Here's The Reason Why Pro-Aborts Rely On Worst Case Scenarios To Argue Their Point

[GURPS]

WALSH: Here's The Reason Why Pro-Aborts Rely On Worst Case Scenarios To Argue Their Point


The hypothetical goes like this (I'm paraphrasing):

You're in a fertility clinic. Suddenly, a fire breaks out. The building begins to quickly burn down because the clinic apparently has no sprinkler system, in clear violation of safety codes. As you're about to make a run for your life, you hear crying in another room. You open the door and for some unknown reason there's a five-year-old child standing in the frozen storage unit of this facility. Why is the fertility clinic keeping frozen five-year-olds? You don't have time to figure that out. You also notice on the other side of the room a big box marked "1000 viable human embryos." Do fertility clinics really keep human embryos in boxes labeled "viable human embryos"? Maybe, apparently so, but anyway. You have to choose between saving the five-year-old or the box of embryos. Why can't you grab both? Maybe you're holding your Starbucks latte in the other hand. Who knows? You can only save one. That's the game. Which do you choose?​

Patrick explains that everyone would choose the child, which proves that human embryos have less value, which proves, somehow, that abortion is OK. Patrick then goes on to declare repeatedly that NO pro-lifer has EVER or will EVER answer this question honestly. He's employed the very constructive (and totally honest!) debating tactic of accusing his opponents of lying before they even open their mouths.

I'll answer the question as simply and honestly as I can: Yes, I would save the kid.

No, that does not prove that the embryos have no value or even less value. It also has absolutely no relation to the abortion question whatsoever. Allow me to explain.

First of all, the decision of who to save in a burning building is more an emotional one than a moral one. The whole reason we're put in the burning building for this hypothetical is to get us to forfeit our moral reasoning and adopt emotional reasoning. But emotional reasoning in a burning building is perfectly fine. In an abortion clinic, it isn't. My personal and emotional connection with my own child would lead me to save him over someone else's. Does that mean I don't recognize the value of someone else's child, or that it would be OK for me to kill someone else's child?

This Pro-Abortion Fanatic Presented A Thought Experiment 'DESTROYING' Pro-Lifers. Here Are 4 Reasons He Fails Dramatically.


On Tuesday morning, a pro-abortion Twitter thread went viral. The thread posited a thought experiment the author claimed to be original, though it has existed in one form or another for over a decade (I first became aware of the thought experiment from Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel, who was arguing in favor of fetal stem cell research at the time). Here’s the hypothetical, according to one Patrick S. Tomlimson, comic and author of the ARK trilogy. Tomlinson’s scorn for the pro-life movement pours from his verbiage:

Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly. 1/

— Patrick S. Tomlinson (@stealthygeek) October 17, 2017​

Let’s put aside Tomlinson’s obvious douchiness; the commenters on the Twitter thread are properly puzzled. That’s because Tomlinson is correct that we all have a moral instinct: to save the five-year-old. But he’s wrong if he thinks the hypothetical proves that embryos aren’t human life or potential human life, and therefore of no value. There are at least four reasons for that.

1. Moral Instinct Does Not Always Mean Correct Moral Decisionmaking. We all have the moral instinct to save the child. That does not mean that the instinct is either correct or justifiable. A few quick thought experiments suffice to prove the point.

Here’s another, more famous thought experiment: you’re standing at the fork in a track for a runaway trolley. On one side of the track is a man tied to the tracks; on the other side are five people. You choose to throw the switch to save the five people, presumably. But now comes the second part of the hypothetical: instead of standing at a fork, throwing a switch, you’re standing above a single track on a bridge. Five people are still tied to the track. Conveniently enough, there is a single fat woman standing atop the bridge with you. If you throw her in front of the train, you can stop the trolley before it hits the five people. Most people say they wouldn’t do it. Does that mean that the five people below are not humans, or that it is morally correct to avoid tossing the woman?

it is a hypothetical gotcha ......
if you save the frozen embryos you let a child die a horrible death from burning
if you save the child then your anti-abortion argument is invalid you do not value embryos



to pro aborts there is no correct answer you will ALWAYS BE WRONG