Abortion ISN'T "murder"

[User Name]

It was a simple scenario:

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in an in-vitro lab and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular lab, on a table, held a depository of 100 viable zygotes within test tubes. Next to these test tubes though lies a 3 month-old, helpless infant. You only have time to rescue one or the other...which shall it be?

Invariably, the intuitive response is to immediately save the single child over the - 100 fold - lives in test tubes. Why do you think that is?

It's easy to claim a zygote is equal to a child in an abstract argument....a much harder ideal to follow as a matter of pragmatics.

:thumb:

 

[chair]

https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...n-legal/page13 (post 188)

It was a simple scenario:

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in an in-vitro lab and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular lab, on a table, held a depository of 100 viable zygotes within test tubes. Next to these test tubes though lies a 3 month-old, helpless infant. You only have time to rescue one or the other...which shall it be?

Invariably, the intuitive respone is to immediately save the single child over the - 100 fold - lives in test tubes. Why do you think that is?

It's easy to claim a zygote is equal to a child in an abstract argument....a much harder ideal to follow as a matter of pragmatics.

Hang on- is this lab in a trolley?

 

[quip]

Hang on- is this lab in a trolley?

Similar premise

 

[ok doser]

... a simple scenario:

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in a hospital nursery and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular nursery, on a table, lies a 3 month-old, helpless white infant. Next to him lies a 3 month-old, helpless black infant, and a 3 month-old, helpless asian infant. You only have time to rescue one ...which shall it be?

 

[quip]

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in a hospital nursery and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular nursery, on a table, lies a 3 month-old, helpless white infant. Next to him lies a 3 month-old, helpless black infant, and a 3 month-old, helpless asian infant. You only have time to rescue one ...which shall it be?

Rock, paper, scissors....the Asian baby won!

Was there a essential difference betwixt the trio you were attempting to demonstrate?

How 'bout you....which one would you pick, and why?

 

[chair]

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in a hospital nursery and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular nursery, on a table, lies a 3 month-old, helpless white infant. Next to him lies a 3 month-old, helpless black infant, and a 3 month-old, helpless asian infant. You only have time to rescue one ...which shall it be?

The answer will depend on who is answering. Some might pick the baby of their own race. Others might pick randomly, or the closest one. Do you know of anybody at all who would pick 100 test tubes over a baby? Would you?

 

[oatmeal]

You can say that abortion is sin. You can say that abortion is a mortal sin. But you can't say that abortion is murder without backing up that assertion with corresponding actions.

The right wing claim that abortion is "murder" is in fact nothing but shrill rhetoric, and even conservatives don't truly believe it because if they did, they would grab their guns and go out and stop abortions from happening by force. The very least they could do would be to go out into the streets and protest abortion clinics, Planned Parenthood, etc., but the vast majority of them don't even bother to do that little! Clearly, they don't have the courage of their alleged convictions.

The majority Republican stance on abortion is that it should be outlawed because it is the murder of an innocent life--except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother--as if it's okay to murder those people based on how they were conceived, but not the others! Irrational, illogical, absurd thinking dominates the so-called "pro-life" movement.

I don't hear conservatives whining about Republican politicians who are pro-choice. "What!? You mean there are Republican politicians who are pro-choice on abortion?" Yep, but most Republicans don't even know that, or care--because in reality they couldn't care less about abortion except insofar as they can use the topic to smear Democrats, which means that abortion is only about politics to them. Most Republicans don't really want to outlaw abortion even if they could, because many women of color choose to have abortions, and if a low-income woman of color decides to get an abortion, that is likely one less Democratic voter they will have to worry about.

Many Republican politicians are nothing if not hypocritical on abortion. They would never actually impede abortion even if they could, because if they did, what would they do when their mistresses turn up pregnant? Wouldn't want the wife to find out. They might want an expensive divorce. Better to cover up such "accidents" with an abortion, in their view. Below are just a few examples of this Republican hypocrisy on abortion:

An illustrious list of Republican men are publicly anti-choice, but privately have supported women in their lives having abortions

Republicans abhor abortions – unless it’s for their mistress, of course
Meet Scott Lloyd, the head of the Office of Refugee Resettlement; in theory he’s responsible for supporting refugees build a better life in America by providing them with financial and medical assistance. Under previous administrations, this included abortion services. But we live in a God-fearing America now, and Lloyd has made it his mission to ensure refugee women, including unaccompanied minors, don’t get abortions. He even blocked a 17-year-old-girl who had been raped from having an abortion. “The child – the one who is destroyed – is not an aggressor,” he argued in a report. No Scott, the child isn’t an aggressor; you are.
As Mother Jones reported this week, despite his patronizing proselytizing, Lloyd doesn’t always practice what he preaches. As a young man he drove an ex-girlfriend to get an abortion and paid for half of it.
Lloyd joins an illustrious list of Republicans whose stance on abortion is basically: “It’s OK for me; evil for thee.” Earlier this year, for example, it emerged that Elliot Broidy, the former RNC deputy finance chairman paid $1.6m to a Playboy Playmate he had an affair with, after she aborted his child.
Then there is Tim Murphy, the pro-life Pennsylvania Republican who resigned last year after it was revealed he had urged his mistress to consider an abortion. And let’s not forget the charming Scott DesJarlais. According to testimony during his divorce trial, the Tennessee congressman supported his ex-wife's decision to get two abortions before their marriage. The former doctor also allegedly pressured a 24-year-old patient he was having an affair with to get an abortion. Even after all that information came out DesJarlais still had the gall to vote for anti-abortion bills and boast of having a “100% pro-life voting record."

