The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
Jesus Christ…
They were males
All intersex are either male or female. Don't need to explain basic biology again so Google it if you don't understand
It's also not a coincidence that the only two intersex males were also dominant
There are also tens if not hundreds of people who have competed as women at the Olympics with XY chromosomes with the exact same intersex condition (AIS) as those two (although to note, it's not been confirmed that either does actually have this condition and Khalif was suing people who claimed it). In the only Olympics where relatively modern chromosonal testing was being carried out (1996) there were 7 found to have intersex conditions and all were allowed to compete. The IOC stopped mandatory testing before the next Olympics specifically because it was so frequently discovering people who had no idea they had these conditons.
Most people with AIS will live their entire lives as women and if they never try to have kids will probably never have any idea that they have it. Hell it's actually a good argument in favour of trans identity outside of sport - people have been living their lives with an identity that does not match their chromosomal makeup for all of human history.
Can you point out a relevant difference between the two questions posed? Why would we think that the ones case shows that the embryos have no moral value but the other doesn’t show that very old people have no moral value?
Are you saving a thousand puppies or one human baby? If you choose the one human baby, does that mean a thousand puppies have no moral value?
So yeah if the original hypothetical is meant to be a proof that embryos shouldn’t be protected from abortion, I don’t see how it does that.
I'm sorry but you are completely lostThe hypothetical was so poorly thought out to the point it's useless On top of that the point you were trying to make isn't great eitherOk heres one. you're in that fire. Instead of embryos on a plate it's a 62 year old man with a handlebar mustache. There's still a baby on the other side of the room. You grab a fire extinguisher and put out
So you’d save the baby and leave the embryos. Got it.
The issue is if there's a difference between human potential, or an actual human. You're arguing for a human vs human situation based on value of age.
It's totally different. Not sure if you're just arguing to argue though.
There could be a difference in the relative value of human lives at different stages of development without that showing that abortion is permissible.
(which I’m not saying it isn’t permissible)
Also embryos are not “human potential”. They are human life, fully. That doesn’t mean that aborting them is wrong or anything, but just pointing out that you’re wrong about that.
Can you point out a relevant difference between the two questions posed? Why would we think that the ones case shows that the embryos have no moral value but the other doesn’t show that very old people have no moral value?Are you saving a thousand puppies or one human baby? If you choose the one human baby, does that mean a thousand puppies have no moral value?So yeah if the or
The hypothetical isn't to prove that embryos have no moral value, it's to show that pro-lifers assign relatively less value to an embryo than a human while claiming they are the same. It doesn't necessarily completely destroy the whole anti-abortion argument but it does a good job of destroying the argument that destroying an embryo is morally equivalent to killing an infant.
Can you point out a relevant difference between the two questions posed? Why would we think that the ones case shows that the embryos have no moral value but the other doesn’t show that very old people have no moral value?Are you saving a thousand puppies or one human baby? If you choose the one human baby, does that mean a thousand puppies have no moral value?So yeah if
The entire point is so dumb I can't believe they are doubling down after it's explained to them
You could put a baby one one plate and destiny's child when they had Beyonce on the other plate. Deciding who you value more is a totally pointless exercise
The entire point is so dumb I can't believe they are doubling down after it's explained to them
You could put a bay one one plate and destiny's child when they had Beyonce on the other plate. Deciding who you value more is a totally pointless exercise
Again, that’s an entirely different question. Willd is correct, the original hypothetical shows that there are undeniable degrees to life. No human of sound mind would leave the baby and save the embryos.
The hypothetical isn't to prove that embryos have no moral value, it's to show that pro-lifers assign relatively less value to an embryo than a human while claiming they are the same. It doesn't necessarily completely destroy the whole anti-abortion argument but it does a good job of destroying the argument that destroying an embryo is morally equivalent to killing an infant.
I'm mean the whole thought experiment is not winning her any points. It's just not clever
The thing is we're wired to be more emotionally attached to a baby than an embryo. I get it. Just like people gush over a puppy vs a snake or fish. It doesn't really speak to logic or morality
The conservatives have different definition of when life begins and when they consider something to be a human baby.
