Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
User submission
407.9K
2.6M
This Man Asked A Simple Question Online That Shut Down The Whole Anti-Abortion Argument
One of the core arguments used by ‘pro-lifers’ in the fierce, contentious abortion debate is one we’ve all heard before – ‘life begins at conception.’ While scientists and lawmakers are still at odds over how exactly the ‘beginning of life‘ is determined, the biggest issue at hand remains that people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their bodies, without having much interest in dealing with the aftermath. Seriously, when we see pro-lifers adopting some of the disadvantaged children they so desperately wanted to be born, then we’ll talk about hearing out their side.
This idea of people claiming to be ‘pro-life,’ but actually only being pro-childbirth and pro-dominance-over-female-bodies, is central to a Twitter argument from The Ark Trilogy author Patrick S. Tomlinson that is currently going viral. In a thread of just 9 tweets, Tomlinson proposes a simple question that will leave any pro-lifer scrambling to assemble a coherent answer.
Scroll down to find out what he wrote, and let us know if you agree with his point of view in the comments.
More info: Twitter
RELATED:
This is Patrick S. Tomlinson, an author (The Ark Trilogy) who just shattered a key anti-abortion argument
In a thread of just 9 genius tweets, Tomlinson asks one simple question:
Of course, he was challenged, resulting in a few intense rebuttals
Others, however, completely supported his message
Do you think his argument was spot-on, or did it miss the mark? Tell us below!
2.6Mviews
Share on Facebook
What do you think ?
Mikleo 7 years ago
Using birth control to prevent pregnancies in the first place, is better than abortions. It's cheaper, safer, and no one calls using a condom murder. If she somehow still got pregnant, an abortion is still better than a child dying, because its mother is not willing or not able to care for it.
anarkzie 7 years ago
That's true in the same way that not smoking that cigarette that accidentally burns your house down is better than calling the fire brigade to put out your burning house. No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control, I think in hindsight everyone who has had to have an abortion would have used protection or not messed up in the using of said protection.
Load More Replies...
MagicalUnicorn 7 years ago
the woman who said she wouldn't even notice embryos makes most sense, i would grab kid without thinking about my views as well
Deborah Denley 7 years ago
She was correct in that a petridish full of embryos are not viable unless implanted in a uterus. This is also a naturally occurrence when trying to conceive the embryo fails to implant and the woman never knew she was almost pregnant to begin with. You save the living child. Neurological developments begin at 7 weeks gestation. Technically theses embryos are potential human life. No different than donor sperm or donor eggs.
Load More Replies...
Anna Mcaffee 7 years ago
I'm again abortion, but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else.
Mark Frazer 7 years ago
we write laws all the time preventing one from infringing upon the right of others. we just have a problem determining to what extent an "other" deserves rights. you argument completely ignores the debate of, in this case, "how do we define the unborn. is it an other or something pre other. if its a human it has rights. if its just a mass of cells it doesnt.
Load More Replies...
Hayley Lightcap 7 years ago
I'm pro abortion because it really doesn't matter if it illegal. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby they will usually go to great lengths to see that they don't. So might as well give them a safe secure environment to do it rather than kill 2 people.
Laurie D. 7 years ago
I understand pro choice. I don't understand pro abortion.
Load More Replies...
Paul Schuh 7 years ago
Like many of the headlines here, this one is nonsense. He hasn't "shut down" anything. He's just wasted your time with a false dilemma fallacy.
Laurie D. 7 years ago
I totally agree. He didn't shut down anything and the whole scenario is stupid.
Load More Replies...
Shannon McLane 7 years ago
First of all, the claim that Pro-Lifers only care about pro-child birth and pro-dominance over female bodies is not only insulting but devastatingly uninformed. I am insanely for the life of an unborn child being protected while at the same time implanting policies and procedures for medical care, education assistance, housing and food allowances for those who qualify. I believe very strongly that abortion is wrong but I'm smart enough to do the research and see why it was made legal in the first place. Single mothers need protection and if the $500 million dollars that PP was given every year was put into a program that actually helped their whole beings, through the most difficult time in their lives, and their children, that would be something I could champion. Also, I am leading an organization in my town that mentors teen parents. So please don't think that all pro-lifers are heartless. That is a blatant lie. I care deeply about the mom, the dad & the child.
Jen Nichol 7 years ago
How many unwanted children have you adopted? I believe all forced births should have to be raised by people that voted prolife.
Load More Replies...
TeddyTheHuman 7 years ago
My policy on any ethical subject has always been if it doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form i have no right to judge. Everyone is quick to support pro-life, but I rarely see any of them saying pro-government aid to hell those children and their parents. In my opinion, and i know this may get a bit of backlash, but abortion (during first few weeks) and condoms are the same thing. They are both potential energy. In both scenarios potential energy is prevented from becoming kinetic energy. The only difference between the two is the way certain people in society have manipulated their agenda to reflect their insane ideology.
Nia Loves Art 7 years ago
Abortion should be safe and legal until viability. It is, however inaccurate and disingenuous to claim that it is no different morally than condom use. Abortion is sometimes justified, but it is a difficult thing. In a perfect world no woman would need an abortion.
Load More Replies...
CelSlade 7 years ago
All these arguments against abortion - never really think to ask the unwanted children what they would have preferred. The assumption is that they would be grateful for any life they got. That, once the mother ignores all her very valid reasons and goes ahead with the pregnancy, everything will turn out alright. This at best naive, at worse disingenuous. My mother had 3 children under 6, an alcoholic husband and cervical cancer when she accidentally fell pregnant with me. The doctors strongly advised an abortion. She refused and carried me to term - she gave birth to me in the intensive care ward as she was terminal by the time I was born. Before you get a tear in your eye at the Lifetime Movie strength-of-a-mother's-love sweetness of it, you might want to hear what happened next. She didn't die. But she never let me forget that I nearly 'killed her', or how much more difficult I made their lives. She should have aborted me as a childhood of abuse and neglect wasn't an improvement.
Barbara Whitfield 7 years ago
I definitely would grab the 5 year old child for one reason only....... He / she is the one I hear crying out to me to be saved.
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
Exactly. This proves that you are human and compassionate. Nothing else.
Load More Replies...
FABULOUS1 7 years ago
I have never had an abortion and I dont believe I ever would even if I could still have children. But at the same time it is really none of my business what other women decide to do with their bodies. So many people take in orphaned children just to get an additional income and that child is sometimes left without the love and care they deserve, as soon as they turn 18 they are thrown out to deal with the world on their own and no family to turn to. Then you have women who use it as a form of birth control thinking it is easier to abort the unwanted pregnancy instead of taking preventative measures to get pregnant. But at the end of the day it is still none of my damn business what some one else does with their body.
Mar Ad 7 years ago
I think most people would choose the child. Selecting the embryos to save 1000 vs 1 lives is the greater good if you are a person who equates an embryo to a developed child's life. The sad thing is this is a weak argument because we see this sort of behavior in the world all the time. Starving children in the millions but we choose to stabilize a region first for the sake of a greater good. Don't call people amoral for choosing their answer whether you think it's honest or not is irrelevant in this case. As a modal fallacy, that's an almost impossible question to answer in an improbable situation. What's worse, we see this exact thing play out in everyday life all the time.
Jen Nichol 7 years ago
I would choose the kid and kick the embryos into the fire on the way out. The world doesn't need another thousand people.
Load More Replies...
Angela Hunter 7 years ago
I don't think I could ever personally choose to have an abortion, but BY GOD don't tell me it's not my choice to make! Anyone who goes through the difficulty of that decision has to live with it and I doubt it's a decision that comes without thought or consideration. If so, they probably wouldn't have been great parent material. Mr. Tomlinson's question hits the nail right on the head and I WILL use it the next time a pro-birther tries to argue that "it's a child, not a choice". We all have choices to make in our lives and we make them and then live with the outcome. It's our life.
Judy Hogan 7 years ago
I was given the option to abort my first child in 1976. I did not choose abortion. I am very against abortion, but I am not on the judgment committee. What someone choose’s to do is their business and if there are consequences of that action then they must deal with them. Not me. We all need to understand that everyone’s business is not our own. If there is judgment to be reckoned with that person will have to deal with it. In the meantime I will pay attention to my own business and keep my nose out of others
Glenn Swinkels 7 years ago
Guy seems to just block people that don't agree with him. Seems like an a*****e. "Answer the question or shut the f**k up". Really? That's how you debate? So when someone does answer a or b you shame them for answering b. Block them and keep on ranting. And then you assert no one has ever answered the question. Like a scientist doing an experiment that deletes evidence contrary to his opinion. Well sir.
Hugo Raible 7 years ago
This man also keeps on insulting and blocking all people who point out his stupid logical fallacies.
Gordon Martin 7 years ago
Personally I find it offensive that people think it is OK to spend my money to take care of someone for 20 years instead of allowing the mother to have the abortion she wanted. I would prefer, just from an economic standpoint, my tax dollars go to a one time payment for the abortion than a series of lifetime payment in the from of welfare. Just because I claim to be "Pro-Choice" does not mean I am "Pro-Abortion", Everyone on either side of this argument is Pro-Choice, just the so called Pro-Life people want to force their choice on everyone else.
Mike Clark 7 years ago
Your position looks very similar to this one: https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/poster-neues-volk/
Load More Replies...
Maria Tag 7 years ago
This is one of the WORST pro-abrotion speeches/posts I have ever seen. Shame on you.
Denise Geddes-mcclure 7 years ago
Maria Tag. Why do you say that? Because it doesn’t support your personal stance on the issue, or because you can’t answer the question without compromising your personal stance?
Load More Replies...
Tyler Duffy 7 years ago
No he doesn't, this comes from the old Trolley Car question. If a Trolley car is going down the tracks comes to a fork and on one side is a single person and the other fork five people, you only have time to turn the lever to send the car down the track with the one person. What do you do? Most people would save the 5 and kill the one. The question goes on, you're on a bridge, tracks below. Their are 5 people tied to the track, car is coming. Their is a fat guy with a briefcase on the bridge with you , if you push him off his weight and the briefcases combined will stop the trolley, what do you do? Most people wouldn't murder the man. This is a b******t hypothetical question and if a you had to pick between saving a few kids or you're own embryos I would save my own embryos. This is a stupid f*****g question.
Stille20 7 years ago
Thank you! The question is about the person's gut reactions, not what is morally correct. Regardless of your views this does not support pro choice.
Load More Replies...
Ehsan Es 7 years ago
Who the f**k is this guy? And what the f**k is he talking about? Such a dumb disillusioned self entitled f**k. I want my time back and an apoligy from boredpanda cheering on such a dumb idiot. The replies says it all. Omg, and this person was wondering around with this dumb question for 10 YEARS? And somebody even answering the question is stupid af. It's that childish frat boy one or the other question like "would you f**k a halfrobot chick or a hot chick with down syndrome? And you have to choose a or b and no c pls". From his fame by writing a book (apparently??) he could've used it better and promoted an alternative making everyone happy or should've just shut the f**k up. And big fail from this guy and boredpanda altogether.
Justin Dodson 7 years ago
Gawd thank you! This put me over the Bored Panda love affair I used to have. This is garbage. This tool bag is even more so
Load More Replies...
Paul Nordberg 7 years ago
The 2 real take aways here are: 1) if you give him an answer he dislikes or disagrees with he resorts to name calling and insults. He doesn't want honest answers he wants either an echoing of his views or capitulation that his views are correct. 2) Anyone can build an untenable position, the classic 'inescapable box' as it were. As soon as you start limiting answers or building a scenario that can only go to A or B you've not only admitted that your point won't stand up to free discussion you've moved from adult discussion in to writing a teenage 'choose your adventure' story.
Just saying 7 years ago
This just highlights that human judgement in panic situations is subjective and unscientific. Some alternative scenarios: 1) You're in a fire. In a room are a child and a tramp. You can only save one. You save the child, because tramps are worth nothing in our society. In reality both are human, have value and dignity as individuals, but you choose depending on your biased estimation of their worth. 2) Same q with a child and her gran. You save the child because the child has more potential of life - tho you wouldn't save the embryos in the first question although they have more life potential. 3) In the room are your two children. The decision is agonising but due to the ridiculous parameters of the hypothetical situation you have to make that decision. You save the nearest,but your decision doesn't mean you thought any less of the one further away who you couldn't reach. Your heart breaks. Until Patrick can answer me these, I will not consider the anti-abortion argument blown away.
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
You and the tramp could team up and save the child. Help is always useful.
Load More Replies...
Xelloss Nakama 7 years ago
Although I am pro abort, this argument is falasic. Now imagine THIS, the same situation, BUT the boy is your son and the container with all the embryos is instead the only cure for a terminal disease 1000 children have. Now, what would you do? Lie all you want, you would save your son, and that doesn't make the other children lives less important... That you have a more powerful empathic connection with one being, doesn't talk about the value of the others...
Jörg Zingler 7 years ago
Oh shut up. Thats an ancient greek philosophy technique. And I would save the 5 year old.
Carol Johnson 7 years ago
Totally agree with you Patrick. The argument is all about controlling women's bodies because that is how women can be kept in poverty, as a general rule.
Michael O'Connor 7 years ago
Sometimes, also, there are decisions that are not clean or clear cut, but they have to be made, yet they involve both virtuous (or at least permissible) and immoral outcomes. For G*d’s sake, let’s take a thorough look at the Second World War, and the secondary killing of millions of civilians. Even the Mahatma had a troubled heart in parsing “just war theory” on that unparalleled tragedy. We need to have a lengthy and well-formed soul search, not a clever paradox about abortion.
Load More Replies...
Dani Goldenthal 7 years ago
I believe that if we 'call time of death' when a heart stops beating, then we should consider life to have started when a heart starts beating. Frozen embryos do not have beating hearts. Though they are the potential for life, they are not yet life, therefore the logical choice is to save the small child.
Nandita Iyengar 7 years ago
Hii.... I want to ask him, if he could save only one... Then he would... A. Pregnant Lady B. A normal woman... If it's A then you must understand that, there is something more to the lady that is not exactly a life but a developing one and so even destroying it is not very great.... I want to know his answer.... Because surely a life that is developing can never be greater than the one already developed, rest remaining constant... But the developing life is not to be taken for granted... This is what I feel..
Stijn V. 7 years ago
If i would run out and save only myself because of survival instinct and fear kicing in. Would that mean i am pro murder?
anarkzie 7 years ago
Unless you started the fire with the intention of killing the baby then it would not be murder just a selfish act.
Load More Replies...
Ashley Smith 7 years ago
No one has answered honestly? Or he does not like the answer? The question is an impossible situation. The longest an "embryo" can survive in a petri dish is 13 days. So, a container of thousands of embryo's in the same building, much less the same room as a 5 year old is about as probable as winning the same lottery 3 times in a row. The fallacy is not with the answer it is with the question. Its not a viable situation, its not a viable question. It reality it is simply impossible.
Fran Warner 7 years ago
Also, I looked up how many embryos could actually fit in a real-life freezer container. The most-portable one I found was 12 lbs and held 100 straws. Would it be actually possible for me to pick up 120 pounds, and if the units are like the ones I saw, 12 handles at once? If the freezer or freezers is more stationary or heavier ... even worse! Even if I wanted to, could I move it? The child, providing the youngster is not kicking, screaming and flailing and is willing to come with me, would be physically easier for me to save. Furthermore, the average 5 -year-old is around 40 pounds ... far lighter than 120! What could I PHYSICALLY handle, given my strength, height and weight? This is one example of how this situation could not even exist as he posed it.
Load More Replies...
