched beliefs.
 
Lursa said:
It's amazing how no pro-life people will deal with the question in the OP without changing it to make their consciences feel better; so they dont have to make the uncomfortable choice that they deny to themselves.
Click to expand...

That is the M.O. of conservatism. Conservatism is all about maintaining the comfort of those who subscribe to it, as opposed to asking the difficult questions and seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be.
 
Phys251 said:
That is the M.O. of conservatism. Conservatism is all about maintaining the comfort of those who subscribe to it, as opposed to asking the difficult questions and seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity in seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be let us try another thought expirament.

You and a child (same sex) are the last surviving humans aboard a space station. There is a critical malfunction with the life support systems on the ship. You have 2 choices between jettisoning the lab that contains 1000 embryos or jettison the living quarters module that currently the child is in. You do not have time to retrieve the child and not making the decision causes the entire station to lose life support causing everyone to die. Which module do you jettison?
 
Nap said:
Out of curiosity in seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be let us try another thought expirament.

You and a child (same sex) are the last surviving humans aboard a space station. There is a critical malfunction with the life support systems on the ship. You have 2 choices between jettisoning the lab that contains 1000 embryos or jettison the living quarters module that currently the child is in. You do not have time to retrieve the child and not making the decision causes the entire station to lose life support causing everyone to die. Which module do you jettison?
Click to expand...

Neither....Mankind will not survive.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
Facts? Well no. But facts are not what drives the abortion debate.

Do you know what does?
Click to expand...

A fake fire rescue scenario changes nothing. Period


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stopandthink said:
A fake fire rescue scenario changes nothing. Period


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

Then let’s talk about reality.

How do you really feel about IVF and all the discarded left over pre embryos ?
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
Pro lifers still value the both of them or otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate to begin with.
Click to expand...

But the reality is that they do not equate the two. One is significantly more valuable than the other. In fact, it's at least 1000 times more valuable, but I'd wager that there's no amount of fertilized eggs they would choose to save over a fully born child. All this question needs to demonstrate is that no matter how they might like to act like life begins at conception there is clearly a significant difference to them between a fertilized embryo and an actual child.

But since you mentioned it, let's try some other scenarios......

If you knew the only thing in a burning building was a jar filled with 1000 fertilized embryos could you even justifiably send a firefighter in there to save them? He probably won't die, but he might get burnt, might get a little smoke inhilation.

Could you use the power of the federal government to force a person to donate a kidney to save a fully formed life? How about donate blood? If you can't force someone to do something as simple as donate blood how can you force them to endure a pregnancy?

If you can shoot a person that's invading your house why can't you kill a person that's invading your body? Even if you invited someone into your house in the first place, you have a right to tell them to leave. If they refuse you can use force to remove them. If you can't force them out on your own you can call a third party(the police) to do it for you. If the person has to be killed in order to have them removed that's not your problem. If you can do that with your house why can't you do that with your own body?
 
Common Sense 1 said:
It's a question with no good answer. It's like the question: Have you stopped beating your wife?
If someone answers that they would first take the baby then it's oh so you would let the fertilized embryos die so abortion is OK? It's nothing but a logical fallacy!
Really the question seems pretty silly.
Click to expand...

That's dumb. Its a question with good answer in in that no one would even think about choosing the embryos over saving the child.

It doesn't mean that abortion is OK. It simply means that embryo is not the same thing as a child.
 
Stopandthink said:
A fake fire rescue scenario changes nothing. Period


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

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:

Lursa said:
Facts? Well no. But facts are not what drives the abortion debate.

Do you know what does?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Nap said:
Out of curiosity in seeking the truth no matter how uncomfortable that truth might be let us try another thought expirament.

You and a child (same sex) are the last surviving humans aboard a space station. There is a critical malfunction with the life support systems on the ship. You have 2 choices between jettisoning the lab that contains 1000 embryos or jettison the living quarters module that currently the child is in. You do not have time to retrieve the child and not making the decision causes the entire station to lose life support causing everyone to die. Which module do you jettison?
Click to expand...

The kid. If humanity is down to it's last 2 people, we likely screwed up too much to deserve to survive as a species. We are 'not fit.'

I dont hold that all human life is sacred. I do have a strong and sustaining (it drives my philosophy in life) foundation in biology.

If the human species goes extinct, I dont particularly care, I'm pretty disgusted with how we've treated our planet.

(btw this was not an 'easy' decision and I did take the time to think it through.Thank you for providing it.)
 
Just because everyone would save the 1 one child does not mean those other embryos are not valuable. The abortion argument does not come down to saving one life or another. Each life has potential but one has already gone through the process and has now undergone birth. Now that child is not potential rather kinetic in a sense. This is a morbid example, however it makes people think about their beliefs. You can't kill something just because it is inside you. That baby has potential and for someone to rip that away is wrong and fundamentally immoral.
 
