Jump to content

A question for "pro-lifers"


Recommended Posts

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

The five year old, but that doesn't reduce the value of the life and potential existence of the embryos.  Dealing in this or that absolutes is for people who can't win their arguments on merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

I'd feed you to the fire god and save both.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

 

 

The question is odd considering most pro-life advocates make exceptions when a mother's life is at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

I think quality of life should be considered when using the term "Pro-Life" or "abortion"in the context of the word Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Veritas101 said:

The five year old, but that doesn't reduce the value of the life and potential existence of the embryos.  Dealing in this or that absolutes is for people who can't win their arguments on merit.

Kinda like those that have never been pregnant or facing such issues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Middl3 said:

Kinda like those that have never been pregnant or facing such issues?

Yes, although everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don’t like it when someone states their opinion as fact.......especially when they are clearly not educated on the topic.  Like guns for example.

 

I hope you are not assuming that I have never faced such things.  My opinion has not changed, making a choice based on the importance of two things does not make the lesser one’s importance equal ZERO.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

It is an idiotic question. No one will be put in that position. The answer is always, save the child born. The same question is asked if I would save the life of my wife knowing I would lose my unborn child. The answer is I will save my wife's life. This is an old question. Trying to put people in impossible situations like this in order to push your agenda by saying embryos have lesser value serves no purpose to the discussion. No wonder it came from a science fiction writer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Middl3 said:

Kinda like those that have never been pregnant or facing such issues?

very very few women have either. It is a myth that it happens all that often. It is a very rare case and I would always choose my wife. She has a greater value to me and the rest of my family. I will mourn the loss of the unborn child none the less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion. In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos. You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?

Personally, I don't give a crap about frozen embryos.  I would save the child.  At some point after conception, I believe abortion should be prohibited.  I believe that point should be at a time the life has some form of a brain that can sense and feel pain.  That would be sometime around 1 month, give or take,  but before the second month of pregnancy.  Here's an image of the  baby after 6 weeks:

Pregnancy_Your_Babys_Growth_and_Developm

Here's an image of the baby at 12 weeks:

 

Pregnancy_Your_Babys_Growth_and_Developm

 

So, while I'm not for banning abortion from conception, I am for reducing the period of time a woman can choose to have an abortion.  Even though, I personally believe that abortion is a reprehensible sin, I am able to strip out my religious feelings on this and approach it, as if God provides humans free will to choose their own paths in life, up to a certain point.  Then the laws of mankind take over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

 

Firstly, it's hilarious that the immoral reprobate who comes into the abortion thread once or twice a week to tell us to stop talking about it would create a thread talking about abortion! LMAO. Just proves how hypocritical, stupid, and ridiculous libtards are.

 

Secondly, this question was already posed in the other abortion thread, and is an ancient question that has been repudiated millions of times. Obviously, the only correct answer is to save the five-year-old. The developmental process in frozen fertilized eggs has been suspended. They are not even potential people until implantation occurs. They are not equivalent to a developing fetus in the womb.

 

Thirdly, I'm interested if XO, the immoral reprobate will answer my question: Two women are in a burning building. One is 8 months pregnant, the other is not. He can save only one. Which will he save? I would love to see any libtard answer this question! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, XavierOnassis said:

I am not against debating the issue, I  was only pointing out that all you guys were doing was repeating the same old crap again and again and more than anything else insulting one another. It seems rather stupid and that is because it IS stupid. 

XO..

On another topic..

 

I saw a special last night called "The Smoking Gun"...

It was about the Mortal Error book..

I found it interesting and informative....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So one embryo has only a thousandth or less of the value of one live child.

Are you asking me?  What part of "I don't give a crap about frozen embryos" don't you understand?    In fact, I question whether freezing embryos is even ethical. 

 

Quote

I am not against debating the issue, I  was only pointing out that all you guys were doing was repeating the same old crap again and again

Oh really?  I think you will find my position a bit different on this, if you choose to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

I am not against debating the issue, I  was only pointing out that all you guys were doing was repeating the same old crap again and again and more than anything else insulting one another. It seems rather stupid and that is because it IS stupid. 

All you were pointing out is that you are dumb as mud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

You are trying to repeat the question posted in my thread.  If you are looking for an answer for this utterly STUPID question, look for it yourself in my thread, idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was not trying to repeat anything. I posted the thoughts of an author, whose name I mentioned.

I don't think it is not a stupid question. If it is, and you posted a similar one, then you are admitting that you post stupid questions.

I have ceased to read your twaddle,  phony Black person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, XavierOnassis said:

Science fiction writer Patrick S. Tomlinson recently posed a rather interesting question, over multiple tweets, aimed at people who are against abortion.

In short: Given the choice, would you rather save 1,000 embryos or a five-year-old child?

You are in a fertility clinic. There is a fire raging. You have only thirty seconds to either save a five year old child or a thousand embryos.

You cannot save both, and if you dawdle,the child the embryos and you will all die.

Whatcha gonna do?
 

 

  In the socialist administrative authority civil code law that has removed free speech and only allows licensed controlled speech or whatever the five year olds life is not worth any more than the unborn and the socialist citizen is focused on materialistic class and group gang warfare. A problem with the socialist tribal feudal system is that people become classed, grouped and are manipulated into forgetting that they are an individual in the law.

  You are only an anti creator group in the socialist administrative authority but you are an individual with certain non removable rights in the traditional common law and you can not remove the rights of the unborn with  a socialistic styled law without degrading your own rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...