A question aimed at pro-lifers

Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)

The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?

I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.

Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)

The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?

This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.

Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.

Tray of fetuses? Wtf?

Tray of fetuses? Wtf?

Yep. WTF indeed!

Quote from: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 25, 2008, 08:35:22 AM

Tray of fetuses? Wtf?

Yep. WTF indeed!

hey be fair, I never said it was a goodhypothetical IVF clinic!

I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.

Hardly an impossible situation.


He is a veteran firefighter living in a small community. The rest of the firefighters there are simply volunteers and have seen about 10 big fires combined. He used to live in a city where he saw that many in a week. They freeze up, throwing water in through windows and other useless tactics. He hears there are people inside, grabs the hoseline and charges in.

Very possible dilemma.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 25, 2008, 06:30:19 AM

Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)

The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?

This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.

Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.

That's not true and you know it. The whole anti-choice movement is based on the rigid dogma that all life (or possible life) is equal, otherwise there is absolutely no point of it.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 25, 2008, 06:30:19 AM

Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)

The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?

This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.

Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.

So if god wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have given the child to someone who would have an abortion.

You have now qualified abortion as God's will.

Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on November 25, 2008, 06:30:19 AM

Imagine there is an IVF clinic which has caught on fire, the fireman goes in alone (for reasons unknown) and finds a tray of developing fetuses early into their development. In the next room he sees a woman collapsed of asphyxiation behind a closed door. He has only seconds to get out before the floor collapses and kills him, the woman and the fetuses and the storage equipment of the fetuses is so heavy that if he picks it up he can't possibly carry the woman out too (or vice-versa)

The question is: Who should he save from a pro-lifers point of view? The tray of fetuses or the one woman?

This is so old I think it was around in the 70s.

Even within the pro-life movement, there is no rigid dogma that all lives have equal value. Replace the scenario with five invalids with Stage 4 cancer and one healthy 8 year old. If you can only save one group, then there's nothing wrong with choosing the kid. Obviously if God wanted everyone alive he wouldn't have started the damn fire and sent your ass in there without backup.

And if God wanted Terri Schiavo alive, He wouldn't have smote her.

By that logic if god didn't want Jews burned in ovens, he shouldn't have let Hitler been born, or at least born into the circumstances he was.

God doesn't exist. Therefore he doesn't give a flying fuck of a shit. [/tangent]

First God put us here to make our own choices.  Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes.  I would save the mother.  Its good that problem would not happen.   I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby.  They change the words, like pro choice.  it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death,  they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal.  They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby.  May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade.  So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose.  and clean up the terms.  At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies.  If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine.  But they feel pain, they are very much alive. 

By that logic if god didn't want Jews burned in ovens, he shouldn't have let Hitler been born, or at least born into the circumstances he was.

God doesn't exist. Therefore he doesn't give a flying fuck of a shit. [/tangent]

Yes, without hitler, no WWII, then the U.S. stays in the great depression, the leader of the world economy doesn't emerge. Europe doesn't build all new ports as a result of them being destroyed in the world, further hurting the economy. Without hitler the world could have completely collapsed, leading to poverty and hunger everywhere. I am citing a few small examples.

I wish that I was a woman so that I could experience what it's like to have an abortion of my own.  

First God put us here to make our own choices.  Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes.  I would save the mother.  Its good that problem would not happen.   I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby.  They change the words, like pro choice.  it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death,  they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal.  They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby.  May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade.  So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose.  and clean up the terms.  At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies.  If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine.  But they feel pain, they are very much alive. 

Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil.  Idiot.

Foetuses are parasites.

Quote from: Wendy on November 25, 2008, 07:00:29 AM

I would like to say right now: Impossible dilemmas are dumb.

Hardly an impossible situation.


He is a veteran firefighter living in a small community. The rest of the firefighters there are simply volunteers and have seen about 10 big fires combined. He used to live in a city where he saw that many in a week. They freeze up, throwing water in through windows and other useless tactics. He hears there are people inside, grabs the hoseline and charges in.