This is what you said ^ so we are testing it:
If you were in a room that is about to be destroyed by a raging fire
And on one side of the room there is a healthy human baby
And on the other side of the room there is a *state of the art insulated vacuum-sealed hand-held temperature controlled cryoshipping container* that sustains five healthy embryos
And you can only save one, the embryos or the baby, which one do you save?
And checkraise, please don’t obfuscate this further. The hypothetical relates to *when life begins*
This should be easy if you believe that life begins at conception. Do you save 5 lives or 1?
The hypothetical isn't to prove that embryos have no moral value, it's to show that pro-lifers assign relatively less value to an embryo than a human while claiming they are the same. It doesn't necessarily completely destroy the whole anti-abortion argument but it does a good job of destroying the argument that destroying an embryo is morally equivalent to killing an infant.
You can assign relatively less value between humans though. That doesn’t mean that if you think something is murder that you’ll condone it.
An embryo is not a human you ****ing nitwit, that’s the point
You can assign relatively less value between humans though. That doesn’t mean that if you think something is murder that you’ll condone it.
You're completely missing the fact that this is a hypothetical that is designed to specifically destroy the argument that they are equivalent. If you're assigning different value to two things they are not equivalent so your reply is not in any way relevant to my post.
Do you not understand what the word equivalent means? Or did you just ignore the part where I said that it doesn't destroy all arguments against abortion, just the moral equivalency one?
An embryo is not a person (because they don’t have a subjective experience), but it is a human life.
Also why would your hypothetical show that an embryo is not a human? It just straightforwardly doesn’t and you know it.
Did your friend protect himself by carrying a gun? Sounds like he didn't. Do you think if he had been carrying a gun, it would have prevented his injury?
If you really think that no criminals possess guns, you're super loopy.
I have to assume you're just trolling or unitarted.
I said in that very post that criminals carry guns to commit crimes, so that should clue you in that I realize a number of criminals carry guns, derp. Some carry bats, but that wasn't the point of that story.
Please read a comment in context - I literally broke your post into pieces and replied to each so it could be easy for you to understand exactly which parts I was replying to.
Are these embryos just hanging around the house? Or will they be implanted?
An embryo is not a person (because they don’t have a subjective experience), but it is a human life.
Also why would your hypothetical show that an embryo is not a human? It just straightforwardly doesn’t and you know it.
So would you save five “human life” embryos from the fire or the baby?
This was honestly meant to be a very simple illustration, guys. This discussion alone should be studied…
So would you save five “human life” embryos from the fire or the baby?
This was honestly meant to be a very simple illustration, guys. This discussion alone should be studied…
Why are you putting “human life” in quotes? The embryos are human life. There are braindead vegetables that are also human life that I assign no value to because they are not persons.
And I would choose the baby of course.
Can you point out a relevant difference between the two questions posed? Why would we think that the ones case shows that the embryos have no moral value but the other doesn’t show that very old people have no moral value?Are you saving a thousand puppies or one human baby? If you choose the one human baby, does that mean a thousand puppies have no moral value?So yeah if the or
So would you save five “human life” embryos from the fire or the baby?
This was honestly meant to be a very simple illustration, guys. This discussion alone should be studied…
Here's a better hypothetical that might be interesting. Try to answer honestly and not as a master debater or whatever. You said you just had a baby. On one plate is the embryo of that baby. Multiple scenarios on the other plate
A) a random baby
B) 2 random babies
C) me
D) Obamas children
What do you do in each scenario? If you're a guy in this situation image it's you're wife and embryo. Your wife is not Crossnerd. What do you do?
Situation 2
Your have 2 exits and a radioactive explosion is the only way out of each of 2 exits. At exit 1 there's a random baby and it will die. Exit 2 there is 5 healthy and pregnant women. 20 weeks. The explosion will cause a miscarriage but not harm the women. What exit you taking?
This sounds like new thread material for those who want to argue in circles.
People dropping like flies lately