Abortion will never be outlawed. These are statements made by the conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, regarding the abortion issue: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land." "It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis." "There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." So much for the right wing evangelical pipe dream that Republican politicians will get Roe v. Wade overturned by stacking the courts with more conservative judges, because even the conservative judges are telling you that it isn't going to happen.

Well you're right about that

Abortion is not murder

And I'm probably more conservative than most Republicans

Because I'm willing to read what the Bible says

It does not say that

doesn't say that abortion is murder

 

[Rusha]

https://theologyonline.com/forum/pol...n-legal/page13 (post 188)

It was a simple scenario:

Suppose a sudden, intense fire broke out in an in-vitro lab and you were the only one available to assist. In this particular lab, on a table, held a depository of 100 viable zygotes within test tubes. Next to these test tubes though lies a 3 month-old, helpless infant. You only have time to rescue one or the other...which shall it be?

Invariably, the intuitive respone is to immediately save the single child over the - 100 fold - lives in test tubes. Why do you think that is?

It's easy to claim a zygote is equal to a child in an abstract argument....a much harder ideal to follow as a matter of pragmatics.

The problem with this scenario is that the premise is putting all abortions as being done due to life threatening circumstances. Most abortions are done due to fear or convenience.

 

[ok doser]

The answer will depend on who is answering. Some might pick the baby of their own race. Others might pick randomly, or the closest one. Do you know of anybody at all who would pick 100 test tubes over a baby? Would you?

If circumstances existed that would ensure that all 100 of those embryos would be implanted successfully? Sure.

Here's another - same scenario, this time you have to choose between:

a newborn
a toddler
a 7 yo child
a 15 yo child
a 22 yo
a 45 yo
a 78 yo
a 93 yo

all other things being equal, which do you choose and why?



I did this exercise with a class of seniors - iirc it was an AP English class

 

[chair]

The problem with this scenario is that the premise is putting all abortions as being done due to life threatening circumstances. Most abortions are done due to fear or convenience.

The point of his scenario is that the vast majority (perhaps all) of people do not consider the life of a zygote to be even remotely equivalent to the life of an actual baby. So saying that abortion is "killing a human" or "murder" isn't accurate. It may be bad, wrong, immoral, illegal- but we humans do not in fact consider a fertilized egg to be the same as a live human baby.

 

[ok doser]

Rock, paper, scissors....the Asian baby won!

Was there a essential difference betwixt the trio you were attempting to demonstrate?

How 'bout you....which one would you pick, and why?

Probably the asian one - they're adorable

Had the bigger version of this on the wall in the NICU I used to work at:

 

[ok doser]

The point of his scenario is that the vast majority (perhaps all) of people do not consider the life of a zygote to be even remotely equivalent to the life of an actual baby.

They should.

A genetically unique human life is created at conception - the first stage of development that leads, eventually, to old age and death.

 

[chair]

They should.

A genetically unique human life is created at conception - the first stage of development that leads, eventually, to old age and death.

So- which would you save- the 100 test tube zygotes? 100 genetically unique lives? Or the one 3 month old baby?
Which is it?

 

[chair]

If circumstances existed that would ensure that all 100 of those embryos would be implanted successfully? Sure.

You can never know that. There's a fire. The baby is crying, the test tubes will be engulfed in flames. You have 5 seconds to decide.
what will you do?

Here's another - same scenario, this time you have to choose between:

a newborn
a toddler
a 7 yo child
a 15 yo child
a 22 yo
a 45 yo
a 78 yo
a 93 yo

all other things being equal, which do you choose and why?

I did this exercise with a class of seniors - iirc it was an AP English class

An interesting exercise- but again, irrelevant.

 

[ok doser]

So- which would you save- the 100 test tube zygotes? 100 genetically unique lives? Or the one 3 month old baby?
Which is it?

If circumstances existed that would ensure that all 100 of those embryos would be implanted successfully? Sure.

 

[ok doser]

An interesting exercise- but again, irrelevant.

Yes, I miss working with the advanced students - they were a lot of fun. Exercises like this demonstrated in a way no other could their degree of outside the box thinking.

 

[Rusha]

The point of his scenario is that the vast majority (perhaps all) of people do not consider the life of a zygote to be even remotely equivalent to the life of an actual baby. So saying that abortion is "killing a human" or "murder" isn't accurate. It may be bad, wrong, immoral, illegal- but we humans do not in fact consider a fertilized egg to be the same as a live human baby.

Well, I will never use the term murder (a legal term), but rather the intentional killing of an unborn baby. Also, with the test tube scenario, it’s not a pregnancy. One would have to know they are pregnant (with a child) prior to having an abortion. I see the test tube comparison as cold and void of the emotional attachment as compared to a pregnant mother.

 

[chair]

OK, let's play along. You don't know whether those embryos will ever be implanted or not, and you have no way to find out in the next 30 seconds. Now what? Quickly- the place is on fire!

 

[chair]

Well, I will never use the term murder (a legal term), but rather the intentional killing of an unborn baby. Also, with the test tube scenario, it’s not a pregnancy. One would have to know they are pregnant (with a child) prior to having an abortion. I see the test tube comparison as cold and void of the emotional attachment as compared to a pregnant mother.

The exercise does tease out what people really think human life is. I agree that abortion is bad, but that it is not actually murder.

 

[ok doser]

OK, let's play along. You don't know whether those embryos will ever be implanted or not, and you have no way to find out in the next 30 seconds. Now what? Quickly- the place is on fire!

I assume that they're in a liquid nitrogen container. Is there a way to maintain their cryogenic state if I grab them and run out of the building?