Troy Curtis 7 years ago
First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality. To suggest you can either do "A" or "B" but not make a better choice "C" is setting the parameters so the person has to make a choice that they will regret. In life we would go for the life of the older child over those embryo's. That does not mean we do not value the life of the unborn child. It means we see a more apparent life in the crying child. But I could shut the man up by asking him the same question in another way. If his 4 year old daughter is in danger of dying in one room and in another room there are 20 other children also in danger of dying and he has to pick saving his daughter, whom he loves and knows or 20 children he has never met before...which choice does he make? See, if he picks his daughter he devalues those other lives. But if he picks them, then he has stated he does not love or recognize his own daughter as a valuable life. Either way, he is a horrible man.
The Paul 7 years ago
"First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality." Says who?
Load More Replies...
Cassandra Bourke 7 years ago
His question is a false dichotomy and an example of leading the witness; it doesn't destroy the pro-life stance that life begins at conception, or rather that human life has value from conception. This question deals with psychology, with the number of connections that a living thing has to our to stir our instinctual response. Of course most (hopefully all) of us would save the 5 year old child, it does not however mean that the embryos do not have value as human life.
J-Yo 7 years ago
You could look at his question like this: The embryos could very well be replaced by a person in a coma. Although it would be horrific to leave the person in the coma to die, I would bet that most people would choose the child who is standing there staring at you. If those are your ONLY choices, instinctively you would choose the one who is consciously aware of what's about to happen to him. That doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other. It's just an awful predicament. Another thought about when life begins: If I drink and drive and hit a pregnant woman with my car and it results in the loss of her unborn baby, I could get vehicular homicide. The reason for the homicide charge is because the fetus is considered a life taken, not because it took away the woman's right to have the baby. If the argument is that it's not a life until birth, then that sentencing wouldn't be valid either.
Lisa Long 7 years ago
You are So pathetic you have to make up weird "never will happen' scenarios to attempt to de value human life. Your Question is as immoral as you are. Life begins at Conception is a HUMANISTIC Theory. HE (G-D) You know...the Guy you dont believe in...."KNEW US BEFORE WE WERE FORMED IN OUR MOTHERS WOMBS" HE has a Plan and a Purpose for Each Individual Life..even Yours. I Hope Someday you find out What HE had planned for you...and it was definitely not to be promoting the selfish annihilation of future generations.
Richard Meyers 7 years ago
I think that Mr. Tomlinson is wrong. His hypothetical question proves nothing and neither does my answer. First, an individual's life does begin at conception. I believe that as a fundamental fact of biology, a scientific conclusion borne of objective science and substantial research. Second, I do not believe that anyone is entitled to judge someone as more or less than anyone else. Yes, we do have comparable qualities, things like height, weight, IQ, speed at running 100 meters, but those are not measures of our value, just our capabilities. In the hypothetical situation above, there is no right answer. There is only doing the best you can with a very difficult situation. You could grab the child, the embryos, or both (one with each hand and drag them both. If you can't save both, you make your choice and live with it. The fact that one person chooses the save the child does not mean that the embryos are not human beings. It just means that sometimes you can't save everyone.
Anne Ford 7 years ago
He presents nothing more than a straw man argument, meant to evince emotion and nothing else. Much like the popular "who gets thrown overboard in a sinking life raft" Lord of the Flies game from the 1980's. The more poignant question to ask is, "upon what do we determine the end of life?" Whatever you define as the medical end of life will determine the beginning of life. Whether its a beating heart or brain function, or some other harbinger. Obviously, the argument ends when the opposite of the end of life defines the beginning of life.
Maria Fierro Meiners 7 years ago
This question is totally ridiculous and beside the point. You are talking about a life or death situation, ie a fire. Even firefighters have to choose between multiple people sometimes, making a judgement of who to save first. Sometimes the one(s) left behind don't make it. Abortion is completely different however because it is rarely a life or death decision and it is rarely about embryo's. So find a better question. This one doesn't cut it.
GlassOfWater 7 years ago
From studying human biology, I cannot help but think of the amazing potential of the embryo/zygote. The human body is amazing. I feel like destroying an embryo would be a waste. BUT I also know that I have never pregnant. Therefore I know that I can never truly understand or judge a person for choosing to abort a pregnancy. I'm not in their situation. I don't know what they are experiencing. I have no right to judge them. I may feel sad if they choose to abort BUT the only right thing to do I suppose would be to support them in every way I can. They would be in a stressful situation. Judging them would not help them. Aborting your pregnancy doesn't make you a bad person (sorry for any typos).
Lora Vandemark 7 years ago
I think Tomlinson is an arrogant intolerant a*****e. If he doesn't like your message he blows up. That gives him no credibility even if I agreed with him. Don't waste your time on this character.
ForThe<3ofFloof 7 years ago
There will always be pro-lifers and pro-abortioners. We may as well accept that fact and move on. I, for one, would be happy just being able to conceive...it's been a struggle.
I. Dondley 7 years ago
We are all pro-life. Some of us believe having an abortion is a woman's choice, other people don't.
Load More Replies...
Lesly Clarke 7 years ago
I've asked it too and they never answer it, they try to deflect and change the subject. The bottom line, whether you are anti-choice or not is that abortions have been happening since the dawn of time, the only question is do we want women/girls dying getting illegal ones? Do we value them at least as much as an embryo or not?
Ikram Ma 7 years ago
thank you we all know that the percentage of abortion in countries where abortion is illegal is quiet the same in countries where abortion is legal so laws don't change much what changes is the risks for women having the abortion we need to think of them first what matters more a humain being or an embryo? for me the answer is simple the women are more valuable
Load More Replies...
Dusten Carlson 7 years ago
If you actually read the thread, most people calling him out for this fallacious argument are themselves pro-choice. It's a terrible argument.
Olli Jokinen 7 years ago
Even though you would consider the embryos as life, one would automatically save the child. The embryos are potential lives, but only that. It does make them less worth due to the risk, that they might fail to survive a pregnancy. So as a "pro-lifer" (I myself am pro choice!), it would be easy to choose the child which has already prooven itself as a successful result of conception. The question is not that difficult to answer.
Kristi Zoebelein 7 years ago
Exactly. A pro-lifer would not hesitate to save the child and would still be pro-life after the incident. You could literally substitute all kinds of people in this scenario, a child and an elderly person, an infant and an older/heavier child, and on and on. Just because you make an instinctive gut decision on who to save does not mean that you do not see value in the other choice. If someone chooses to save an infant over an older child it does not mean that they find the older child worthless. I'm pro-choice and this post annoys me.
Load More Replies... K Blank 7 years ago
The reason people would not go for the embryos is the same exact reason which lets people fall asleep at night knowing there are genocides going on in other countries, or starvation in one's own city. Compartmentalizing. What doesn't impact people right in their face can go ignored because they have the privilege to do that. You can lay your head down at night feeling like embryos aren't worth saving, just as well as you can lay your head down at night while doing nothing about the starving or abused child 3 houses down, sex traffic victims in your own city, or genocide across the ocean. It is also the same capability in humans which lets them feel it's ok to act however they want behind the safety of their screens, in their nice warm room, sitting in a comfortable chair and ultimately do nothing, but yet feel like an accomplished social justice warrior... a champion of his/her cause. It's because you don't look these children in the face. If you could look them in the face...
Scott Ogden 7 years ago
No, if you choose the child its because you made a value decision. Its not heat of the moment, every good person would pick the child every single time. Thus value(child) >> value(embryo)
Load More Replies...
Phyllis Titus McDermott 7 years ago
hell, GRAB THE KID!!!!! If you don't you are condemning an aware being to a horrible slow painful death, whereas the fetuses won't know that they're dying and won't feel anything.
Julian Lean 7 years ago
I think a woman should have 100% choice over whether to carry the fetus to term. I also think that men should be 100% free of any responsibility if the woman decides to have the child. If she has full control over her body and her life, then the man should too. She shouldn't be able to commit another person to fatherhood unilaterally (in the same way she should be committed to motherhood unilaterally).
Ann Benson 7 years ago
I would grab the child because I know that even though the child and th embryos are human life, I would have no choice but to grab the child, because it would be murder if I grabbed the embryos as they can not live outside their artificial environment.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
actually frozen embryos have survived for 20+ years
Load More Replies...
Derrick Bayard 7 years ago
I am pro-choice and I believe that life begins at conception. Once an entity has 46 chromosomes, with human characteristics, it is human. As all humans, the fetus has the human instinct for survival. In order for it to survive, it must attach to a willing host; placing the host in a state of pregnancy. Since all pregnancies carry the risk of death, the relevant question becomes – should the government be able to force one person to risk his/her life to save the life of another.
Unlike his argument, which could easily be disputed by making a choice – between the five-year-old and the 1000 embryos, this argument returns the conversation to the right of a one to maintain autonomous control of one's being. The host should make the choice of whether or not to risk host life. the-true-a...a80859.jpg 
almonious Or 7 years ago
The trick here is acting as if it is an either-or. Wither an embryo is a full human, or it is a collection of cells, which become a human , magically, after birth. The way to evicirate Patrick's argument is this: same scenario, a piece of juicy steak in one corner, that container of 1000 embryos, what do you save? A steak has more than 1000 cells, surely you'll save the steak? no. no one would. See?
Gregory Szpaichler 7 years ago
This is such b******t. A child and a bucket of slime. The slime will never be born, grow or survive to become a person because there is no womb. In order for those fertilized eggs to become anything, they would need a host. That's like saying you should not masturbate because you are killing babies. And medically speaking you would never have frozen embryos. Frozen eggs and sperm but fertilizing the egg takes place within minutes of the transplant. The correct way to present the problem would be to say, one child and 1000 pregnant women. Then you would have a real VALID test. So go find something else to do and stop pretending you are the master of the human race. In my opinion, you are nothing but a hack. Anyone can rig a question.
Cory Gross 7 years ago
It's really not that challenging of a question. This is one of those disingenuous sort of no-win scenarios designed to prove whatever the person in question wants it to prove, masquerading as a utilitarian ethical dilemma. Let's change it up a bit: the five year old is a white boy. The 1000 viable embryos are black girls. You save the white boy, therefore you are a misogynist white supremacist. Checkmate. I just proved that pro-choicers are misogynist white supremacists. Oh wait, it's probably more complicated than just A or B, which is exactly the point. What he considers an evasive refusal to answer the question is, more likely than not, pro-lifers simply not agreeing to the terms of his false dilemma, just as one might not agree to the terms of my "are you a misogynist white supremacists or not?" false dilemma. Any time someone wants to control the terms of the debate in such a way, you know they are merely trying to score rhetorical points for themselves.
The Paul 7 years ago
Oh, look, an elaborate excuse for not answering the question. Quelle surprise.
Load More Replies...
Gerry Higgins 7 years ago
Any question that takes that long to ask is stupid. Children are children and we should not kill them. If you think I am wrong and killing children is a good thing, please explain it to me.
tara skogly 7 years ago
Agree with you that people should be allowed to do waht-ever with their OWN bodies. Thhis discussion, however, is about another body. Got it?
Load More Replies...
Debbie Norris 7 years ago
I'd like to ask the Troy Borst fella...."if that 5 year old was you son or daughter...would you still go for the 1000 (no brainer) embryos??"
Marci Jones 7 years ago
Being pro choice is not equal to being anti abortion. That is the crux of the conservatives arguments. Life is not black and white. Some claim to be anti abortion but have no problem murdering the doctor that performs an abortion. Many times, these procedures are not for the wilful elimination of a fetus. It could be a D & C for an incomplete or missed abortion. AKA a miscarriage. The average person cannot make the distinction and needs to butt out of a woman's choice to do whatever she and her medical professional deem necessary.
Kevin Aye 7 years ago
NO ONE should be made to do or kept from doing things to their own body. From a simple earring to tattoos to amputation to abortion to assisted suicide. You do what you want with yours, I'll do the same with mine. And for $%^^&* sake, even if you're against abortion wouldn't you rather people who choose to have one are in a safe environment like a clinic or hospital when they do? Seems these people care more about the lives of the unborn than the lives that are ruined because of their interference.
John W. Eighner 7 years ago
The answer is simple: You save the one who isn't Frozen. First: Because they are frozen the embryos are nether alive nor dead. but are suspended in between. Since they are not actively alive, you therefore save the non frozen active child. Second: No matter how the Container is labeled, the embryos are not truly "Viable," until they are actually implanted, and the implant takes, in a mother's womb. Therefore you save the clearly "Viable," living 5 year old child. Third: Frozen Embryos are kept in highly insulated steel reinforced containers. Those containers in turn are kept in concrete and steel reinforced rooms, with very sophisticated fire suspension systems. In fact if it wasn't for the risk of smoke inhalation, and lack of oxygen(something that Frozen embryos don't have to worry about) that room would be the safest place in a fire. As such it is highly likely that the container, and the frozen embryos in it, will survive the fire, if left there; Whereas the 5 year old child wou
Beth August 7 years ago
This scenario can't be answered. It's just like the question of two of your own children are in the same situation each behind their own door. Who would you save? I would not be able to choose between the two and would try to save both. I also think that it is human nature to try to save the screaming child. Not because they have more value than the embryos, but because we can't deal with hearing the screams.
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
Sure it can. I would save the living, breathing, terrified child. Easy choice for those of us who can empathize and clearly picture that child in need of saving. You people are just horrifying...
Load More Replies...
Caroline Moir 7 years ago
Birth control is the gold standard here. It frees women to have lives without having to worry about pregnancy. And the morning after pill is a godsend (yes GODSEND). It is not a mini abortion. Women do not conceive immediately after sex. It can take days for the this to happen. The morning after pill just helps it not to.
Hj Roberts 7 years ago
An embryo inside a woman is exactly that. It isn't about any other scenario. It isn't your business. Grow up. Shut up.
Vlatko Šagud 7 years ago
I don't have an opinion on the pro or against abortion, because I don't find myself to be competent or knowledgeable on the topic enough to judge it, or have sufficient experience on the matter. But what I can say is that the question proposed is an over-simplification of an issue which just cannot be answered in a yes-or-no fashion. Moreover, the guy who proposed the question shows contempt towards people of a differing opinion: He insults and belittles people who answered in a way he didn't like while lashing out with hatred. I understand that this is a very emotional topic for a lot of people. However, if you really want people to listen to your argument, you need to listen back and not insult them in the process. Pointing fingers and calling them names will not strengthen your argument, but will only make you appear as authoritarian with coercive methods of persuasion. But, this is my opinion. It is not a universal fact.
Victoria Normann 7 years ago
In my country (South Africa) our reproductive rights are protected by our Bill of Rights which states: In South Africa, any woman of any age can get an abortion by simply requesting with no reasons given if she is less than 13 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects. My personal belief is that life begins when the fetus is viable, so from about 22 weeks gestational age. I believe every person has the right to their opinion, as long as it does not infringe other's right
Audrey Gauci 7 years ago
Abortion should be allowed if there is a REASON. if the mother just simply thinks that’s the baby is an inconvenience or a waste of time and space then maybe she should think twice before she has sex.
Brianna Bastian 7 years ago
just to add onto this that a woman can't get pregnant without a man, so maybe men should stop having sex too
Load More Replies...
Éirinn Colleen 7 years ago
What nonsense. This is nothing but a variation of the classic trolley car question, and most people can't answer that moral dilemma with a simple A or B either.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
The trolley bit is a false comparison, as it injects other completely different concepts into the question. Like involving the intentional killing of someone to save another.
Load More Replies...
Richard Coffell 7 years ago
Let’s change the scenario a bit. In the flaming room is our 5 year old child and a 95 year old woman and you can only save one! These are decisions of triage that are often made. Does saving the child mean you don’t really think the woman is human? Does saving the woman mean you’re a child abuser? First responders have to make these choices all the time and what choice is made has nothing to due with a rediculous notion of who is really human or more valuable!!
