Abortion ISN'T "murder"

[chair]

it is in fact a human in the same way as a 94 year old woman with severe dementia

or a 3 month old baby

So you will save the 50 zygotes, leaving the baby behind.

 

[7djengo7]

The whole point of the exercise is to check whether people think a human zygote is in fact a human in the same way as a 3 month old baby.

If you truly believe that they are both equally live humans, then you would save the 50 zygotes, without question. It appears that everybody who's responded to this thread would save the 3 month old- but don't want to actually admit it. So we get all kinds of alternate scenarios, questions about the future of the zygotes, irrelevant statements (yes, we all know what murder is, Right Divider, though your definition is oversimplified, and doesn't take into account capital punishment or war), but to simply answer the question honestly- no. Can't do that. Cause it would be admitting that abortion isn't quite the same as murder.

So I think this scenario has proved it's point. A Human Zygote is not the same as a Human Baby, Even the "abortion = murder" people here are not willing to clearly say that they'll save the test tubes.

In other words, you define something as being not a human being by whether or not you would be willing to try to save it from burning up in a fire.

So, according to your vile irrationality, if a baby were trapped in one room of a burning building, while another baby were trapped in another room of the same burning building, and you could only save one of the two babies, at the expense of the other baby being incinerated--the baby you'd choose to save is a human being, while the baby you'd choose to not save is not a human being.

 

[ok doser]

So you will save the 50 zygotes ...

If I can, indeed, save the zygotes, yes

I would save the 50 lives

 

[User Name]

I already answered that question, you illiterate, insane fool.

You should learn how to read, you vicious idiot!

Just curious...Has anyone ever told you that you are a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic? I'm asking for a friend.

 

[7djengo7]

Just curious...Has anyone ever told you that you are a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic? I'm asking for a friend.

Only raving, foaming at the mouth lunatics like yourself have told me that.:loser:

By the way, what a stupid name for this thread: Abortion ISN'T "murder"

You're correct: Abortion ISN'T "murder"; rather, Abortion IS murder.

 

[User Name]

Only raving, foaming at the mouth lunatics like yourself have told me that.:loser:

By the way, what a stupid name for this thread: Abortion ISN'T "murder"

You're correct: Abortion ISN'T "murder"; rather, Abortion IS murder.

I suggest a good psychiatrist for you.

 

[7djengo7]

I suggest a good psychiatrist for you.

That's your comeback?

LOL

 

[chair]

If I can, indeed, save the zygotes, yes

I would save the 50 lives

Thanks for answering.
As in thought experiments of this kind, we don't really know what any of us would do in this unlikely situation. Emotions play a huge role in our decisions.

 

[chair]

Just curious...Has anyone ever told you that you are a raving, foaming at the mouth lunatic? I'm asking for a friend.

He is clearly sick, though I doubt he's a foaming at the mouth lunatic. I have him on ignore. If enough people here do that, we'll eventually reach "herd immunity"

 

[Right Divider]

What User Name ACTUALLY POSTED:

Let's say you're in a building with 5-month old baby and a tray of 50 zygotes. Suddenly, the building burst into flames. You only have time to take either the tray of 50 zygotes or the 5-month old baby to safety, but not both. Which would you choose?

What User Name CLAIMS THAT THEY POSTED:

By "human zygotes", do you mean human beings? Yes or No?

Talk about dishonest!

 

[Yorzhik]

The whole point of the exercise is to check whether people think a human zygote is in fact a human in the same way as a 3 month old baby.

So if a human isn't a "human in the same way" as another human, it's OK to kill them? And if they are human, even if they aren't human in the same way, and you intend to kill them when they are innocent, wouldn't we be reasonable to call that murder?

I guess we need to know what you mean by "not human in the same way". You know who you seem like when you decide who is the right kind of human that shouldn't be killed or the "wrong" kind of human that gets no protection from being killed?

 

[ok doser]

The Nazis didn't think that the Jews were "human in the same way"

 

[chair]

So if a human isn't a "human in the same way" as another human, it's OK to kill them? And if they are human, even if they aren't human in the same way, and you intend to kill them when they are innocent, wouldn't we be reasonable to call that murder?

I don't think anybody here was saying that it is "OK to kill them". On the contrary- it is not OK to kill them, but it isn't the same as killing a 3 month old baby, or an adult.

I guess we need to know what you mean by "not human in the same way".

You are invited to address the thought exercise. Which would you save? The tray of embryos or the baby?
Most people will save the baby, even if they can't explain why.

You know who you seem like when you decide who is the right kind of human that shouldn't be killed or the "wrong" kind of human that gets no protection from being killed?

Again I do not support abortion! Where did you get that idea from?

 

[chair]

The Nazis didn't think that the Jews were "human in the same way"

Oh, just stop it. You keep dragging in race, or Nazis, or whatever. Anything to avoid dealing with this. Most people would save the baby, out of a gut feeling, without thinking twice. You claim you'd save the tray of embryos- fine. Few would. And I doubt you actually would, if really faced with the situation.

 

[ok doser]

Oh, just stop it. You keep dragging in race, or Nazis, or whatever. Anything to avoid dealing with this.

How do you figure I'm avoiding dealing with it?

I answered your question.

Most people ... without thinking ...

Exactly

 

[quip]

So I think this scenario has proved it's point. A Human Zygote is not the same as a Human Baby, Even the "abortion = murder" people here are not willing to clearly say that they'll save the test tubes.

