What’s the most irritating pro-abortion argument you’ve heard?

[Freddy]

When did anyone refuse to answer? The frozen embryo or fetus is a small child. The difference between the post-due-date child and the pre-due-date child is one of temperature and age, not kind or value. I would save whichever I had the most chance of saving. Period.

As I said, most people who do not support abortion refuse to answer.

 

[ALittleBitCrunchy]

I have never seen anyone refuse to answer.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

and almost all people who don’t support abortion refuse to answer?

It’s meant to trap the other person in an unwinnable situation. Save the embryos? You’re either lying or you’re an evil, heartless person. Save the kid? You’re finally revealing your “knowledge” that “fetuses aren’t people.” It’s our Kobayashi Maru.

I think one reasonable answer is that you’d save the child because their likelihood of survival is higher than the embryos. Similar to if that embryo was a comatose patient with only a few hours of portable power in their life support, frozen embryos may only survive in certain conditions and you need to fulfill them, fast. A kid can survive pretty easily once they’re away from the fire. It’s obviously a tough call, but that’s how I’d make my choice.

I think the assumption of the hypothetical is that you actually save one. Whichever one it is, it continues to live.

And you’re right up to a point. The question is meant to determine value.

 

[Freddy]

I have never seen anyone refuse to answer.

Then which do you choose? Saving both is not an option that was given. You can’t answer a question that hasn’t been asked.

 

[ALittleBitCrunchy]

I would choose, again, to save whichever of the two children – the born one or the frozen “embryo” one – I could. It would be an absolute tossup. Maybe what you’re skipping over is that the frozen “embryo” is also a child. I thought I had explained that carefully twice, but maybe I was distracted.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

If it’s confirmed that every embryo will survive, be born and raised, and lived, I’d probably choose the embryos. But in a tough-call situation, I’d probably choose the kid based on the reasons I’ve provided. I assume, in my similar example, you’d choose a child over a coma patient?

 

[Freddy]

I would choose, again, to save whichever of the two children – the born one or the frozen “embryo” one…

As I said, most people who do not support abortion generally avoid making a choice.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

There’s the old hypothetical that’s often put forward at points such as this to determine the value that people put on the various stages of life: If there was a fire in a building and you could only save a young child or a frozen emryo, which one would you choose?

Which one would you rescue from the flames?

I would save the embryo.

 

[ImJustPro]

Any argument that starts by framing the issue as “men vs. women” makes my eyes roll. Opinions on abortion actually break down about the same among both sexes.

Yup. On top of the argument being awful it’s also sexist.

I once saw a comment on a LiveAction post on Instagram that said something around the lines of “no uterus no say in abortion.” Someone cleverly responded with “great! Guess that means I can stop funding abortion now!” I lol’d.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There’s the old hypothetical that’s often put forward at points such as this to determine the value that people put on the various stages of life: If there was a fire in a building and you could only save a young child or a frozen emryo, which one would you choose?

Which one would you rescue from the flames?

I would save the embryo.

Let’s say the embryo and the child both belonged to the same woman. Would you be happy to explain to her why you did it?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Let’s say the embryo and the child both belonged to the same woman. Would you be happy to explain to her why you did it?

If she is pro-choice she cannot say I made the wrong choice without contradicting her principles and a pro-life woman would understand that both lives are equal.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s say the embryo and the child both belonged to the same woman. Would you be happy to explain to her why you did it?

If she is pro-choice she cannot say I made the wrong choice without contradicting her principles and a pro-life woman would understand that both are equal.

There’s a difference in nominating something as a principle to which you think one should hold and actually holding to that principle whatever the cost.

I don’t think that there’s a woman alive who wouldn’t save her child over the embryo. Without a second thought. And you’d be stretching your credibility if you suggested otherwise. And the reason is obvious to all yet the admission of it will be avoided by most because it relates to the value the woman places on each. It’s the same reason people consider late term abortions worse than those at a few weeks.

Does that mean abortion is OK? No. Does that mean that women should treat it as a means of contraception? No. Does that mean we should make no attempt to reduce the number of abortions? No. Does that mean that the nonsensical term pro-abortion is valid? No.

It simply indicates the relative value we place on, for example, a new born child and a blastocyst. Nothing more.

 

[ImJustPro]

Oh man, this thread got spicy.

Here’s some popcorn:

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

It simply indicates the relative value we place on, for example, a new born child and a blastocyst. Nothing more.

Then it was irrelevant from the beginning.

I don’t think that there’s a woman alive who wouldn’t save her child over the embryo. Without a second thought. And you’d be stretching your credibility if you suggested otherwise. And the reason is obvious to all yet the admission of it will be avoided by most because it relates to the value the woman places on each. It’s the same reason people consider late term abortions worse than those at a few weeks.

Maybe she has personal objections but that doesn’t really say anything about the decision I made.

 

[Freddy]

Oh man, this thread got spicy.

Here’s some popcorn:

I’m not sure it’s a subject that deserves trite emojis and flippant remarks.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Don’t be so condescending. He doesn’t see it as murder.

 

[Freddy]

When someone sees you defending murder unironically, it does.

I guess you haven’t been following the thread and just assumed that.

 

[thelovelyone]

I have 2 examples:
People defending abortion because of people who were touched in ways that they shouldn’t have been. Or because they don’t want the baby for other reasons.

 

[Freddy]

I have 2 examples:
Atheists defending abortion because of people who were touched in ways that they shouldn’t have been. Or because they don’t want the baby for other reasons.

So your two examples of arguments are:

1. Rape
2. Every other argument.

 

[Freddy]

I have been.

Then you’ll be able to point to the post where I defended abortion. Maybe this one:

Does that mean abortion is OK? No. Does that mean that women should treat it as a means of contraception? No. Does that mean we should make no attempt to reduce the number of abortions? No. Does that mean that the nonsensical term pro-abortion is valid? No.

Or maybe you missed that.