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
At an equal chance at saving them, That would be a question of which one has the ability to continue to live longer.
Load More Replies...
Meg Davies 7 years ago
So I'm a pro-lifer who wouldn't tell anyone what to do with their body but if the scenario was save a 5 year old or some embryos the answer would be the 5 year old because that 5 year old would suffer. The embryos would not as they haven't developed pain receptors or cognitive thought or even a sense of self. If the question was save a 5 year old or some pre-mature babies who are alive but could have been aborted (ie 24 weeks gestation) then the question is too difficult to imagine. It's impossible to answer! When someone can suffer allowing the to suffer makes you a monster.
invisible squid 7 years ago
Honestly, if it was my five year old child, I would grab it first. BUT that doesn't mean the lives of the embryos are less important.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
So if it was't YOUR child, you would save the embryos?? Honestly/
Load More Replies... Dan T 7 years ago
This is a REALLY dishonest argument. Replace 1000 embryo's with "1000 newborns under anesthesia whose parents haven't met them yet", and yes. The answer is still easily to save the one scared child who has a family that loves them, not because the 1000 newborns' lives don't matter, but because the new borns won't feel the pain and won't be missed as much. This is also compounded by the dehumanizing state of embryos. But literally, replace the 1000 embryos with a variety of other currently unconscious people. Unconscious orphans. Unconscious disabled people. Sleeping elderly people. Just because someone isn't currently conscious doesn't mean they're not a valuable human life. This argument literally comes down to prioritizing one group of people over another because of the circumstances. It's virtually the same kind of thing that happens when governments bomb schools and hospitals in an attempt to save their prioritized persons. It's disgusting, and doesn't "shut down" anything.
Ikram Ma 7 years ago
now replace the conscieous child again with embryos will you choose the unconscious people or the embryos ?
Load More Replies...
Mako Angel 7 years ago
This is the dumbest article and argument ever! I just wasted 5 minutes of my life I will never get back! If the embryos are frozen the they are already dead!!!! That's like saying, do, you take the human body out the freezer and save it? Or do you save the live person in the corner? Wow! Have we really become this ignorant?
Sebastian Rijo Bobea 7 years ago
You can't ask a question claiming it will "dedtroy their argument, because they can't answer it" and when people do answer it you tell them they are "amoral and a danger to chilldren" you defeat the whole validity of this question about morality and then on top of that block people who disagree... i think this was a pretty average point tbh
William Iaconis 7 years ago
This is a classic false binary. In what fantasy land does ending life out of convenience correlate to sacrificing life out of necessity?
Susan Angelini 7 years ago
The question reveals the answer. If life does not begin at conception then one would not have to save the embryos would they? The question is not which one do you save first, but that both are in need of saving because Both are alive, you said so yourself or this question would not be possible.
Dominik Eppler 6 months ago
your whole argument is obliterated by the insanity of the scenario. also what sort of freak thinks up this sort of situation?
Ronald Thrush 6 years ago
I have a question for the pro-abortion crowd: You are in a room with only two exits. Through one, you will have your head crushed and limbs torn off. Through the other, you will be scalded to death by a chemical solution. If you stay, you will be there for 9 month, then leave unharmed to live the rest of your life. Which one do you choose? If you are honest, you would stay. That is what you would always choose, if it was really YOUR body.
Michelle Scott 6 years ago
An embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a child. In this example an embryo is only a collection of frozen cells with that potential - to divide further or fizzle out once thawed or to even succumb to the thawing process. It may or may not result in a child. A five year old child is a living human being! There is no question to answer - biologically, scientifically or morally.
Stephanie Gibson 7 years ago
He’s not playing fair and he knows it. So let’s turn the tables around. Same situation, a burning building, you can only save one, but this time the choice is between your daughter or your mother, who do you choose?
Gloria Yount 7 years ago
This question can be answered easily. If there were a room that had 4 little babies in comas & another room with one baby that was awake & alert . . . which would we grab up & save? The answer would be the 1 baby because if the one alert baby was let burn up he would experience severe pain but the 4 babies in a coma would not experience the pain. And then I would ask God to take them quickly. The same is true in the theory of the embryo's & the 1 older already birthed baby. The real question here is if there is a woman who has the choice to take birth control & chooses not to (she is accepting the consequences) but then plays around & gets pregnant why on earth should she be allowed to make another choice to have an abortion.? Isn't that the same as not holding up to your first choice you were allowed to make. And if you think that should be allowed then I should be able to save that 1 baby & make a second choice & go in & save those embryos too.
Deborah Hamilton 7 years ago
And another point.... those were viable embryos and NOT pregnancies. HUGE difference.
Jamie Peterson 7 years ago
This is not a simple question. It is a stupid question. And I am going to ask you one back. If you saw two people drowning and one was a child and one was a grown man, who would you try to save? These are questions with only one answer. And only one answer can be given. This does mean that the person who is trying to save the child does not value the life of the grown man. And your question to pro-lifers does mean they do not value the life of an embryo just because they choose to save the embryos. For that matter, unfortunately, an embryo needs a host. Without it he/she will eventually die. And we do not know which embryo will receive a host. So why would we not save the child that we know for certain will live. Here is my straight answer to your question when does life begin, so now you have a answer from a pro-lifer. Life begins at conception.
Tet Battle 7 years ago
Idiotic hypothetical scenarios divorced from reality concocted by pseudointellectuals
Keturah Sline 7 years ago
I REFUSE to call them pro-life because they are not "for"quality of life for the woman or the fetus. Let's call them what they are anti-choice. I am NOT PRO-abortion but I recognize that I don't have the right to determine what another woman does with HER body. I am PRO-choice and anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to choose is literally ANTI-CHOICE which is not the same as being "pro-life". Expecting a logical response from people basing their opinion on religious dogma and rhetoric is futile. It was good to see you expose the hypocrisy of their beliefs with this analogy though!
DopethronePunkUk 7 years ago
As a married man who's wife has had 2 early term abortions that was our f*****g choice, we were careful, we used birth control, we never wanted children or intended to get pregnant but it happened twice and both times we were absolutely not wanting children, the last one was about 5 yrs ago and neither of us regret the decision. It wasn't a f****n human child, it was just a bunch of cells bonded together. No regrets and would do it again if we felt it was the correct thing to do for us. We are not religious either so that takes the unrealistic, old-fashioned b******t out of the argument, we are intelligent adults who are fully prepared to live with our decisions. I will be having a vasectomy next year anyway.
Debby Lea Hardinge 7 years ago
I %100 support his argument. I would scoop that living, breathing child up and run! I would love to find out how many pro-lifers sign up to take care of all these unwanted children..I'm guessing zero. No one has the right to dictate what are woman should do with her body and her life decisions!
Thomas Petersen 7 years ago
By that logic I take it he doesn't believe all humans are equal. Replace the kid with your own kid and the embryos with a bunch of random kids. Now replace fire with guy trying to kill either your kid or the random kids. The argument is in itself trying to use emotions to make an argument. Such a bad argument.
FullSpectrum Survivalist 7 years ago
His argument is stupid and a Straw Man argument, it's like me asking you do you want my to shoot you to death with the 45 in me left hand or the 357 in my right, anyway you answer it you are set up for failure. We didn't have sex and make that baby they did. If I rob a bank and he Judge gives me time, should everyone else have to do time too? I doubt any sane person would say yes. There are consequences for actions in this World, and maybe even after. I think both now and after. If the baby and the embryos both weigh the same, then don't tell me I have to choose and can only grab one, option 3 is you can grab both, because even if you did grab both and not have enough time you wouldn't know that anyway, life is not a game with a clock on display for each action, this guy is an idiot. This also assumes that I believe embryos in a tube have a soul, I don't. I believe it gets one after it's in it's Mother, the same way it gets it's DNA. People have answered fine, he just won't acce
FullSpectrum Survivalist 7 years ago
People have answered him just fine, he just won't accept their answer because they are not falling for his trap question. Somebody go ask this idiot which gun he wants shoot dead with, I bet he won't pick one, who would that is sane? I believe in Freedom to own guns just fine, in fact more than most, but I wouldn't answer such a stupid question and pick which one I get shot with. If you want to shoot me, then do it but it's all on you. Me not answering that question does not mean I am not pro gun, or even that I think one gun can kill me less over another, and people not just giving that idiot an "A" or "B" answer doesn't mean they are not pro life, nor that they value the Baby over the Embryos, it just mean they are not stupid enough to answer his loaded question with he 2 options he gave. We always hear about a Woman's rights, but what about the rights of the innocent baby? How is it her right to murder that baby? Do you people know there are people that get pregnant on purpose
Load More Replies...
Charlene LaLa 7 years ago
Just think about this fact : First of all , thanks for all the moms on the planet , who are really brave and take responsibilities for what they did . Because IF MY MOM CHOSE ABORTION , I WOULD NEVER HAVE ANY DAMN CHANCE TO LEAVE THIS DAMN COMMENT ! I won't blame anyone for choosing abortion , but when next time these people wanna talk about HUMANITY , then it's all B******T ! It's all about selfishness, and some people wanna make others to embrace that selfishness as human right ? It's not about human rights ,it's about abusing power to murder innocent lives
Goblin Shark 7 years ago
Tomlinson's question is extremely flawed because it relies on biological prejudice. Basically we have an instinct developed over a hundred thousand years of evolution that says 'save the child.' Unfortunately because the embryo is a relatively new concept to humans the instinct does not extend to it, yet. Tomilinson apparently is content allowing this to rule his decision making to the point of excluding logic. Try his same scenario but start replacing the embryos with adults. How many adults would you sacrifice to save the child? You find yourself making excuses to justify choosing the child over one adult, over two adults, ect. Does this make his argument valid?
James Myer 7 years ago
This is easy to answer. Save the child. Viable embryos are just that, potential life. They must be fertilized first before you have a life. You might as well say killing a fertile female is killing all the potential life her "viable eggs" could produce but without the sperm of a male and gestation, well they are just genic material.
David Haium 7 years ago
I, also, am against abortion.However, I don’t pretend to know when life begins but I do know when responsibility begins. For those who deem themselves righteous enough to demand an end to abortion for anyone other than themselves and is not willing, even anctious, to take the responsibility for those new lives that they are so ready to force “others” to bear, is the appitamy of hipocresy. I have wrestled with this question for many years and the same answer comes back to me every time. If you would make demands of others without taking full responsility for those demands, then you destroy any illusion of rightness. A parent who chastises there child for cursing at another and then does the same thing in front of that child, brings the lie to all else that they say. I have seen, first hand, what happens to a child that is put into the system. It is rare for one of those children to come out of that experience whole enough to not end up on the streets, prison, or Dead. Put up or shut up.
Lauren MacArthur 7 years ago
I cannot believe anyone "likes" abortion. However, there are times it, unfortunately, is necessary. I don't need to list those obvious reasons. Education is the primary answer to the issue. But, there will always be those who are too lazy, or ignorant, to find a better answer. Once conception has occurred, the blueprint for a human being has been established. It is sad that so many do not consider that. It is sad that rapes occur. There are many sad human conditions, and we, as a society, must deal with them. It is sad that, without some sort of relief, only those with money will be able to take care of their problem. I do not know how we deal with it, without encouraging its use as a birth control measure....which is wrong. I, and everyone else I am sure, would rescue the 5-year-old. Of course, timing is important, too. Once a fetus is viable, a whole new set of rules must apply.
Julian Lean 7 years ago
he's presenting a false dilemma. Maybe he should ask, what to you do if there are two kids in the room and you can only save one? Maybe it's a white kid and black kid, perhaps a boy and a girl. Who do you save? What if it's the 5 year old and his wife? What if it's Hitler in the room and the embryos? Ah, but he's so clever.... What if it's him tweeting inane stuff on the Internet and the embryos? Heck, I'd take my Starbucks coffee that was some how in the room (which is the reason why I was in the Fertility clinic in the first place).
Linda Larson 7 years ago
I choose A. I don't believe in abortion but I am Pro Choice. No one can know what someone else's circumstances are so don't judge and don't dictate.
Ann Benson 7 years ago
If I grabbed the embryos I would be committing murder. They can't live outside their artificial environment. I would need to grab the child and run.
Jean-Elise Kidd Medeiros 7 years ago
The argument is stupid and only to justify behaving badly. You are a man. What do you care? A woman has the right to choose to not have unprotected sex. It's very simple. Of course I would choose the 5 year old child. This child is attached to a human existence, probably loves someone and is loved by someone, has a fully formed CNS feels pain and joy, speaks, cries, laughs, etc and the others are in a jar. If there were no child to save then I would grab the embryos. First responders have to make these decisions all the time when traumatic things happen. They often have to choose between the the one who are likely to be saved and the ones who probably won't make it. Further, the embroys can not survive beyond the current state without a warm blooded mother, a woman.
Joan Degennaro 7 years ago
Not so easy , as an exmidwife I am neither pro or anti a abortion . I a agree that all life begins at conception but life “ which is an abomination , eg anencephalic , why should a female be forced to continue to full term a foetus which is not viable ?
Norm Greenaway 7 years ago
I believe life begiins at conception, However it is not a life of a child as we know it. It takes serveral weeks to transform into a child as we know it , which will survive outside of the womb. Abortion should only be an option, if means the survival of the mother, losing a mother in lieu of the child isn"t fair to the child, father or siblings Norm Greenaway Australia
Colin Cadman 7 years ago
Despite whatever side you fall on, I don't think the question is actually a measurement of how one values life. In that scenario, it's clear that the person would save the child - not because the child is worth more than embryos - but because that child will suffer a tremendous amount of pain. So, the questions weighs our judgement of pain and not our value of life. Besides, if the embryos are in a room set on fire, those embryos would have certainly been cooked to egg whites by then.
Jason Garcia 7 years ago
My answer is "A" and I'm still pro-life, second lets define a simple question. "I'm going to the store, you want anything?", most people I know would define this as a simple question. Third yours would be categorized as a hypothetical situation, where you hold all the power in this world to create the laws, the physics, and outcomes already designed in your imagination. Lastly your use of rhetoric is nothing new or original, read Aristotle, he wrote the book on framing words to your advantage. You could place a 90 year old with the kid and choosing the kid doesn't mean anyone values kids more than old people, means they had to make a judgment call and there would be no right answer, just an answer (like the one you "simply" asked for). The terms pro-life and pro-choice are created to cause discourse to begin with, if your not pro-life, doesn't that make you anti-life? How about not pro-choice, than your anti-choice right? You just conformed to the reality governments create for us
MD Matthew 7 years ago
I think an appropriate response may be in the form of a question as well. imagine the same scenario, but for whatever reason, you can ONLY help one, but instead of embryo its a newborn in a basket vs. the 5 yo pleading for help. As horrible of a decision, I think many would help the 5yo as it seems to be actualized and not just possibilities. both are living, and have value, but i think we place more value on the more actualized developed version of life.
Kathy Evans 7 years ago
The argument is a false equivalency. The situation would be no different than if you had to choose between saving the child or 1,000 unconscious adults who cannot escape of their own power, but are alive. It would be no different than any other tragedy. You save what you can. You see them all as having equal value - but you cannot save all. And keep in mind that the fertility clinic created most of them for the purpose of being destroyed. A lucky few will be implanted into a woman and even fewer will make it to birth. The rest will be killed - so you're not actually "saving" 1,000 children. You grab the older child because he has already survived through several years of things that could kill him and therefore has the best chance of continuing to adulthood. The embryo hasn't experienced life outside the womb yet, so there is no guarantee it will even make it to 5 years old. You grab the one that has the best chance at life.