:up:

[/thread]

 

[Yorzhik]

I don't think anybody here was saying that it is "OK to kill them". On the contrary- it is not OK to kill them, but it isn't the same as killing a 3 month old baby, or an adult.

Username and Quip say it's OK to kill humans before they are born. They use this hypothetical to support murdering humans before they are born.

You are invited to address the thought exercise. Which would you save? The tray of embryos or the baby?
Most people will save the baby, even if they can't explain why.

Who cares what they think? Whether someone is human isn't defined by how intimate some other humans are with them.

And think about this rationally. This is a famous hypothetical used to support murdering humans before they are born because it relies on assumptions that can be manipulated to make the answerer look bad regardless of how they answer. As shown by Jesus, sometimes the best answer to a quesiton presented with an A or B answer is C. I'd rather address the reason why pro-murder-of-humans-before-they-are-born use this hypothetical.

Again I do not support abortion! Where did you get that idea from?

I'm pro-abortion, but I'll get back to that in a second.

If you use a hypothetical made famous by people who support what you call abortion, someone might mistake you for being in that camp.

But I'm pro-abortion only because technically ending a pregnancy before term is a good thing unless the intent is to insure the baby dies. But I get it, usually people aren't at that level and so I have to dumb things down to talk at their level - I'm not trying to fight, I'm trying to help people improve their lives, and their baby's lives, by not murdering their children. And that means I have to use the word "abortion" in the best way for the conversation to move to a greater understanding.

So, technically, I'm anti-murder. Or anti-murder-of-humans-before-they-are-born.

 

[7djengo7]

The whole point of the exercise is to check whether people think a human zygote is in fact a human in the same way as a 3 month old baby.

If you truly believe that they are both equally live humans, then you would save the 50 zygotes, without question. It appears that everybody who's responded to this thread would save the 3 month old- but don't want to actually admit it. So we get all kinds of alternate scenarios, questions about the future of the zygotes, irrelevant statements (yes, we all know what murder is, Right Divider, though your definition is oversimplified, and doesn't take into account capital punishment or war), but to simply answer the question honestly- no. Can't do that. Cause it would be admitting that abortion isn't quite the same as murder.

So I think this scenario has proved it's point. A Human Zygote is not the same as a Human Baby, Even the "abortion = murder" people here are not willing to clearly say that they'll save the test tubes.

In other words, you define something as being not a human being by whether or not you would be willing to try to save it from burning up in a fire.

So, according to your vile irrationality, if a baby were trapped in one room of a burning building, while another baby were trapped in another room of the same burning building, and you could only save one of the two babies, at the expense of the other baby being incinerated--the baby you'd choose to save is a human being, while the baby you'd choose to not save is not a human being.

He is clearly sick, though I doubt he's a foaming at the mouth lunatic. I have him on ignore. If enough people here do that, we'll eventually reach "herd immunity"

Oh, OK....THAT's why you cannot deal with my above criticism of the built-in stupidity of your "thought experiment"--because you have me "on ignore", so that you cannot, in the first place, be confronted by the criticism I have levelled against your stupidity. I bet, though, that if you hadn't cowered from my criticism by putting me "on ignore", you'd surprise us all with an amazing rejoinder to it, right?

No, just kidding. We all know that your only "answer" to my criticism of your stupidity would be nothing other than to call me "sick". See what that is, though? You calling me "sick" is you admitting, not only that you can't defend your stupidity against my criticism of it, but also, that you're enraged at me for drawing attention to the fact of your failure to do so.

See, if you were on the side of truth and logic--that is, if you were not the rabid admirer and advocate of baby-murder that you are--you'd not be in the position you've put yourself in by your own irrational thinking.

 

[Gary K]

Likewise, the mother's right to her body, while the fetus relies upon HER body for sustenance, her rights hold precedence.

LOL. Do you even understand what you have said? That the persons who create a life have no responsibility toward that life. That's the idea behind your thought. So why is it wrong for a parent to beat their child to death or starve it to death. Same principle as the child is still completely dependent upon it's parents for all it takes to sustain life. Thus the parents have every right to murder their own children. It's insane logic, but not much different than the rest of your ideas.

And who says the pregnant woman has a right to commit murder, for that baby within her will never be anything but another human being. A good analogy to your thought here is that as you depend upon your employer for life sustenance, as you couldn't feed, house, or clothe yourself without a job, your employer has the right to murder you. That's your idea taken to it's logical conclusion. It shows how absurd your thinking is.

 

[quip]

LOL. Do you even understand what you have said? That the persons who create a life have no responsibility toward that life. That's the idea behind your thought. So why is it wrong for a parent to beat their child to death or starve it to death. Same principle as the child is still completely dependent upon it's parents for all it takes to sustain life. Thus the parents have every right to murder their own children. It's insane logic, but not much different than the rest of your ideas.

And who says the pregnant woman has a right to commit murder, for that baby within her will never be anything but another human being. A good analogy to your thought here is that as you depend upon your employer for life sustenance, as you couldn't feed, house, or clothe yourself without a job, your employer has the right to murder you. That's your idea taken to it's logical conclusion. It shows how absurd your thinking is.

:sozo2:That's an impressive emotional rant. Bone up on the actual issues regarding abortion though and you'll have my ear, else....join doser, yelling it as loud as you can into the wind.