7 ms·
An arbitrary distinction that does not convey the true complexity of the issue. Anyone would destroy millions of embryos vs killing a single actual baby. So th
by pfisch 5y ago
An arbitrary distinction that does not convey the true complexity of the issue.
Anyone would destroy millions of embryos vs killing a single actual baby. So they are clearly extremely different things.
- thaumasiotes 5y agoI'm pretty sure it's not true that anyone would make that choice. It's not like killing a single actual baby is all that unusual.
- pfisch 5y agoIf you were in a burning building you would save a jar of embryos over an actual baby? Is that what you are saying? If that is true you are a sociopath.
- heylook 5y ago> If you were in a burning building you would save a jar of embryos over an actual baby? Is that what you are saying? > If that is true you are a sociopath. Just wait til you hear what rubyist5eva thinks.
- rubyist5eva 5y agoJust see the other response to know what I think.
- Karunamon 5y agoIn that particular contrived hypothetical that's only ever existed in the mind of pro-abortion advocates: I apply triage. The jar of embryos is a big pile of unknown, as preserved embryos have a high rate of non-viability, and that's before the conditions of storage are accounted for. And, and if the scenario requires me to pick and run, I don't have time to look for documentation. I save the baby, not because it's "more alive", but because there are no questions as to whether I'm actually saving someone I can help.
- pfisch 5y agoEven if all the embryos would develop 100% it shouldn't matter since according to you they are alive right now anyway. Also it wouldn't change the answer for reasonable people anyway. No one would leave the baby to burn alive vs microscopic balls of cells.