John Shebanow 7 years ago
I am strongly pro choice. Life begins at human brainwave startup which is no where near conception. However, this is a b******t hypothetical. 1-∞ embryos are nothing compared to a living, breathing child. Each embryo needs to be implanted in a womb in order to have even the slightest chance of gestation. There is no equivalence. The real debate is when and if we, as born human beings, have the right to step in and terminate a successfully implanted, developing fetus. I think this is between a woman and her doctor, but this is not the question he posed. He asks if I should chose between a child and some embryos, none of which have been implanted, none of which will, necessarily, ever be be implanted. B******t. Now if he posed the question as a pregnant woman and a five year old, you might have a real question, but he didn't, he just wanted to make a stupid point so he could show off his pseudo superiority. A*s clown.
Barbara Smith 7 years ago
1000 viable fertilized human embryos does not equate to 1000 living children. With in vitro fertilization, doctors transfer multiple embryos to the uterus of the woman wanting to conceive with the plan that, hopefully, at least one will "take". Multiples happen (see the "octomom"), but not always. Things have to be just right for an embryo to implant in the uterus. These 1000 viable fertilized human embryos are the possibility for full term babies. But many will not survive. This is specifically why the Catholic Church does not like in vitro fertilization. You are creating life, in fact, over creating living children, knowing fully that some will not survive. This is what happens with miscarriages, but that is another whole discussion. The life is the life in either situation (non implanted fertilized egg and miscarriage), but if a woman miscarries early enough, they may never be aware they had conceived at all.
Barbara Smith 7 years ago
(Bored Panda had a word limit, so I couldn't post my whole answer in one go. Here is the rest:) But, with all this discussion, the young, crying child in the corner would be the right choice to save. This child has a family who would grieve terribly, and more potential to continue a long full life than many of these embryos.
Load More Replies...
Steven Christie 7 years ago
I don't see why this guy thinks his concocted scenario is such a genius "test". Here, I'll answer it directly so I wont (according to him) have to 'shut the f**k up': If I cant carry both the embyos and the child, I save the child (answer A). The reason I don't see why this downgrades the argument about terminating embryos can be exemplified by MY own following scenario (which I wont be arrogant enough to classify as a "genius" invention): Instead of a baby and a bunch of embryos, what if the room contains two fully-grown, disabled people and I again have to choose which one to save: (A) my grandmother or (B) someone I don't know. I would save my own grandmother (answer A), but would still feel terrible that I wasn't able to save the other person as well. Furthermore, the fact that I chose to save my own granny would have no bearing on my view that the other person's life is just as valuable. Any other questions, Mr. Genius ?
Marie Cadavieco 7 years ago
sorry to sound stupid, but can’t most five year olds walk? What does the weight matter? I have carried two five year olds, anyway. So no, I will not make a choice. It is a value judgement no human being has the insight to make. I was .once asked in an ethics class which of several heart patients I would choose to have a transplant first, and I said that even a doctor has no right to decide the value of a Person’s life. A mother of a two year old might seem more worthy than an middle aged alcoholic, but what if the alcoholic helps to avert a disaster tomorrow and save hundreds of lives? What if the five year old grows up to be a concert pianist? But what if one of those embryos turns out to be another Einstein? The question you have asked is ethically repugnant.
Rachel McFerren 7 years ago
Science is awesome. The ability to create life outside the womb and preserve that for future use is awesome. But it brings up a dilemma such as this. Anyone would choose the visible child in front of them. Before the ability to create life outside the womb this would not have destroyed the argument for pro-life and I don't see how it does now. As far as I can see they are not viable until they are implanted in a womb. Life starts at conception but that life will not continue unless it implants. Once that life begins it is up to God whether it continues, not us.
William Rogers 7 years ago
As someone else has already stated, my reaction would be to do all I could to save that child. Something in a container under this dangerous and threatening circumstance would simply have to wait until I had 'secured' the child away from the area. THEN, if possible, I might attempt to go back and 'rescue' whatever was in the container.
Tracy Curtis 7 years ago
If he got pregnant had baby and was asked that question even he would hesitate to answer, very easy for people to ask this when there is zero chance of them experiencing it, it’s like me saying I understand the pain of being kicked in the knackers! Which of course I don’t so debunked question really god give me strength, I would have said the child by the way, I don’t believe in abortion for me, but other women it’s their choice.
William Rogers 7 years ago
Bottom Line: Knowing myself, my 'instinct' would be to do everything I could to save the child. "Things" in a container would not register on my radar under this kind of circumstance. I find this whole article brilliant.
James Doriguzzi 7 years ago
What if we reached a point where we could grow a fetus in an artificial womb? Suppose you could save one child, or a thousand fetuses developing at 20+ weeks gestation? I think it would be much harder to let that thousand developed fetuses burn. Another problem with this argument, besides only applying to fertilized eggs, is that a person could save the child while being disturbed about the loss of the embryos. The person would never destroy the embryos intentionally, which is not the same as failing tonsave them.
Steve Finley 7 years ago
It's a completely ridiculous and artificial scenario that comes nowhere near solving the problem or "eviscerating" anybody's position. You could do the same with any number of made-up "save this one or that one" scenarios. (Would you save the 50-year-old doctor or the 20-year-old gamer?) In fact, here it only extends the unexamined and unspoken "because it looks more like a person" fallacy on which so many pro-abortion or pro-choice arguments rest. The question of whether any particular pro-lifer's views with regard to caring for children after conception (which, incidentally, is the job of the parents, not "society" in the first place) is irrelevant to the question of whether life begins at conception. Arguments about the care of children after birth can be valid and worthwhile, but they don't remotely impact the question of when life actually starts.
M Katherine Jones 7 years ago
Opposing birth control is just ridiculous. There are too many people on the planet as it is! The wealthy and powerful are intent on not sharing with us and on reaping and keeping everything for themselves. Why bring anyone else into this dismal situation? The choice is NO ONE else's business. If a woman does not want to have a child or another child she should not have to. Her reasons are her business! The way the religious right pro-birthers think, all women should be pregnant all the time. That is ridiculous. Major Eastern religions believe that life begins with first breath. Some believe some infants die because their souls "decide" they do not want to be here. The pro rape/pro birth sickos really bother me. No girl/woman should have to carry that sick rapist's pregnancy. I have wondered if the pro-lifers picture that fetus as a happy healthy well loved 4 month old smiling and laughing. A fetus is a fetus. The 5 year old is real!
Travis Zirkle 7 years ago
Frankly, I would save the child and here is why. The embryos are frozen and not sentient at this point. The child will feel the fire and die a horrible death while the embryos will never know what happened. I am pro-choice though I don’t think the choice should be made casually. Furthermore, the choice is among the people involved. If there is a god, then God can take care of it if he has a problem. I am not qualified to do his job. I’m doing well enough to run my own life.
Sherrie Taylor 7 years ago
The most ridiculous question EVER. I would save the one who would suffer the most if left behind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the value of either. Having lost 6 babies in early pregnancy (painfully against my will), I can tell you that all loss of life is a tragedy and your scenario gives no hope for at least some life. Making a choice is not always a stance on what we believe, but on what we feel will cause the least suffering!! Its a stupid way to force an unrealistic answer. It means NOTHING.
Cheriese Vega 7 years ago
I want to know how many pro-lifers are willing to adopt and raise these embryos once they have been born. If they care so much for the unborn, why don't they offer to take the responsibility to raise them? Our country is full of children that are waiting to be adopted, but is anyone really coming to their defense? btw...I would save the 5 year old. No question about it.
Yo Gavin Gavin 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro already did a thing on this on his show He completely destroyed it
Valerie Oestry 7 years ago
This is false reasoning. All he has to do is ask a philosopher or theologian and they will tear this argument apart.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
He's too full of himself to consider anything other than what he has deemed foolproof. The smug photo says it all.
Load More Replies...
Chris Ralko 7 years ago
I Honestly can't stomach, and have ZERO respect for any low-life who tells someone to " answer the f*****g question, or shut the f**k up!" Exactly what makes this a*s hat individual so bloody special and pompous that he's put himself way up there above everybody else? What? He wrote a book? Big deal. People write everyday. Or, perhaps it's because he thinks he's omnipotent now that he's posed his "unanswerable" question to the masses. I say give the d**k his 15 minutes of fame, and let him burn out like so many fire embers. Let him go the way of pet rocks and rubber puke....
Dan Shea 7 years ago
A) Their inability to answer a theoretical ethics questions that has no right answer is unsurprising. Especially given the 'generous' 240 characters that Twitter gives you to answer in (literally thousands of pages have been written on this question with no right answer in sight.) B) The fact that you agree with him doesn't mean that he 'destroyed' the Pro-Life argument. They have not been 'destroyed' until they convert to being pre-choice.
Jo Gi 7 years ago
I am pro choice. It's up to the woman to decide what is right for her. That being said for those who think that embryos are people, i ask this, is a chicken's egg a chicken or just an egg? Eggs are eggs, without a host to help them grow they are nothing, just like sperm is nothing. Saving the child is the right answer.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
So, if you were in a World Wildlife Fund or similar lab trying to save the last existing eggs from the last, now dead, members of endangered species, and there was a container of a thousand of these rare and irreplaceable eggs in one corner, and a single chicken in the other which was going to be used as a foster mum to one of the eggs, and the place caught fire, would you rescue the living chicken, or the thousand eggs?!
Load More Replies...
Tammy Hubatsek 7 years ago
Wow Mr Tomlinson! Are you really that stupid, expecting ANY kind of reasonable response for a hypothetical question? Play it this way...put your children in two corners...one has two broken legs and can't walk. The other is an equally helpless infant. Choose. Here's an absolute, scientific REALITY: If the time of death is noted when the heart STOPS beating, then it MUST stand to reason that the life BEGAN with a heartbeat. Right?
David Muiznieks 7 years ago
The man oosing the argument is a simpleton. He believes one's instinct determines truth. If it were his 2 children vs 3 other childrwn the same age and he could only save his or them. He would save his own but that does not devalue the three.
Peter Heckert 7 years ago
Argument ad absurdum, false dichotomy, ad hominem. You want an honest answer? Ask an honest question.
Ramon Maldonado 7 years ago
Intellectually dishonest as it is a clear misrepresentation of argument. Embryos in tubes are not part of the equation. The concern regards embryos in utero. Scenario is not an analog and does not discredit in any way the point of view that all life should be protected. But moving past the flaws of the loaded question, it is the same as someone that is comfortable with abortions to decide which abortions should not be done.
Louie Kouris 7 years ago
I have to mention here that although I agree with the guy's point, I was angry at him when I read the comments on the 2nd page and how he called ppl names if they disagreed with him or challenged him. People are entitled to their opinions even if we don't like what they have to say. You don't prove anything by calling them names. I was pro-life once; more experience of the world changed my mind -i.e. how a person suffers when they know they were an unwanted / abandoned child. I was lucky no one abused me back then for being pro-life. If ppl had, I would probably have felt victimised & stubbornly insisted on my opinion. Allowing ppl to find out for themselves means allowing them to grow. Thanks, Louie Kouris
Brenda Eaves 7 years ago
I have an answer: You choose the one most likely to succeed. Is it easier, more expedient to grab the child and get out? Or grab the container and get out? As a pro-lifer, I would think of it this way: A life cannot be weighed against any other life. The child's purpose in this life may have been to bring attention to the rescuer in order to save the container, in which case the child's purpose in this world is accomplished and he or she is ready to move on to the next life. Feeling guilt for choosing the embryos would not be justified. We, as the rescuers, are in no position at the time to consider philosophy. We must act and we must act on instinct. In this case, survival is the instinct in question, hence saving yourself and other victim(s) is of utmost importance. Hence this question is easily answered. It is as simple as Schrodinger's Cat. Open the door, assess the danger, act with your best judgement of the situation at the time of the fire. Either way, success.
David Lewis 7 years ago
Don't have a problem with his view at all....I'd rescue the 5 year old
Steven Clennon 7 years ago
I disagree it is not the same argument. This is a question of saving life. Being anti-abortion is a question of whether or not we have the right to destroy a life. This argument is based in the same realm as "Is it ok to have an abortion if the mother's life is in danger." same type of question. My follow up question would be why are we having abortions? What are the numbers? How many mothers lives were in danger? How many were gonna have birth defects? Give me a viable reason that ending a human life was needed and necessary. To answer his question of course I would save the 5 year old. I wouldn't even think twice. (without the actual scientific side which I believe dictates that an actual embryo needs to be implanted but don't quote me i could be wrong) I didn't make the fire and I didn't chose to kill anyone. My conscience is clean. Can a person make a decision to END a viable human life and have the same result? I don't know I guess it depends on the situation.
Sean 7 years ago
One 8 month pregnant woman and an overweight man are the 2 you have to decide between saving as they are both struggling due to their circumstances. If you think for any reason that the woman should be the first one you help then this guys argument is flawed. Someone that has chosen this situation to look at is not really up for a valid debate. One objected that's why his hypothetical perfectly works out to guilt you into taking the one that's face you can see dying. It actually proves that if you kill something but can't see it's face then it's easier to comprehend. If anything it shows more strength towards discouraging abortions just because you don't get to see the pain in the unborn child's face. If you had to watch would you make the choice if "face to face" with the problem. I wish no one ever wanted to get an abortion but everyone gets to make their own choices in this life. We all have to live with choices we make. Don't try to guilt or punish those that make the hardest ones.
Ioanna Nikolaidou 7 years ago
there actually is a person who perceives the embryo as a baby/child, that is the woman carrying it and anticipating to actually hold it. that's why they grieve if they have a miscarriage. that's it. and that's 100% personal. as is abortion. it's something terrible to experience and NOT an alternative birthcontrol method, sex ed is of bigger value. but thank god there is this option for extreme situations. it's for the woman to decide
Mona Vine 7 years ago
I have another question for the so called prolifers. If you saw a young woman going into the clinic to have an abortion, and spoke to her, and she said she didn't want to do it but had no other choice. would you offer to pay for all the childs needs, education etc, untill it became an adult. Spend sleepless nights up with it when it's ill. clean up after it, even if it meant staying in some abusive relationship, whether it be a father , husband uncle or whoever . Be trapped for ever not able to get out of the relationship or the home environment in order to protect that child? If the answer is no then why do you think you have the right to force that life on another?
Brian Luscher 7 years ago
Another thing the right to life crowd ignores is that up to 50% of embryos (i.e., a zygote) is not born alive. They self-abort, fail to attach to the uterine, detach spontaneously from the uterine wall before viability, and many embyros that attach die in utero and are ejected as a miscarriage. God aborts more zygotes than humans ever have or ever can.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And 100% of people die. So by your argument murder is OK!
Load More Replies...
Terence Staines 7 years ago
I appreciate what he's trying to do, but this smacks of 'mansplaining' to me. I'm sure there are a lot more effective, feminist arguments that exist, proposed and expounded by women... But maybe anti-abortionists need to be mansplained? They certainly wouldn't listen to a woman's argument, anyway.
Greg Blueye 7 years ago
"keep your policies out of my body"? - oh yes. We will not tell you where you wil have sex, with who, do you use any contraception, that you should be drank or sober and so on. But if you get pregnant remember taha this tiny thing inside you is not part of your body anymore - its someone else body that will become bigger and bgger. And this Patrick is manipulating ba$t*d. If we see healthy child that breath with the same air like rest of us, of course we will help him. Most of ppl will not know how to help embrions - maybe taking them will just make things worse? MAybe they need some energy? Maybe (potential) fire will do no harm. I dont know - do you? Greg from Poland
Christa Starkey-Mason 7 years ago
Frozen embryos don't have beating hearts. This guy's simple minded analogy is just plain stupid.