Engineer said:
Just because everyone would save the 1 one child does not mean those other embryos are not valuable. The abortion argument does not come down to saving one life or another. Each life has potential but one has already gone through the process and has now undergone birth. Now that child is not potential rather kinetic in a sense. This is a morbid example, however it makes people think about their beliefs. You can't kill something just because it is inside you. That baby has potential and for someone to rip that away is wrong and fundamentally immoral.
Click to expand...

Correct! And that seems to be a blanket assumption. It's not that neither have value, it's about which has 'more' value because legally the unborn and born cannot be treated equally (nor ethically IMO).

So if people can at least recognize this, it's a step forward IMO. A HUGE claim by pro-life people is that the unborn are exactly the same as babies...and yet this example is designed to show that most people dont think that when it comes down to the crux of the matter...yet they cannot OR refuse to articulate WHY they do value babies more than the unborn.

So our justice system has to prioritize who gets the protection under the Constitution: women or the unborn. The unborn, legally, have no rights to protect. Women do and the RvW upheld both of these premises. Because to recognize rights for the unborn would give them some rights superseding those of women, thus women would no longer be 'equal.' They would be 2nd class citizens again. IMO, and also according to the legal system, the unborn are 'not equal' to born people.

For me, I value the unborn but I value the born more.
 
Lursa said:
The kid. If humanity is down to it's last 2 people, we likely screwed up too much to deserve to survive as a species. We are 'not fit.'

I dont hold that all human life is sacred. I do have a strong and sustaining (it drives my philosophy in life) foundation in biology.

If the human species goes extinct, I dont particularly care, I'm pretty disgusted with how we've treated our planet.

(btw this was not an 'easy' decision and I did take the time to think it through.Thank you for providing it.)
Click to expand...

I would imagine choosing the extinction of the human species would be far from an 'easy' decision.

If we assume that humanity arrived at this point through no fault of their own, would that change your decision? For instance if it were a chain of events that was started by a meteor striking the earth?
 
Nap said:
I would imagine choosing the extinction of the human species would be far from an 'easy' decision.

If we assume that humanity arrived at this point through no fault of their own, would that change your decision? For instance if it were a chain of events that was started by a meteor striking the earth?
Click to expand...

But the embryos will not be viable unless implanted and there will be no one to implant them in in your sceanerio mankind is headed for extinction.
 
minnie616 said:
But the embryos will not be viable unless implanted and there will be no one to implant them in in your sceanerio mankind is headed for extinction.
Click to expand...

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.
 
minnie616 said:
Then let’s talk about reality.

How do you really feel about IVF and all the discarded left over pre embryos ?
Click to expand...

All human life has value


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Nap said:
I would imagine choosing the extinction of the human species would be far from an 'easy' decision.

If we assume that humanity arrived at this point through no fault of their own, would that change your decision? For instance if it were a chain of events that was started by a meteor striking the earth?
Click to expand...

Not really. As I wrote, I dont consider human life 'sacred.' If I were to 'judge' us, similar to "Q" I dont know that I would. I dont know.

But i would also think about the possibility that with 2 human's DNA, the species could still be saved with some future technology. We can clone and save species now....

So I'd still stick with saving the 2 people.
 
Stopandthink said:
All human life has value


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

No one disagrees with that necessarily. Your statement is empty and facile.

The point of the OP is to get people to evaluate how they value human life...and which they value more: the unborn or a baby.

The OP, if you dont alter it to conform to your own conscience, is designed to make you think about the 'hard decisions.'

So...what would you do, in the OP?
 
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 did think of this in the original from you and chose not to muddy the water.

But if you are going to have machines doing all this, including raising the born from absolute infancy...er, I'm definitely going with save the 2 people. (Because who would be there to read the instructions?) Aliens? LOL same answer.

You'd be discussing saving human DNA, but not much more.
 
Lursa said:
Not really. As I wrote, I dont consider human life 'sacred.' If I were to 'judge' us, similar to "Q" I dont know that I would. I dont know.

But i would also think about the possibility that with 2 human's DNA, the species could still be saved with some future technology. We can clone and save species now....

So I'd still stick with saving the 2 people.
Click to expand...

While I think the logic is flawed, I can understand not wanting to jettison the child and effectively killing him.

Personally, I believe the survival of the species takes priority over 1 child and would be an easy decision.
 
Lursa said:
I did think of this in the original from you and chose not to muddy the water.

But if you are going to have machines doing all this, including raising the born from absolute infancy...er, I'm definitely going with save the 2 people. (Because who would be there to read the instructions?) Aliens? LOL same answer.

You'd be discussing saving human DNA, but not much more.
Click to expand...

You would still be there to raise the children, the only one to die is the child.
 
Nap said:
While I think the logic is flawed, I can understand not wanting to jettison the child and effectively killing him.

Personally, I believe the survival of the species takes priority over 1 child and would be an easy decision.
Click to expand...

I completely recognize that that would be a common perspective and respect it.
 
Nap said:
You would still be there to raise the children, the only one to die is the child.
Click to expand...

Screw that! We intentionally chose not to have kids! LOL

Sorry, couldnt resist.
 
Lursa said:
I completely recognize that that would be a common perspective and respect it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom