Abortion thought experiment

unlike brainless libtards, I realize it is not necessary to make a choice.......even the five year old would help carry the embryos........lib'ruls, after setting the fire, will flee leaving all of us to die......


are all the people in the church you attend so full of hate for their fellow man?
 
"Here it is. You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. .
They're [sic]in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/

Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die.

In a decade of arguing with anti-abortion people about the definition of human life, I have never gotten a single straight A or B answer to this question. And I never will. " Patrick Tomlinson

http://www.scarymommy.com/patrick-s-tomlinson-twitter-abortion/?utm_source=FBOnsite

The false premise? Right from the beginning at least 20% of those frozen embryo's will never be alive. The equation of a non-living "frozen embryo" with a living child is the 2nd false premise. Of course you rescue the child as would any rationally thinking human being. The embryo's are not ALIVE because they are not in a state of gestation (growth and development through the consumption of an energy source -- the very definition of life). Unlike the embryo in a womb that is very much alive and in a state of gestation (development). Let us know when those frozen embryo's grow by themselves void of having a LIVING human supply them with the energy required of all life.

As Mr. Pasteur has proven through the scientific method of reproducible experimentation. Life can come only from life. You act as if those embryo's were developed in the lab void of having come from another human life. There is no such animal as "spontaneous generation"...thus those embryo's are anything but "viable" when FROZEN...they become viable only when they are planted into a healthy female reproductive system...and then the success is only 80% of them ever living.

Which begs to ask the question. If your life depended upon a surgeon with an 80% success rate of a common surgeon...would you call that a viable condition...or would you seek out someone with an average (in the high 90% range) to do your surgery?

Now if you would remove the false premise from the equation and declare in your left wing non-existent hypothetical ...... if there were more than one pregnant females and one child who would you choose. The answer? Of course being a leftist you would more than likely save as many of the women as possible because you could care less about a child still in a state of gestation.
 
Last edited:
We've reached the 5th page now and STILL haven't gotten a rational answer from any of JPP's anti-choice crowd.

I wonder why that is?

The question didn't seem that difficult.
 
We've reached the 5th page now and STILL haven't gotten a rational answer from any of JPP's anti-choice crowd.

I wonder why that is?

The question didn't seem that difficult.
Its not the question that appears to have comprehension difficulties...BUT THE ANSWER. It seems that lefty's are not capable of comprehending the simple truth once they have been indoctrinated with propaganda.

Flap...flap...flap....moving on once the truth is pointed out that frozen embryo are not alive and never will be unless implanted into a procreation life source...life begets life. Who could care less about an entire warehouse of frozen embryos? You leftist have proven that you do not as they are used for everything beginning with stem cell research.

Seems like anyone wanting such a procedure as in vitro would adopt and recuse a living child..... that has a 100% rate of producing parenthood if accepted by the powers that govern adoption...considering the documented facts. Fact: 5% of frozen embryo in vitro pregnancies result in birth defects. Fact. Using frozen embryos attempting to result in birth has a very low rate of success having the host accept the embryo as a viable pregnancy. Women under 35 years old have a 35% chance of success and the numbers only get worse with age....any female over 40 attempting to become pregnant via frozen embryo in vitro dips to 16.5%.

Given all these FACTS in relation to some leftwing Hypothetical BS....who in their right mind as an adult with the cognation abilities to reason in streams of logic would leave a living child behind in an attempt to rescue frozen experimental cells? Maybe the Hollywood elite looking for that magic bullet....not concerned about any future life...but looking for a magic cure for themselves or some friend or relative due to life's ravages.

Again simply because you don't accept the truth when it confronts you...does not indicate that it is not the truth. If it was not the truth you would/could produce the evidence that proves it untrue...but instead your left wing bloviation is just that....like a fart in a windstorm.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't. At all. 1000 frozen embryos are not what the pro-life movement is about. Cook them up in your stew for all I care.

Lmao, redneck biology much? So a woman has fewer rights than a dish of fetal snot to you. Duly noted, redneck intellectual. If the fertilized egg is not in a woman it is scrambled eggs to you, but if the same is in a woman's uterus you force her to give it a life? Holy shite!
 
Here is an abortion thought experiment. Go back in time and shove a rusty hanger up Micawbers mothers fishy smelling snatch and dig him out by the root. Am I for abortion then?

Gotta say yeah


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top