Mark Elliott 7 years ago
What a dumbass article, he just ends up blocking people and ignoring questions and then saying "NO NO YOU HAVE TO PICK A OR B NO NO" *Chucks a tantrum and throws feces everywhere* You're arguing that a conscious child vs non conscious embryo. It's easier to make more embryos anyway. This argument is dumb. And I feel dumber for replying. It's like saying: "IF THERE WAS A FIRE AND YOU HAD TO PICK A) TO SAVE A 5 YEAR OLD OR B) A 70 YEAR OLD UNCONSCIOUS PATIENT WHO WOULD YOU PICK? YOU HAVE TO PICK 1!!!11!!11" "IF YOU PICKED A THEN YOUR A MONSTER AND A OLD-PERSON-O-PHOBE" You don't abort a 5 year old so the argument on abortion is invalid anyway, we don't go around aborting 5 year olds, this is dumber the more I think of it.
The Paul 7 years ago
If you're afraid to engage with the question, but you attempt to characterize the person who asked it as immature by uncharitably rephrasing them in caps, the fact that you're afraid to engage with the question remains obvious.
Load More Replies...
PennyDreadful81 7 years ago
Tomlinson didn't "shut down" anyone. He automatically went into the argument angry and came out the same way. He wasn't looking for civil, nuanced debate. He's a troll.
Marysia Jawłowska 7 years ago
Well, if you force people to make a choice between killing a child that stands in front of them and pressing a button that will cause the death of 1000 unknown people they cannot see, I assure you most would press the button despite claiming that all human life is equal. We understand that it's ridiculous and yet sacrificing a human being whose face we see and whose pleas and screams we hear is just too much for us to handle. I'm pretty sure there was some research on the subject that documents the fact that people make very irrational and technically hypocritical choices of that kind. This scenario perfectly matches all criteria so allow me to say it's not a sound proof of anything.
Irene Scott 7 years ago
Totally misses the mark, because there is no correct answer and everyone who disagrees or questions is called an a*****e or worse
Jane Caspary 7 years ago
JUst another point. If you are genuinely pro life, does your state support the death sentence., do you support the death sentence. How can one be pro life and accept their state taking a human life. If your pro life own it all the way.
Irene Anderson 7 years ago
Where are these embryos? Pickled in a jar? They are already dead, of course the answer is A. But you have not considered some abortions are done when the baby can survive. There are other alternatives for the Mother. If you had or have children how would you feel about killing your unborn baby, to hear it crying when the Dr. sticks a needle in it’s brain. Abortion is not the answer.
tara skogly 7 years ago
Easy to answer actually; I’d save the five year old. Why? Because if I had detached the container I would have destroyed the content. It is hooked up and preserved to hold a certain degree at all time. Detach it and you would kill 1000 embryos. Why on earth did this guys question stand unanswered? Are most people dumb?
Natesh Iyer 7 years ago
Another thing to remember burning embryos are not ready for birth but abortion means you are killing babies ready for birth if not touched. So the question is ludicrous.
Ben Mitchell 7 years ago
You know, except for the rare situations where a pregnant womans life is put in danger as a direct result of being pregnant, it happens and in those situations forcing her to keep the child is a death sentance for 2. There is no blanket right/wrong answer for abortion, in the majority of cases it should be the "could be" parents choice and it should be easily accessible.
Load More Replies...
F Steagall 7 years ago
It is a false argument, you are assuming you or he has the authorty to set values of circumstance.
Jeanie Enyeart 7 years ago
I had a abortion when I was only 14 years old and it was wrong very wrong. But I also know that I had health problems and me and my baby would have died. I think abortions are so very wrong and didn't know that I would have died when I did it. Women know what they are doing is wrong all day long. You can say what ever you want it is wrong all day long. Our hearts know it. Women that do it have to live with it and the people that help them do it knowing it's wrong so there will never be a change to it cause no know whats to say they did something wrong. So why are we even talking about it. The law will never change. Just saying it is fact......................
Grandmajill1 7 years ago
Maybe a better scenario is a woman with a newly implanted embryo vs 1000 viable embryos?
Rachel Nielsen 7 years ago
Lol what a joke. "A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option." Morality doesn't exist in a hypothetical vacuum. How about this one? : Your mother and your baby are in a burning room and you can only save one. Which do you pick? Wait, you pick to your mother? You don't think your baby is worth what your mother is worth? That must mean your mother isn't human. Embarrassing that this got any credence at all.
Jacey Davison 7 years ago
I don't really see how this argument makes any difference to the abortion debate. If he is right, all he proves is that children have greater worth than embryos. At most, all this argument would prove is that abortion would be allowable to save the life of the mother as the mother's life would have more value than the baby's life. But this is the vast minority of abortions. So really, it's irrelevant. The example would perhaps work if it was a mother running out of a building where the fire alarm is going off and whether it would be worth inconveniencing her to save the thousand embryos. Her life wouldn't be in danger. The real question is whether she's allowed to kill the baby just because she wants to.
Mark Jago 7 years ago
all good and well but it's a s**t scenario in the first place let's replace the cells with a premature baby in a Humicrib in that corner one that right now can be terminated if still in the womb on the operating table waiting to be chopped up but is in this scenario out and in a Humicrib waiting to be saved what then ? your not asking the right question son not too bright after all
Gayle Bynum Cardosa 7 years ago
Gale Lett, there isn't just stranger to stranger rape, there is rape of a husband to a wife. There are scenarios acted out every day in this country where spouses and significant others are truly held hostage in situations many people cannot even fathom. I'm not talking about chained-in-the-basement Ariel Castro situations but Stockholm Syndrome or violent, you'll never get the f**k away alive situations. THOSE are going on all around us and you would never in a million years know who those situations are happening with. TRUST. Those people are getting raped and impregnated and they have no.f*****g.say. I can promise you.
Amanda Richter 7 years ago
I’m a big believer in pro-choice, personally, I don’t believe that anyone should push their personal beliefs onto anyone else because NO one I mean no one believes exactly the same. Abortion is a personal choice, the key word there is personal it’s no one else business what your choice is. I would grab the child personally, because in fight or flight situation that child represents the future and our instincts demands us to protect that child, not eggs. Harsh yes but unfortunately accurate, and all I would see is a child in danger not a machine that is holding a bunch of eggs. On a religious stand point, god gave us the ability to think, invent, and to push the boundaries, is it not a waste of god’s gift to ignore that ability and is not different forms of birth controls falls under our ability to invent? The funny thing is that birth control such as the pill can help balance hormones which in turn helps relieve problems such as migraine, which I have had personal experience with.
Simon Leister 7 years ago
The question is flawed and manipulative. It is not actually a question about humanity it is a question about pain and suffering. The child is "crying", the child will suffer from being left alone. The suffering 1 child is being compared to 1000 humans who won't feel pain. What's unspoken on the question is the suffering of the 1000 families who lost their future children, what is unexplained in the question and answer is the basis on which the writer makes his conclusions. At no point does he explain why A is a more moral response than B. Neither does he address the question of what an embryo is. He says that it's not a baby or a child, but is it still human? How is it that the product of 2 humans creates something that is less than human? He doesn't answer these things.
Leigh Hunt 7 years ago
"no one has EVER answered it honestly" Bull s**t. It's been answered and rebutted many times, and he either is deluded, or a liar. I think that there is a lot wrong with this. First of all, "life begins at conception" is a claim (it actually begins long before that.) not an argument, and the frozen embryos are not implanted in a uterus, and they are not doing anything metabolically. A pro-life person can honestly answer that they would save the child, and it doesn't contradict their position even mildly, let alone "shatter it. Basically he fails to address any questions about abortion, and continues to relegate himself to one of the two oversimplifying camps of pro-life and pro-choice. I think that people in these two camps should respectfully disqualify themselves from asserting opinions on the matter, let alone act like they have some panacea argument, when they have nothing.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
Most prolifers equate any termination of an embryo or fetus as killing a child. So it does trash their arguement
Load More Replies...
Danyell Rosenbaum 7 years ago
The Fact that me and my mother are alive today because she had what some would call and abortion, lets me see another side. Things aren't always what they seem, and of course this will always be a huge debate, but it may help to take a second to think you have no idea what the situations are. My mom's first pregnancy had complications so severe that carrying the fetus to term would have killed both. So what choice would you make? Make sure you do your creature math correctly.
Suzanne Keefer 7 years ago
I agree with Patrick. Oh, and one more thing. Some of the nastiest people I have ever met are Pro-Lifers. Many are cruel and heartless with no consideration for the woman or the child's welfare.
Renee Ahlich Ryan 7 years ago
Abortion is the murder of a human being. Some abortions even take place after birth. Most forms of artificial birth control dispose the egg after it has been fertilized; in essence another form of murder. No one has been able to answer your question to your liking because you are most likely closed to the idea that God does exist, and has set moral boundaries for all of us. He is the Creator, our Father, and we are His children. Thus so, it is immoral for man to create life, much less artificially in a petri dish. No one wants to tell a woman with problems conceiving that she should leave it to God. This is a very personal subject. No one wants to go there. The fact remains that it is wrong. Your question doesn't prove anything. Life artificially created poses the problem.
Anne Smith 7 years ago
You don't save one or 1000. You save one, or you remove a tray of embryos from a freezer. You run with them through a burning building, during which time they begin to degrade from starting to thaw. And then you put them...uh, where? In the large deep freezer conveniently located across the street? They will all die. If you want ANYONE to live, you take the 5-year old.
Anne Smith 7 years ago
You don't save one or 1000. You save one, or you remove a tray of embryos from a freezer. You run with them through a burning building, during which time they begin to degrade from starting to thaw. And then you put them...uh, where? In the large deep freezer conveniently located across the street? They will all die. If you want ANYONE to live, you take the 5-year old.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
Logic isn't allowed in the scenario, Anne. You broke the rules. All the dude would say in response is that you're dodging the obvious fact that you're his inferior.
Load More Replies...
David Carr 7 years ago
I love how his entire argument is an appeal to ignorant emotion and it's being lauded as the smartest thing a leftist can come up with. It is objectively, factually more beneficial to save the thousand, but anyone who actually sees that and goes with sentiment over sentimentality is "lying" because his limited imagination cannot contain their reasoning process. Stupid, we're not lying. We just have the capacity for abstract thought, which you just proved you don't.
Mike Richards 7 years ago
i THINK THE MAN IS CORRECT IN STATING , It is the woman that has to face God not the anti anythings , it is her right to choose what she does with her body, our legal system shouldn't even be involved in such matters ! I don't believe insurance should pay for men's or woman's birth control ! I believe Insurance should cover medical problems equally , but birth control is not a health issue , it is just a licence to have unprotected sex on the go ! abstain , learn to swallow or buy condoms !!
Joe Dad 7 years ago
No one believes life begins at conception? No one? Really? Well, you're wrong because I believe, so that's one person for you. That's a terrible analogy, by the way. Why the hell would there be a million embryos in a room... that analogy cannot be used validate one woman's decision to abort her child. She actually had this choice: abort or not abort. She wasn't thrown into this silly dilemma of yours where she's in a burning room.
Audrey Gauci 7 years ago
If a women if raped and becomes pregnant because of some irresponsible man she should be allowed abortion. BUT, you can get condoms ANYWHERE! if your going to have sex and don’t want to get pregnant then you can prevent this by using your brain.
Panda 7 years ago
Birth control is not 100% effective. Stop judging women, because they had bad luck. Forced pregnancy shouldn't be used as a punishment for women who want to have a sex life.
Load More Replies...
AJ Ventura 7 years ago
So this idiot makes up an imaginary question that could never happen and wants to use it to prove his point. Isnt that kind of like writing your own history book and then using it to prove that only what you say is correct? What an idiot!
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
And yet it takes so little to just answer the question. Still can't do it, can you? That's his point. Thanks for playing.
Load More Replies...
Jacqueline Bohr 7 years ago
Actually for the anti abortionist of the Christian and Jewish variety this would be easy to answer. The christian scriptures teach that life is 'in the blood'. (Genesis and Leviticus) Those embryos need to attach to the womb's wall to start to develop blood. it is not until the third week that blood fully develops and starts to pump. Thus conception is not complete until blood exists in this religious ideal! These embryos are described by the man as "viable" , according to the dictionary 'viable' simply means that are "capable of working successfully; feasible" - thus it is referring to their future capabilities, but at that time are not yet there!
Mary Jarabek 7 years ago
for sure the child, but that doesnt make abortion right , not when there are so many ways to not get pregnant in the first place . there is no reason to have to get one if you just use protection ,,, and im not saying that some times its not needed , but too many women uses it like birth control.i have two girls who have been sexual active and are in their 20' and 30:s. and have always used protection .
Lora Vandemark 7 years ago
I think leaving a living 5 year old child that would feel the agony of pain is of course the right answer. Why is this a question? Embryos wouldn't even survive the heat.
John Walker 7 years ago
Luckily I can hold my breath longer than the average person, so I would rescue them all! Was fortunate for them I was there that day!
Marco Fittipaldi 7 years ago
Although I'm pro-abortion, I still consider fetuses to be alive. Beside that, if I HAD to give an answer to such a ludicrous question as this (is one of those classic arbitrary scenarios where things as posed deliberately just to prove a point), it would be B, as there's a big difference between a live baby and FROZEN embryos.
Brian Newman 7 years ago
I really don't see what's so hard about this. You are asking pro-lifers to choose between two choices, both of which end in death. Since death is as bad as it gets for a pro-lifer, choosing between two outcomes, both equally bad, may have no good answer. To improve this question, you should first ask the question about the train (the one that goes, "you are standing next to a switch for the tracks on which a runaway train is speeding towards another train, if the trains strike one another, hundreds of people will be killed, but if you flip the switch next to you, the train will switch tracks and kill a person trapped on the second tracks. Do you flip the switch?") Once you know the answer to that question, then your's has the proper context to understand the answer you receive.
Michele Caldwell 7 years ago
I don't understand his need to attack people who disagree with him or give an answer he does not like because it stops proving what he thinks his question proves. It is why I refuse to argue or even discuss with many liberals because when they don't have a response, they attack. Attack one's character, intellect, honesty... THAT Is what completely shuts down all further discussion.
Mike Stone 7 years ago
Simply because harm minimization exists does not nullify that harm occurs. I would choose a child over 100 cats, doesn't mean there's no moral jeopardy killing 100 cats. It's also a false equivalency. Elective abortion is not like a fire. The result of inaction in a fire equals death. In most cases, the result of inaction in a pregnancy equals life.
Matthew Daniels 7 years ago
How does this shut down pro-life activists? In your scenario, one has no choice but to let one die. We have to save one or the other. When you are having an abortion you don't have to decide which one to save. There is no choice but to let live or let die.
Matthew Daniels 7 years ago
How does your question shut down pro life activists? In your scenario you have a choice. Save one or the other? When you have an abortion you don't have to decide to save one. You only have one life growing inside you. The only choice you make is to let live, or let die. Try again.
Matt Luthman 7 years ago
If this was true why would a person driving drunk who would hit a pregnant women in an auto accident causing her to lose her CHILD charged with murder....even if she was driving to a clinic to have her legal abortion?? Try my scenario....you don't get charged with murder if you cause someone to lose an arm or leg which is part of the body and not a seperate life itself. So Explain that away Mr Liberal Freedom lover...why not legalize a mother to kill her child up to age 2 if she decides she no longer wants it??
Denise Fowler 7 years ago
for me, who believe in a womans right to choose, he presented another view point for me.
Benj 7 years ago
Idunno, I'm totally pro-choice, and my first thought was, before really thinking about it, grab the embryos - more possibilities of life. ...Then again, I may have been thinking along the lines of an "armageddon ark", which is another thought experiment, Not just a fire in a building.
blugeagua 7 years ago
Yeah... women have been saying this s**t for years already and no one ever listens to us. But when a man brings it up, all of a sudden it’s all ears and everyone agrees.
