theragamuffininitiative: beautyinsteadofashes: captaincrusher:peace-love-colbert: Source I read th
theragamuffininitiative: beautyinsteadofashes: captaincrusher: peace-love-colbert: Source I read this on twitter and every anti-choice response proves his point. They all try to redefine the scenario. @theragamuffininitiative Thoughts? I think the question is wholly inconsistent with it’s audience. People that see embryos as humans also often don’t enjoy these kind of questions in general. To Patrick it’s simple because he doesn’t see them as humans and assumes they won’t feel pain. For people who do view them as humans it’s the classic 1 v 100 problem that I hate. You’re assuming there’s a right or wrong answer. You’re assuming we’re manipulative. You’re assuming that we reach the same conclusion as you because the child with suffer more trauma that it means we used the same reasoning This is actually a classically terrible logic problem and I have seen it refuted very nicely countless times. Idk who he’s been talking to, but I doubt it’s as many as he says. Anyhow.I could debate the question and the two options all day, and I could bring up that it is a form of illogically attempted entrapment that middleschoolers know to stay away from in a good debate or logical discussion, but at the end I would just summarize with what I will say now:The question is not an accurate representation or equal problem to a choice of abortion. In an abortion clinic, there is no life or death scenario for everyone there. It’s not a panicked emergency. In the problem he poses, there is a moral conundrum of who to save. In abortion, there is a moral conundrum of who to kill. They aren’t the same, so of course the response isn’t the same. Even if you are unable to save the child or embryos in his off-the-wall scenario, You Would Not Be Causing Them Harm. You wouldn’t be killing them. The fire, outside of your control, is the danger. There is no emergency medical reason to explicitly and intentionally kill an embryo. None. You do your best to save the mother and the child, and that is medicine. In performing an abortion you are the literal, active cause of death for the embryo, and that is murder.The reason he can’t get a straight answer (which I highly doubt is the case but whatever), is not because pro-life people are stupid or hypocritical. It’s because his question is ridiculous and doesn’t even address the issue at hand.Can we please move on from this really bad argument now? Thanks. This is also stupid because those embryos depend on their equipment being PLUGGED IN so that they are kept at a constant freezing temperature. I wouldn’t have the knowledge or technology to safely remove them from the clinic in those conditions, and would more than likely be killing them in the process anyway. It would be like asking me to save someone on a life support system in a hospital in the midst of a fire - I’d have no fucking clue how to do it. The five year old, on the other hand, I am perfectly capable of grabbing in my arms and carrying out. No special knowledge or equipment required. So given the choice between the sure-bet life saved and the probably going to screw up and accidentally kill them anyway, I’m gonna go with the sure bet. It’s called TRIAGE, a process that is used all the time by emergency responders. You put your time and energy where you are going to be able to be sure of doing the most good, and you don’t waste time where you can’t help. -- source link