Very possible dilemma.

No, you mistinterpreted my statement. I meant that what you are trying to do here is to create a dilemma in which the choice is impossible to make, and feel good about, obviously. Hence the term: Impossible dilemma.

Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes

The 'trays' are life support devices, hence why they're so heavy.

A tray of fetuses walks into a bar.
The bartender says nobody underage can drink.
The fetuses reply they are not anybody as they are potential humans.
I forgot where I was going with this.

END.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 25, 2008, 12:31:24 PM

First God put us here to make our own choices.  Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes.  I would save the mother.  Its good that problem would not happen.   I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby.  They change the words, like pro choice.  it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death,  they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal.  They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby.  May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade.  So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose.  and clean up the terms.  At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies.  If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine.  But they feel pain, they are very much alive. 

Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil.  Idiot.

yes, you are correct.  Everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies.  You added the inherently evil part so I can assume that you feel that it is evil to be a pro-choicer, it is not an assumption that I placed in my statement.    Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.  They aren't fighting for the right to choose anything else, the subject of the "pro-choice" movement is the right to choose to kill a baby.  There is no 3rd option.  So yes, EVERYONE WHO IS PRO-CHOICE JUST WANTS TO KILL BABIES. 
So I challange you to give me an option that a pro-choice person is not trying to kill a baby.  btw using the "to save the mother" is not an option because that is not the fight that the pro-choicers are fighting for and is just a cop out.   
ps.  for the idiot remark I fart in your general direction.   It is better to be an idiot then a fool.  And you are a fool.

It should be against the rules to post here if you have an IQ below 40.

Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.

The majority of pro-choice advocates including myself.
babies != fetuses

gtfo

Quote

Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes

The 'trays' are life support devices, hence why they're so heavy.

Hmmm, You see in the situation you stated "early" in developement.  How early?  If the Fetus is under 21 weeks there is no chance of it surviving outside the womb anyways.  If the fetus is over 21 weeks it can survive.  So if they were closest to me, I would save the fetus'.  if the woman was closest to me I would save her.  The value of both lives would be the same.  Maybe I am reading in to this too much but you keep saying fetus'.  Are you talking about a 2 week old fetus or 23 week old fetus?  Huge difference.  A 2 week old fetus for one thing isn't viable and doesn't look much like a baby so you could almost say that it isn't a baby yet, and I mean almost.  But a 23 week old fetus, which right now is still legal to abort. Has no physical difference between itself and a fully developed 40 week baby with the exception of 1 thing.  Fat.  All its organs are developed, brain is fully developed.  and if you would walk by it you would think it is a super small fully developed baby.  Their eyes are still closed but they can see light, they can hear noise and respond to touch.  

So thats a tough choice to make, but I think I would go for the person closest to me baby or girl.

It should be against the rules to post here if you have an IQ below 40.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 07:43:21 AM

Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.

The majority of pro-choice advocates including myself.
babies != fetuses

gtfo

I couldn't agree with you more.  You just proved my point.  You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus.  For what?  To make it easier to kill that is all.  So just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing.  You change the names to make you feel better.  So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus."  Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice."  Its the same thing you fool.  So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right.   And again you have given me no valid point as to what a Pro Choice person is fighting for other then to Abort (kill) a Fetus (baby).  I rest my case.  Slam Dunk.   You lose, I win.  Call me names if you want but you have just added to my example.  A fact is a fact.   I think your IQ is about to drop under the 40 limit you stated.  You better quit while you are ahead.  This is a fight you won't win fool.

A tray of fetuses walks into a bar.
The bartender says nobody underage can drink.
The fetuses reply they are not anybody as they are potential humans.
I forgot where I was going with this.

END.

I think somebody should have denied you alcohol, too.

I couldn't agree with you more.  You just proved my point.  You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus.  For what?  To make it easier to kill that is all.  So just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing.  You change the names to make you feel better.  So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus."  Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice."  Its the same thing you fool.  So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right.

Are we going to start referring to caterpillars as "butterflies", too?