Pete Nosal 4 months ago
Anti abortionists goal is to empty the hall of souls and trigger the rapture,even though the Bible forbids trying to force it.
Nicola Dawson 4 months ago
I believe a person has a right to choose, what is the right decision for them at that time! Instead of trying to shove your opinion down a persons throat, ask why they have come to that decision, and it is not an easy option! Like has been mentioned, their not the one looking after the child/children! As, of the question, the answer will always be a, no human being, who emtionally intacked, would not ignore a screaming child, when it is life or death!
Gary Geracci 6 months ago
I have always believed that women should control their own bodies!. Now ,That said.that means as well, that she not bring unwanted children into the world. Use dependable Birth control!
Heidi Davies (Blondeheidi71) 8 months ago
It all comes down to 1 thing.. MY BODY, MY CHOICE!! Excuse my profanity but all of you F*****G pro lifer's need to SHUT UP and STEP UP and raise the children that they think shouldn't be aborted and see how that works out for them... Oh but NOOOO they can't and wouldn't do that, right?! THEN SHUT YOUR OUT OF LINE BIG OBNOXIOUS MOUTHS and find a productive hobby to do some good in this world instead of putting your noses in other people's business where you have no right to be!
Pete Nosal 1 year ago
I support a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her own body and life. I just can't help but wonder about the other person involved, does his consent even matter?
Emily Redman 1 year ago
I am pro-life and given the constraints of this particular scenario, I would have to choose the five year old child over the petri dish of embryos. My choice has more to do with the amount of suffering entailed. The embryos don't have a nervous system YET, and therefore they will not experience pain in a fire. However, a five year old child has a developed nervous system and will experience a large degree of pain and suffering. So, give the exact parameters of this situation, this is what I would select. However, as someone else already mentioned. IVF and holding embryos may create a separate moral dilemma all on its own.
Deondra Loehner 1 year ago
An embryo is just an embryo until it is fertilized with the sperm, only then does it begin to take on a potential baby being.
Deborah Rubin 1 year ago
There's no such thing as a pro-lifer. They are anti-abortion, anti-a woman's right to control her own body. A good point is made here, if these people really supported life, why aren't they taking the babies that are born unwanted into their own homes?
Linda J 2 years ago
His question isn’t really valid. It’s only meant to attempt to prove a point. I could ask the same question about what if there’s a woman in one corner and a five year old in the other. Who would you save? Based on who you would save does that make you an “amoral monster”? Some people would choose the child and others would choose the woman. Does either have “less value” because they weren’t chosen. Using hypothetical situations to justify murderous choices is just a way to escape the reality of what’s actually being done. And creating a fake scenario to prove a point is disingenuous. Why the heck would there be a five year old and a bunch of embryos in the same room? Then he went to add additional unrealistic parameters that would allow this person to safely move these embryos. Some people would try to save both, if his parameters about safe removal were true. The same as if 2 5 yr olds were in the room, they wouldn’t choose. There’s no way they’d know that they don’t have time.
Craig Reynolds 3 years ago
Hypothetical question. A woman goes into labor but there are complications, the complication is that only one can survive so a choice must be made. The woman is not conscious and cannot make the decision herself and she is also not married but is of legal age. One must die so the other can live. Where should the law stand on this situation? As a married man, I would ALWAYS choose my wife over any child but the woman above has no one to decide for her so what do YOU people think the law should decide?
Hypatia Vasilios 3 years ago
I wish you'd stop calling these people pro life. They're not, they're pro birth.
Jaja Noro Yao 3 years ago
According to the radical left if being pro life is foring people to be prgnat then being anti gun is foring people to deny the blelieth of the Us.Only Radicals would want To ban Abortions in rape incest problem with the mother or child or ehrn the parent’s are poor. Also how is it sexist,if you only suport abortions in rape,insect mother or child problems Like Manny terostist hate muslims and want to dcatate what they do but some Muslims ating terrosrist are muslims themselves. Like even trump support abortions in these situations howether he forgot to put laws in these place. Also, Only an Idiot would be pro life in these situations like only an Idiot would support forcing people to vaccinate against the FLU, an easily curable disease to people who can’t even afford the vaccines. Also one the supreme court Banned abortion in southern states while they where in northern states and also the head was a woman so I guess it does not matter your gender to make stupid desisions on abortions
Elinor Storey 3 years ago
This argument is just like the typical you choose either your best friend or a hundred people you don't know to die. The embryos have the same worth as the 5-year-old, just as your friend vs.100 people do to you. The difference is that you know your best friend, or the five-year old, better than those 100 people, or the 1000 embryos.
Brendon Phister 4 years ago
I didn't know that when people choose to have an abortion, they are choosing between that and saving a five-year-old child's life. My mind is blown.
Annie Pearson 4 years ago
Obviously the right choice is B. The five year old can run. The embryos can't.
Justin Burch 4 years ago
This doesn't really prove any points in my opinion. You can pick choice A and still believe an embryo is considered life. For example, if there were six kids in a room and I could only save one, but one of the six was my son, then I would pick my son over the other five kids. It doesn't make those other five kids less of a life, but I made a decision that made the most sense to me. With this scenario, it would make sense to save the child that's already been born simply because it would have a greater impact in our world. That child is more cognizant, he has a family, he can experience fear, etc. His death would have a more profound impact in this world than the embryos. It's a simple is that. There are two bad choices to begin with, so it's a lose lose no matter what.
Joseph Romano 4 years ago
The embryos do not have to be "equivalent" to a child to be considered the beginning of life. I could care less about whether women get abortions or not, I am a man and don't have a horse in that race. I am stating purely from an observational opinion that saying life begins at that stage has nothing to do with whether they are "equal" to a child or not. If you are going to use that argument, then, you can begin to argue that people on life support, or, in a vegetative state have lost their status as human beings, also.
Kathleen Sack 4 years ago
The problem with the question is that it is so black and white and life is not. Even if I chose the 5 year old child first, I would return for the other even if I had to risk my own life. No one life has value over another. We all have equal value in the eyes of God. Also, you play God when you destroy human life. I do believe in choice and that choice takes place before pregnancy. Be responsible.
Laura Lacasse 5 years ago
this man is saying that if you disagree with him , you're uneducated, lying, and dishonest. see, this isnt okay. im pro-life. hes clearly pro-choice. that doesnt mean i wont respect him. he is trying to silence us just like he is silencing the babies. just because our views differ, that doesn't mean that we arent both human. lets be RESPECTFUL. if a pro-choicer wants to tel me their views, im not gonna just shut them up. cmon. its simple respect.
Laura Lacasse 5 years ago
this man refuses to accept that anyone else could be right. if someone disagrees with him, he says theyre lying. just because you disagree doesnt mean the other person is lying. im pro-life. i firmly believe life begins at conception. if a pro-choice person tells me they believe life starts at birth, then i dont need to agree, but im not going to say they are being dishonest. if thats what they believe, thats what they believe. theres no need to be so aggressive. its really simple. im pro-life and your pro-choice. im not gonna block you or say you have no brain or completely silence you like you silence babies. im gonna respect your opinion and try to get you to understand my view. its called RESPECT.
Tiny Hands 5 years ago
So, I run a pro-life club at my high school and have done lots of research on abortions and such. The problem that I have with this question is: if there are 1000 embryos and I take that tub, where would I find 1000 mothers willing to give birth to them? I couldn't just walk around the side of the road asking people. I probably would get arrested because I am holding a tub of babies. Obviously, if I knew 1000 mothers that want a child, then I would take the tub, but otherwise I would save the child because I am positive I could save em. I am in no way implying that this child is more important than 1000 babies, but if I don't know anyone willing to be impregnated on the dot, then it's a no brainer. Wouldn't it suck if I took the tub and then find no mother to give birth to any? That would mean I let the kid die for no reason. This is not a matter of pro-life or pro-choice, this is a matter of who I am positive will live. The answer really depends on who is there at the right moment.
Lohn Sillybob Crofton 5 years ago (edited)
hmmmm ....how many people have ever found themselves in a fertility clinic , on fire, and having to choose between saving a 5 yr old child or 1000 viable embryos???? I'll tell you ZERO.....how many women find themselves murdering their own babies everyday???? I'll tell you. 2,365 A DAY. That real......Mr. Tomlinson is a science/biology denier who would rather take the argument to the "theorhetical" and even "fantastical" rather than make a logical realistic argument why he thinks life does not begin at conception. Whatever choice i made in his Kobayashi Maru scenario would literally have no effect on the reality of whether or not life begins at conception or not. Its a typical liberal tactic...create a false scenario and then say...."aha I got ya.".......as for me I would capt kirk your a*s and say....." I deny your perimeters and I will try and save them all"
Lohn Sillybob Crofton 5 years ago
Patrick S. Tomlinson is a typical science/biology denier who would rather take the abortion argument to the "theoretical" and even "fantastical" by asking a loaded question. How many people have ever found themselves in a fertility clinic that was on fire and had to choose between saving 1000 viable embryos or a 5 year old child....ZERO...How many women decide to murder their own babies everyday......2,365 thats real...... Creating a scenario that will never happen and then trying to force someone to answer does in no way make you smart....it actually makes you stupid for thinking that it makes you smart. Its literally the The Kobayashi Maru from star trek.....well.... ill captain kirk you and say....."I'm gonna try and save them all"....
Jon 5 years ago
How fukin stupid when planned parenthood makes a killing in the money that could have been used to build homes for mothers all over the WORLD and maybe even get their groceries in bulk from somewhere like Sam's. Especially with people like the guy from Detroit who builds classy little quonset homes for poor families. We live in an age of dipshits. The women who are having abortions are having now to deal with the decisions they made and guess who their gonna blame, when, not if, the reality kicks in that they are here able to choose their own decisions and the little life they chose FOR to die never had a single choice, not even over THIER own bodies.....their gonna blame people like this amoral monster Patrick and wish they could lock him up in a room with neither embryo nor child in it, but with all the people who pumped so much fear of what a child isn't into their minds and hearts instead of offering hope, and light that m**********r up.
Matthew White 5 years ago
I think the difference is that by making contact with the child there is an acknowledged level of accountability. By the cry of the 5 year old, they are asking you the question, will you help me? Since the embryos are incapable of communication, they would never receive the same consideration. Another point. A five year old can be helped and cared for in an ongoing way, what would the average person do with a jar full of embryos? People should stop debating this, there are as many answers to the question as there are factors that would effect the answer - everyone seems to have a stake in this conversation and an opinion about it. There is allot of math involved here with regarding ultimate responsibility which starts with desire and willingness to have sex and moves right on to an impregnated rape victim. While I think that some people may consider unwanted pregnancies to be equivalent to the disease we want a cure for there are also choices made to terminate a wanted pregnancy.
Anne Bailey 5 years ago
That is a stupid, sophomoric question, akin to what if you could save a thousand lives by killing one small child? The correct answer is you cannot answer the question, because no matter what you do, it would be wrong. That's life, kid. Live awhile and you may get it. Or not. Not every moral dilemma has a correct solution.
Tina Fry 5 years ago
I would save the child. I too am anti-abortion. And I do not feel an embryo should be considered life. Life is when there is a heart beat.. embryo's dont have heart beats. Yes they are 1 part of an equation to create life. But without the other part it is nothing but just an embryo.
Lakasha Latoia 5 years ago
This is a stupid argument. This fictitious scenario will literally never happen. It's like saying to a gay person: "if you could take a pill to make you straight, would you take it? No, you wouldn't take my fictitious pill that doesn't exist?! Then being gay IS a choice!!"
Steven P. McCarty 5 years ago
Respectfully Mr. Tomlinson, this a trick question with only one correct answer. The live child must be saved at the expense of the embryos, why? once the fire starts and the alarms go off, the electrical power is likely to go off as well. in such an emergency, the apparatus needed to keep the embryos frozen will have failed. To think these clinics just have boxes of embryos lying around is rather naive. Please refrain from your liberal use of profanity at this point. You offer a weak argument that has no basis in reality. Perhaps I will offer a different perspective on abortion that you might find refreshing. The fetus is not considered a human being and therefore cannot be considered a person. Need I remind you that corporations are not human beings either? Despite this fact, corporations are considered to be persons. Perhaps corporate person hood should be applied to the unborn, if that were to happen the unborn would then be protected. Quick, delete this post so no else can see it.
Maximilian Walter 5 years ago
You walk into a pet store on fire and there are 1000 flies in one corner (why? who knows) and a kennel of pups in the other. NO ONE would save the flies, but that doesn't mean that they aren't "living."
Indian Animations 6 years ago
That is not in proportion to the situation making the comparison wrong. This is supposed to make embryos, living things and potential human lives, seem unimportant. They are still living and important, by aborting you are ruining a life, and if you are still thick headed to the fact that it is not a life, it is still a potential life. In abortion you just destroy it, there is no 5-year-old kid, no other living thing involved. By aborting you are killing one living thing there is no difficult choice. Its really just monstrous to kill a life in general. In the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Killing an unborn baby is violating its right. If you do not think that unborn babies have constitutional rights here is a conclusion by HARVARD LAW SCHOOL --------> https://www.wnd.com/2017/06/harvard-law-journal-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights/
Indian Animations 6 years ago
You can not compare this to abortion, in abortion you are killing something, murdering something, so you can not sit here and tell me that the embryo does not matter if you were in a room and saw embryos you would grab them. That is the debate, not the fact that there are two different living things, there is one and you want to murder it that is the pro-choice side. The question is not of relevance to the situation, total BS.
Rosco Schmitt 6 years ago
Erroneous assumption that the question has anything to do with ethics or abortion. Neither A nor B has any moral bearing on pro life. Pro Life is from Conception to natural death. The whole cycle of life. So A. and head out, get back in if possible to save others. The embryo tank will exist far after the fire is put out and doesn't have any bearing in the question. So pro life does support the child after conception, birth, and into life; as most all actual women's health clinics do as well. Abortion has nothing to do with women's health, or child care. Arguing that a mother is going to let her baby wither and die after carrying it to term is a false concept. In that case, the community ends up raising the child, placing him/her for adoption, or other means of "living". It's a baby, where do you draw your line at the beginning of life? when is purposeful killing a baby, too late? At one month, six months, three years, 18th year? Ethical answer - anytime after conception
Frank Lance 6 years ago
My thing is that this situation is circumstancial. i say if it is in our society a newborn is worth more, however imagine that we are in the apocalypse and I am the last person on Earth and the only way to continue the human species is by getting the fertilized eggs. Assuming I still gave a s**t about my species and had an adequate way to nurture them, I would take the fertilized eggs.
Dee Martin 6 years ago
So a follow up to his question is where did that five year old child start from. I am not for abortions but if put in a situation to choose eggs over a child it's simple, choose the child. The child is already here and conception does not guarantee a child at the end but in the end every human being in existence came from an embryo.
Rachael Newport 6 years ago
Of course you would save the 5 year old child over fertlzed eggs How could anyone NOT. Yet there are people who I think would just like they are all about cutting any services to children already here while screaming about abortions. Never mind the fact that it has been shown that when women have education and full access to a varities of types of birth control, ab ortion rates drop dramatically, Never mind the fact that abortions happened before Roe V Wade, they just were not safe and legal ones. Being pro choice is NOT the same as being pro abortion, just like being anti aboortion is not the same as being pro life. Are there people in the pro life movement who genuinely believe it is wrong to do abortins except in the most extreme cases like rape or health of the mother, of course there are. However the LEADERS of the movement are anti abortions, anti birth control, and anti providing any help to those families if they carry to term and then have children who need help.
Jim Lyons 6 years ago
A false dichotomy and unrealistic, given that the child is with a parent and the doctors can just as readily retrieve both the child and the embryos, not to mention that the embryos are at no risk it they're in a freezer, assuming there is a backup generator.... THAT SAID.... The potential parents are responsible for the pregnancy; therefore they, not others, are responsible for the birth and raising of the child. If the fetus is a living human being, then society says its a crime to end that life. It's irrelevant whether the new life is wanted. It has nothing to do with trying to control women. Yes, a living child is more important than a thousand potential children. They are potential human life each with their own DNA, but I think that a fetus becomes a person, a life of it's own right, once it has it's own bloodstream in operation about the 6th week. That is plenty of time to decide to abort or not to abort.
Mike Everly 6 years ago
Not having answer C is having the world in black and white. Life is not black and white. Where is the fire extinguisher? How big is the room? Is there another person nearby?
Tiffany Gabriel 6 years ago
The classic Morton's Fork. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Responding to one of those is about as productive as trying to carry on a meaningful conversation with a chat bot, but I actually am sympathetic to some of the points raised in the first paragraph. A stray dog nearly gave birth in my yard last year. I didn't want a dog, let alone a litter, and I knew no one else around here would, so I did the only sensible thing. As each fetus neared the birth canal I turned it toward a breech position. When the head was still in, meaning it was still a fetus and not a puppy, I ran a pair of scissors into the back of the head. Problem solved. Now some may call me a monster, and to them I say if you're not willing to adopt every stray dog in the world you have no right to speak on the matter.
Tony Daly 6 years ago
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, The embroes would be destroyed in the fire, the 5yr old would be saved. Do not miss the trueth, All whi perish frim this temporary life are translated into eternity, either to life with the Father, and Jesus the Christ, or to eternal separation and judgement, no second chances, babies and the young, before true conciousness, are heaven bound, its only when someone makes the choice to go to hell instead of surendering to Jesus. Confess Jesus as lord, believe in your heart, confess ypur sin, accept Jesus into your heart to be your savior, and you will be saved. Denie him and h3 will denie you before the Father in heav3n. Just stop and grasp that reality for a moment. Imagine you standing before a loving God, our eternal Father and Jesue the Christ whomhas paid for you!
Doug Oyler 6 years ago
Embryos in a frozen state are not the same as a living child. They are not the same until they are in the womb of a woman. Once a woman becomes pregnant that embryo starts to grow it does not in a frozen state. Not the same at all. I do believe in birth control and do think the insurance companies should cover them but I also do not believe in abortions as a means of birth control. I don't believe in abortions at all except in certain conditions. The lasting effects on women that have had them is very real. Such a stupid argument this man has given.
Rex Wilkie 6 years ago
Here’s your answer Patrick. If it has a heart beat, it’s a human being. Your areguement is nonsense. The embtyo haven’t even been fertilized and a human life being hasn’t been created. The five year old is a living breathing human being with an operating central nervous system.
ιρένε γλοβερ 6 years ago
his choice of words is bad because life just means the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. and that is actually how people can say that a cluster of cells is alive as technically it is. people who have had miscarriages do grieve that loss also. what we think is a child can mean so many things to everyone personally. i am 100% pro-choice, think it's up to the people involved to deal with their pregnancy how they see fit, just don't like his argument and find it has weak points for sure.
Jim Gorman 6 years ago
This is a straw man argument that has no logical connection to yes/no on abortion. To be logically connected, you would need to have a situation where an abortion lets an already born child live while not having an abortion results in an already born child being killed. This straw man proves nothing!
Visiones Manzanas 6 years ago
I think, pro-lifers (anti-abortionist) should be required to raise the child they want to stop from being aborted and free the mother from the responsibility. If the anti-abortionist aren't willing to take up the responsibility for raising the child, they shouldn't have an opinion over someone else's body. Then we would see how strong their convictions are.
Ron-Kay LaDue 6 years ago
I have ponder this many years...very good point that exposes the blatant hypocrisy of modern--so called--pro-lifers. I have always seen the hypocrisy...and the conundrum. There is fault on all sides to share, of course, but what elevates the pro-lifers platform to the greater level of hypocrisy is the way of control of other peoples, s bodies, progeny, and choices. Everyone wants to be God!... I have come to believe that we do to know when when a child becomes a "being". Only God knows. And perhaps a "being" is different than a biological host capable of providing an Earth-habotable home for a "being". My belief is that God places a spirit in these biological houses--call it "the breath of life" or "life Force", or whatever--but who can possible know exactly at what point...is it at the point of our INTENTION?...His INTENTION?...the point of conception? Or at any single point in the cycle of biological life? OR EVEN BEFOR--as it is written that God knows us before conception
Brad Slusher 6 years ago
In answer to his question, the difference between the 1000 frozen human embryos and the 5 year old child is this: awareness. As for "value", you can look at it as potential value vs. actual value. One is abstract, the other real. It's far easier to value the real over the potential, therefor you will invariably chose the child over the frozen embryos. It's instinctual. This is why "women and children first' is integral to a civilized society. This is my honest answer.
Chris Flynn 6 years ago
My question is. What the f**k is a 5 year old child doing in a fertility clinic in the first place ?
Donna Lyons 6 years ago
Have you met the child, will he be missed? You bet he will. Will someone miss and mourn the embryos? Doubtful, they'll mourn the cash it cost to harvest and store them.
Charlie Belhumeur 6 years ago
I'm not exactly pro or anti abortion. I'm a guy. But I recognize sophistry when I see it. He's created an artificial theoretical conundrum with very specialized and highly unlikely circumstances. Also those 1000 embryos are not the same as 1000 living embryos in 1000 women's wombs. "Life" is temporarily suspended by tech for the 1000 embryos and their status as "living" is subject to debate. The question should be a choice between a child and a pregnant women.
Jeff Brunnelson 6 years ago
I think it misses the mark. A child breathes Oxygen, embryos do not. There is a chance the fire will get put out. The OP stated himself stated the container was enough to preserve the embryos indefinitely. Wouldn't that mean those containers are able to withstand high temps too? I mean steel vs. skin?
Omar Robledo 6 years ago
IMO that argument is not brilliant but stupid. How can you compare a frozen embryo with an implanted thriving one???
John Eichler 6 years ago
They don't answer 'Honestly' simply because there is no 'Honesty' in the question. That freezer might contain 1000 frozen unfertilized eggs plus 1000 units of whatever quantity of frozen sperm would be deemed needed to fertilize them. But it cannot contain 1000 viable human embryos. The act of freezing them would kill them. In which case they would no longer be viable.
John Eichler 6 years ago
They don't answer 'Honestly' simply because there is no 'Honesty' in the question. That freezer might contain 1000 frozen unfertilized eggs plus 1000 units of whatever quantity of frozen sperm would be deemed needed to fertilize them. But it cannot contain 1000 viable human embryos. The act of freezing them would kill them. In which case they would no longer be viable. Abortion seldom if ever has anything to do with Health. It has to do with Convenience.
Joe Conder 7 years ago
This argument is getting a lot of circulation lately. Here is the answer: it only works if against someone who takes an absolutist position that a fetus has *exactly* the same status as a born child. Most pro-lifers don't hold this position. I don't. I don't hold that a fetus is no different than a born child. Obviously, it is. All that I, and I would venture to say most pro-lifers, claim, is that a fetus is an individual human life, and as such should not be killed without a damned good reason. Which type of reason does NOT include "lifestyle". Now for the question no pro-choicer can ever answer honestly: what part of "human life" do you deny to the fetus? It's living, right? It's human, right (or do you maintain it is canine?)? I'll be waiting.
Chevin Stone 7 years ago
the scientific definition of LIFE: The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. (https://goo.gl/V3XDbV) An embryo can't do any of the above without the assistance of its host (the mother). Embryos in a lab have been put in stasis (frozen) until they can be given a host (mother) to provide for it until it is mature enough to complete the tasks listed above. This is why embryos/fetuses less than ~24 weeks old, even with the help of science in a neonatal lab, do not normally survive. They can't do what they need to be able to do TO survive (see list above). This is also why fetuses/babies born before full gestation (~40 weeks) end up in neonatal wards in hospitals, because they require ASSISTANCE in continuing to survive (see list above). PROBIRTHERS (cus you aren't prolifers) be damned.
Chevin Stone 7 years ago
current scientific definition of life: The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. An embryo can't do that... it exists either because the host (mother) is providing all of the above for it) or it is put in a stasis (frozen) until it CAN be put into a host that will provide all of the above). Only when it is able to do these things INDEPENDENTLY, is it ALIVE. which is why premature babies less than 24 weeks old TEND to not survive... even with the help of SCIENCE. a living organism is able to do the things above. period.
Teal Postula 7 years ago
spot on.. I will remember this .. ps. The issue is NEVER raised that the whole "fetus is child " argument is based upon the beliefs of a SPECIFIC RELIGION. My belief is that a living child is the symbiotic joining of a non corporeal soul with an animal body, and that when the joining does not work out for any reason , including abortion, the soul finds and joins with a different animal body in a different situation.. The U.S. is not ( yet) a Christian theocracy .. p.s how can the Christian belief system make such a big deal about the soul leaving the human animal body ( or as they often say " dropping the overcoat") at death, but deem it impossible at the fetus stage pre birth?
Teal Postula 7 years ago
spot on argument in logic..i will remember this. ps NEVER is the issue raised that the whole " embryo is a child's life" argument is based upon the beliefs of a SPECIFIC RELIGION.. In my belief a child is the symbyotic joining of a non corporeal soul with an animal body, and when that joining does not work out for any reason including abortion, the soul finds a different body, a different situation for its unfolding. I repeat. THE. U.S. is not ( yet) a Christian theocracy.
Frank Tisellano 7 years ago
How about this one? In the room, instead of a child there are two crying women. You spoke with them earlier in the day. One told you that she is 6 weeks pregnant, the other isn't. Do you save the pregnant woman or the other? You can only save one...you don't know either one of them. they are twins. Using his argument, you'd select one at random...99.9% of the people would pick the 1.5-month pregnant woman.
David Jackson 7 years ago
A famous radio host was always saying anti-abortion people love the fetus but hate the child. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. They would rather have a poverty stricken, drug addicted mother be forced to carry her child full term, and then, care less about the child’s welfare than allow the woman to make her own decision. Remarkably, this same group of people who scream about too much government would have no problem with government interference in a woman’s body. It’s called hypocrisy.
Chris Ware 7 years ago
I already know what pro-lifers are saying, this scenario is stupid, because you are forcing to choose between two forms of life. This is comparable to being a raft with your husband and father and you can save only one, who would it be? You are forced to make a moral decision. We all hope to never have to make that choice because it is an ethical place we never want to be in. The question by Mr. Tomlinson honestly has no bearing on abortion rights in my opinion. As someone who is anti-abortion but pro-choice, abortion should be a medical decision left between a female of consenting age and her doctor. We can all battle at what point the fetus is viable or abortion's morality. The decision itself should be up to the public.
Phil Flores 7 years ago
Not a difficult answer you save the child because there's no way to save 1000 viable human Embryos. The liquid nitrogen tank at the most used for embryos normally holds at the most ten. A tank holding 1000 embryos would be the size of a truck. Needed to stay (-196 ° C) Patrick S. Tomlinson is nothing more than a stupid man with a stupid question. Where part of the question is an impossible task. In his picture all you see is an ignorant man trying to look intelligent.
Rose Bradford 7 years ago
I agree I grab the child instinct the brain recognizes the visible life first.take care of our visible children and leave the judging too God.
Celestia 7 years ago
wow....all the children who could've become something one day.....Everyone who believes abortion is a moral, thing to do should've been aborted...because how would it feel if you never gasped air ever or even existed in the outside world..Yeah, but of course it's all about everyone for themselves. There are people who are dying to have children...while they are woman having sex and aborting fetuses because they can't take care of children. If that is such a big deal give your born child to someone who wants a child. People act like if they can't take care of the baby...no one can. My mom told me, she almost aborted me, but she was glad she didn't because I became successful and my mother is very sick, now and I take care of her. No one could imagine themselves not existing... because the world, only care about themselves.
Stephen Daily 7 years ago
In one corner of the burning room there’s a 5 year old child, and in the other corner is a box with a label that says “6 year old child inside.” You can only save one. Which do you choose? It’s the same argument. If the 5 year old was an a**hole and the container had MY embryos inside, I’d save the embryos. Feelings are not facts, and Tomlinson is a brain-dead d—khead.
Brenda Curtiss 7 years ago
Wrong! There is another answer to this predicament. I would grab the jar of viable embryos and tell the "5" year old to follow me to safety.
John Cooley 7 years ago
Unless you can justify "inaction is also an action," you could simply close the door and leave both to die without incurring any liability. But I still stand by my previous comment. I am not anti-abortion, but I still think there is a big difference between a live embryo growing in a woman's womb and an embryo that is "viable" and requires major medical intervention to become anything else. Also, what if, instead of a container of embryos, you had, say, three babies that were "human vegetables," incapable of reaction to the outside world and doomed to stay that way indefinitely? I'd still rescue the child.
John Cooley 7 years ago
This scenario leaves out one important fact: The embryos are *not*, in fact, viable without serious medical intervention. They must be properly implanted or in a "host mother" (assuming a quantum leap in technology) in an artificial womb. Consider if there were No fire and no intervention either way -- what would happen? The child would probably wander out and be found by someone. The embryos would merely unfreeze and die.
Kathy Woosley-Schnelle 7 years ago
I can only speak for me for my answer---but it was brought up above so I have to ask first...."Is the container with the embryos completely labeled as such, and in such a way as someone in said circumstance would indeed notice it?.....If I could visibly see both, I would grab both--even in a fire the space of a typical exam type room 12X12 maybe would not be so big as to not be able to get both. I had an abortion not because I believe in them but because of a complicated situation, also involving my health. So all life is important to me. I'm the stupid person who has also jumped into a dog fight because I did not want either animal hurt. People who will rescue will likely rescue both, people who only value some lives will have other views, and some people would even leave the live child behind to save themselves. Oh, I ran back into a 3-story burning building once to save the kittens on the top floor, so maybe I'm a rare bird, but I know what I would do.
Stephanie Gibson 7 years ago
He’s not playing fair and he knows it. So let’s turn it around. The same situation, a building is on fire but you can only save your mother or your daughter, not both. Who do you choose?
Alfred Parodi 7 years ago
It is a stupid question. In the first place you would not have thousand embryos in one place. We are talking about an embryo in a woman's body which is a life. It is all about sex and not a woman's choice. To be able to have sex with no protection and not have any responsibilities regarding the human life in her body. It has nothing to do with choice but it is murder plain and simple. No one has a choice when it comes to murder.
Kitty Tompkins 7 years ago
Are they viable enbroyos? Whose do say that a pregnant woman's embryos are alive. Only God can judge this one! w
Joyce Ellis 7 years ago
I think it is like saying you open the door and in one corner you find one of your children screaming for help. In another corner of the room there is your infant twins sleeping in the crib. You can save only one.
Sally Dahl 7 years ago
A human embryo belongs in the human body, not frozen in a container sitting in the corner of a room. I don't think your analogy is genius I think it's idiotic.
tom winter 7 years ago
This seems to sum up the situation well https://over-thoreau.blogspot.co.uk/
Lee Tomlin 7 years ago
I would say "A" because that 1 child is conscious of being, while the 1000 embryos have not reached that stage yet. It would be a hard choice, but the 1 child would know fear and pain and understand that it was dying while the embryos are not developed enough to have that understanding. It doesn't mean that the embryos are any less viable human beings, just that they haven't reached consciousness yet, and will not suffer as the 1 child would.