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 08:13:12 AM

I couldn't agree with you more.  You just proved my point.  You "pro-choicers" call the BABY a Fetus.  For what?  To make it easier to kill that is all.  So just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to change the names to lessen what you are doing.  You change the names to make you feel better.  So you can say, "I'm not killing a baby, I am aborting a fetus."  Or "I'm not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice."  Its the same thing you fool.  So from now on if baby = fetuses, then just call it a baby.  You shouldn't have to mask your words if you are right.

Are we going to start referring to caterpillars as "butterflies", too?

The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge.  There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea. 

ﮎingulaЯiτy  proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus.  Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby.  Thats all. 

The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge.  There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea.

And the fact that a 23 week old baby would usually not survive without some sort of life support system, whether that be its mother's blood or artificial life support.

ﮎingulaЯiτy  proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus.  Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby.  Thats all.

Even assuming that you are corrrect in that statement, you haven't explained why it is wrong to kill babies.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 08:24:09 AM

The difference between a Caterpillar and a butterfly and a 23 week old fetus and a 40 week baby are huge.  There is no difference between a 23 week baby and a 40 week baby except for fat, weight and color receptors on the cornea.

And the fact that a 23 week old baby would usually not survive without some sort of life support system, whether that be its mother's blood or artificial life support.

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 26, 2008, 08:24:09 AM

ﮎingulaЯiτy  proved my point and amplified my statement by showing that Babies = Fetus.  Thus proving my point that Pro-choicers change the words to make it easier to kill a baby.  Thats all.

Even assuming that you are corrrect in that statement, you haven't explained why it is wrong to kill babies.

Proving if it is right or wrong to kill babies isn't the point, if that is what a pro-choice person wants to do then they should just say it.
A 23 weeker would require life support, as would a person involved in car crash, or heart attack or many other medical issues.   

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2008, 01:51:48 PM

Quote from: Dark Knight on November 25, 2008, 12:31:24 PM

First God put us here to make our own choices.  Second, if I found a tray of Fetus'
s they would not survive anyway because they are already dying since they are too small to survive for any more then a few minutes.  I would save the mother.  Its good that problem would not happen.   I like how pro killers are trying to tame down the fact that they are killing a baby.  They change the words, like pro choice.  it isn't Choice that is the debate, it is pro death,  they are not fighting for the right to choose anything because if you don't support abortion, then it wouldn't matter if it is illegal.  They are fighting for one thing, the right to kill a baby, not fetus, baby.  May daughter was born at 23 weeks gestation, that is 1 week before the legal deadline to abort, she cried, she felt pain, she held my hand and is now in 2nd grade.  So don't go telling us that your fighting for the right to Choose.  and clean up the terms.  At least have the balls to say what it is, say that you want to be able to kill babies.  If you think you can wash your hands of it, fine.  But they feel pain, they are very much alive. 

Yes, everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies, because pro-choicers are all inherently evil.  Idiot.

yes, you are correct.  Everyone who is pro-choice just wants to kill babies.  You added the inherently evil part so I can assume that you feel that it is evil to be a pro-choicer, it is not an assumption that I placed in my statement.    Can you give me an example of a pro-choice person who does not want to kill a baby.  They aren't fighting for the right to choose anything else, the subject of the "pro-choice" movement is the right to choose to kill a baby.  There is no 3rd option.  So yes, EVERYONE WHO IS PRO-CHOICE JUST WANTS TO KILL BABIES. 
So I challange you to give me an option that a pro-choice person is not trying to kill a baby.  btw using the "to save the mother" is not an option because that is not the fight that the pro-choicers are fighting for and is just a cop out.   
ps.  for the idiot remark I fart in your general direction.   It is better to be an idiot then a fool.  And you are a fool.

That went right over your head, didn't it?

The Spartans killed babies that were born who were found unhealthy, unfit, abnormal, etcetera, and their society thrived because of it. Maybe Dark Knight should condemn them as well, even better, build a flux capacitor and go back and stop them, and watch how quickly they show him how little they care about what he has to say.