Mary LeBlanc 7 years ago
Most if not all of the tube of embryos will go in the garbage; which is why pro life is ethically. Against this practice. Instead of spending so much on fertility why not spend money to help connect those who need a child with those who would kill their child. Win win. Especially for both the women involved. We need outside the box thinking. Not the culture of death we seem to be mired in currently. As for the hypothetical argument presented; sometimes the imminent need of the one outweighs the need of the many and there is also the concept of the innocent suffering for the guilty. ('Not the child but the fertility experts)
Dawn Clark 7 years ago
An embryo that is growing inside of a mother is a child- an embryo in a petri dish is not growing, it is waiting to be planted. Once that embryo is planted and begins growing, it is a child. The mother does has the right to do what she wants with HER body- but she does not have the right to do what she wants with ANOTHER human body, even if that human body is growing inside of her. Pro-abortionists forget that the embryo that is growing inside of the mother is NOT part of her body. It is a separate entity, and is NOT her, but its own physical being. She does not have the right to end the life of the human being growing inside of her, because it is not part of her body. If a woman wants to be free from an unwanted pregnancy, there are other options. 1. Abstain from sex 2. use birth control 3. Get a hysterectomy. Killing the person that came into being because of your raging hormones or bad choices is NOT an option. They are NOT part of your body.
Cj Sinocruz 7 years ago
This doesn't make any sense at all. Because in the end, you will still feel the same pain no matter what choice you make.
Shawn Earle 7 years ago
That's ignorant as hell no one cares what they do with their body it's the totally seperate body they are slaughtering that people care about. You know the innocent one that doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Shawn Earle 7 years ago
No one cares what they do with their bodies it's the totally seperate body growing inside that people care about. Ya know the innocent one that is not given a choice in the matter.
Matthew Stahlecker 7 years ago
The answer is that he should not be stuck a pussy in the first place, run to the origin of the fire and try like hell to stop the damn fire. Obviously if he were running from it he woulld be too big of a coward to stop in a room for anyone or anything in the first place. Funny thing about this example he lays out....he is already preaching the importance of an individuals body to give a s**t about anyone other than himself in the first point. If he were not a coward and willing to show virtue with his argument for killing unborn babies, he would not think once about giving his life for anyone. Poor person to be throwing moral judgement towards anyone in any example......
Gerardo Jerry Grado 7 years ago
I could not stop laughing at the idiocy masked as intelligence. To begin with a person who is either pro life or pro abortion...you grab the child and run. Do you really take the time to look around the building? And regarding the embryos... they're harvested for fertilization and implantation... conception has not occured yet. That would be tantamount to saying ejaculation is viable life.
Michael Lovett 7 years ago
From Ben Shapiro: What if the embryos belonged to me and my since deceased wife?
ToobThis1 7 years ago
But those 'frozen embryos' are not growing in the jars.. if they were, they would outgrow them.. if a baby is inside its mother's body - It is Developing and Growing... Not the same thing at all... And being inside its mother's body - That is supposed to be the safest place in the world for it to be, Supposed to be, I say.. but we all know it isn't - because women are told they should treat a pregnancy like a disease or a parasite.
Jeffrey Dean 7 years ago
his man's supposed "genius" question is a logical fallacy known as "improper comparison." He attempts to equate 1000 viable embryos frozen in a laboratory tank with viable embryos that are inside a mother's womb, attached to her and growing into human beings. The real problem with this man's argument in the form of a question is that it begs the question. What is meant by "conception?" Conception traditionally means when the woman "conceives" of the child. An embryo fertilized by artificial means but never attached to a woman is not "conception."
Jeffrey Dean 7 years ago
This man's supposed "genius" question is a logical fallacy known as "improper comparison." He attempts to equate 1000 viable embryos frozen in a laboratory tank with viable embryos that are inside a mother's womb, attached to her and growing into human beings.
Mary Snyder 7 years ago
Personally, I think it is a stupid question in order to antagonize and nothing else. From the sound of your question, I take it that you are for the people who believe in abortion. This is a very passionate issue and people on both sides believe strongly in their stance. I respect both of you because I know you both have very good reasons why you believe as you do. Carry on.
Alan Park 7 years ago
This is a stupid question posed by someone who thinks he has outsmarted us pro-lifers. Of course you save the Child. The difference here lies in the fact that you must make a choice. It does not compare to the fact that with abortion you choose to Kill a live baby. There is no immediate life or death choice as in the example. Late term abortions are extremely disturbing because they cut the spinal cord of a fully developed baby who may be about to be born. That's murder and should be punishable by death. A woman's right to choose what happens to her body really is not the question. She chose to have sex (unless she was raped which is a different conversation) and has to live with the consequences of that choice just like a robber or murderer has to live with the consequences of their acts.
Deborah Hammond 7 years ago
This argument is the closest to perfect I've yet heard. It SHOULD shut them up, but it won't. The people who are willing to argue the point of abortion clearly have not given the issue a fair amount
Lorna Doak 7 years ago
Well of course the only true answer is A in this scenario because it certainly wouldn't be fair to punish a child for being born, but in truth the embryos have more value because they can be used in stem cell research to save more than 1,000 people that already exist. They have no value as people because they're only as alive as bacteria, but they have value as viable stem cells.
Ryan McBride 7 years ago
Ahh, the "Trolley Problem", and its variations, as proposed by Philippa Foot in 1967 and Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1985. Moral philosophers the world over love this challenge: The greatest benefit versus the greater good. At the centre of the argument in its manifestation above, however, is NOT what the protagonist would do in the heat of the moment and is NOT based on a full understanding of when life begins and it NOT predicated on religious belief, but on how an individual (and a group, dare I say) values/sees the end of life. Or to put if more pointedly, it is a question of who and what has the authority to end life (born or unborn).
Sharron Hilton 7 years ago
Stop getting yourselves pregnant with an unwanted child in the first place. I'm against abortion for myself as I could never get one. I have 2 living and 1who was born at 6 months into my pregnanc, he lived a month and 3 days. Now how many women actually find out they are pregnant before at least 6 to 7 weeks in? If a woman finds she is preg. Before that time and wants to abort then go ahead it's your body, it's you who spread your legs and got pregnant not me. My issue is late term abortions. You know when the mother feels movement, knows it's gender, knows it has a beating heart, and lungs, liver, arms,legs, eyes, mouth, nose and ears. Those abortions need never happen.
Elizabeth Mayer 7 years ago
I guess not everyone thinks of abortion the same way. In my experience it wasnt an easy experience. But u do have those s****y people that abort without regard.
Kim Bledsoe 7 years ago
I find this very interesting. I would pick the child who is standing in front of me without a second thought!
Trudi Gilmore 7 years ago
I know some eggs are still around after menopause -do women die with unused eggs?
Dustin McNab 7 years ago
Can we at least agree a human being with a heartbeat and/or brain activity is human life worth protecting? Why is the debate focused on the mother's body when the other body inside her is the real issue? The baby is inside the mother's body, not just another part of the mother's body. Why do people use the "disadvantaged children" argument as justification for abortion? If life hardships justify aborting the fetus while it's in the mother's womb, why does it change after the birth? What if the father get's sick of the crying and totally abandons the mother 6 months after the birth? Life would get a lot harder for the mother then, so why can't she use 'disadvantaged child' and 'life hardships' to justify the abortion at that point?
Ismail Haq 7 years ago
It's nothing but a hypothetical situation but in real life you of course don't pit a embryo in a mother's womb to any child so it does really prove nothing because when abortion comes you only option is between your singular child whether he gets to see tomorrow or not
Gayle Putt 7 years ago
But how many of those embryos are still embryos when they are torn from the womb? There must be a line drawn somewhere. Aborting children who are near term is barbaric.
Gayle Putt 7 years ago
But how many abortions rip near term children from the womb? That is nothing but barbaric. Someone needs to draw a deep line in the sand.
Nika Go 7 years ago
Of course I would say A too! But what does that have to do with abortion?..... Honestly, its not that you abort a child to save another child....... If you can handle the responsibility to have sex you also have to handle the responsibility to give birth to the child that results from it.
Quinn Alexander 7 years ago
Anyone ever hear that 'Don't like guns don't buy one' argument? Ever apply the same principle to gay marriage and abortion and watch the same people lose their s**t?
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Hey, Pat, baby, here's a plot for your next sci-fi novel: the world is dying, you've built a spacecraft capable of reaching a habitable planet, you and a boy are the only living, breathing, human beings left on the planet, but there is a container, the same weight as the boy, that contains 1,000 embryos, and everything needed to bring them to life as you define it, which do you save?
ame rodriguez 7 years ago
I would answer A. Definitely. Next question. Same scenario but instead of seeing a child you only see the thousand embryos. Would you? A. Save the thousand embyros and save yourself or B. Just run and save yourself.
Don Pe 7 years ago
A decade? This answer took me 3 seconds. It is a question out of perspective but since he asked, the answer is "A". But in real life it is not about a boy versus a container. It is about the life of any pregnant women. And it's her life and her body - ergo it has to be her choice. Period.
George Hall 7 years ago
In that situation you're in a panic. Logically, you should save the 1,000. But since humans tend to cater to whatever thing is the loudest, so most would save the child. I'm pro life and logically, I would save the 1000, but in the situation, the 5 year old. Besides, life has different value at different points. I bet we'd all save the 5 year old over an 80 year old man
Gregory Rapier 7 years ago
An embryo outside the womb is not a child because it will not grow till it is in the womb. Abortion is the death of a growing child. Because you see it as a viable argument is not proof the prolife people are wrong but more proof that you think you have the right stand on this argument. So once that embryo is implanted in wall of a womb and starts to grow it is at that point a living being with all the rights and needs as any other being. You or anyone else have no idea as to what that child will grow into and no one should cut that life short. Let me ask you this. Your go into a bank with the intention to rob it. In doing this act you shoot a young woman and she dies. After it is determined she was pregnant and she didn’t even know it at that time. You would be charged with two murders under the law. So how is it murder in this case but not when done on purpose? It is your right to think whatever you want. That doesn’t mean you are correct in your belief. Abortion as a means of birth
Kim Lorton 7 years ago
I think his answer, is spot on. It is a choice , only a pregnant woman can make. And she should be the only one making it, and no one else, under anyone's influence. I refuse to let anyone, man or woman, make that choice for me. And, like he said, choose the embryos? You'd never be allowed around anyone's child! And I'll bet, especially a prolifer! Now, add on to the little scenario, what if it was your child, in the corner, or the 1000 embryos? That is even more definitive! So, pro lifers, your child... or the 1000 embryos? Which do you choose!
Sandy Halliburton 7 years ago
while this is an interesting question, the comments are beyond belief! after about a dozen totally ignorant retorts, i give up. you really can't fix stupid. and this problem has no solution since there is no way to compromise here. one side "wins" or the other side "wins". as for the "antichoice" crowd, at least i can say with absolute surety that no matter what you do, you will not stop abortions. i am never going to convince a "prolifer" that aborting a clot of cells is not murder. so i am going to stop trying. we just have to make sure enough of the "pro choice" crowd get their lazy asses out there to VOTE!
Loarne Ferguson 7 years ago
I would like to ask Patrick Tomlinson a question: if his mum and dad were trapped in a burning room and he only had time to save one of them, which one would he save? Would there be a correct answer?
Gabriel McBride 7 years ago
Well, I have seen more than one person answer his question honestly, so he is being deceptive in his original statement of no one answering honestly; he just ends up berating and belittling anyone who does answer as holding less value than the question itself, and he changes the scenario or adds to it while you are not allowed to play by his rules. His behavior invalidates the point he is trying to make, why not make the 1000 embryos into one pregnant woman who has a life of her own and the 5 year old child; then which would he save, the pregnant woman who is responsible for the child inside of her, or the 5 year old child; would he consider it to be a situation of 2 lives vs one, or would he choose the child and allow the pregnant woman to burn? This would be a more accurate representation towards the debate he is trying to make, would he ask the woman whether she planned to keep the baby before deciding; if she planned to abort the child would he still save her or leave her?
Spencer Edsall 7 years ago
You cannot use an extreme circumstance to justify a normal circumstance. In our lives I guarantee that this will never happen, thus we cannot use this to justify a woman’s right to kill an unborn child. If you take this stance you still have to say that abortion is murdder
Philip Brett 7 years ago
It's a false dichotomy. The embryo will develope into a human being over time within the mother. The ones in a tray are not in that enviornment. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose but this is no debate ending argument.
Paul Joshua Eradio 7 years ago
Just gonna leave Ben Shapiro's answer here. Apparently Patrick blocked him on twitter after giving this response and destroying his argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3jrC0J46U
Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
Just read a listing of logical fallacies. I can pick out at least three. If anyone wants to compete, please let me know how many fallacies you found and what they are. Mine were affirming the consequence, excluded middle fallacy, and emotional appeals.
Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
Just to make it clear, this article is chalked full of logical fallacies and is an unadulterated piece of c**p.
Load More Replies... Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
This is freaking ridiculous. Ludicrous in fact. It is actually dripping with logical fallacies. His primary argument is actually an example of the logical fallacy affirming the consequence. Essentially, You care more about the three year old than about the embryos. You claim to care only about things that are alive. Embryos must not be alive. This is a preposterous argument lacking in any degree of scientific merit designed merely to strike you with a blind emotional appeal. If you actually are pro life and found this to be illuminating, I feel sorry for you. If you are pro choice and found this to be a reasonable argument, I feel equally sorry for you.
Lynette Rodgers 7 years ago
Lets all give birth to healthy babies that don't go through the embryo stage. Is it possible? Does a cake go through a wet stage before it is cooked and frosted? Is it cake in the bowl? Does it become cake in the oven? Can you EVER have cake without first going through the wet stage? Everything has a beginning and an end. Even the author of this stupid article. He was once an "Embryo". He could not have written this article if he had not been an embryo at one point in time.
Mark Gall 7 years ago
Superb question, and I applaud your scenario Patrick. Retired fom U.S. Federal law enforcement, I traveled for nearly 8 years in 21 third world countries in Central/South America and Asia, and have seen countless people in horrendous physical and mental conditions who then have children of their own who are destined to live in hell, as those countries provide no birth control and prohibit abortions. Nations have the tools to allow nearly all births to occur, but often fail in providing a reasonable life after birth. We send aid to third world countries that allows most of the children to be born, but they will often die of malnutrition/disease/violence as soon as the aid stops, and it will NOT continue forever. Yes, I’m a bit off topic, but people who insist on a birth from another person but refuse lifetime aid to them, if needed after birth, are truly despicable controlling asses.
JuggHead Jonez 7 years ago
then why do they make the woman wait weeks? until the fetus is big enough to cut up and or suction out of the womb? they have arms and legs and heart and brain
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
This Man Asked A Simple Question Online That Shut Down The Whole Anti-Abortion Argument... Untill he got #Trolled!
Why did Patrick S. Tomlinson have to un-pin his Viral Post? Because he Tried to say he was Trolling a #TrollMaster that had been seasoned by #4Chan from the age of 14... He was Trolled for 15 hours, and his "Flawless Argument Scenario" was Invalidated with a Single Basic and Widely understood Psychological concept... pareidolia!
https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552 Paradolia-...31-png.jpg 
Michael Hartford 7 years ago
Actually this is a false analogy. If the eggs, fertilized or not, have not been implanted then they are not actually able to grow any more than those peanuts in the store. Once they are implanted and have anchored onto the uterus wall then they have actually achieved growth and the start of life. Just like a nut or a seed has the full potential of a plant but will not achieve it until it has been planted. Conversely why do pro-choicers mourn when a woman has a miscarriage? If it isn't a life then why would they mourn it?
Lisa Marie 7 years ago
I had two early miscarriages prior to having my son. While I was very sad about the miscarriages, I know that those losses were nothing compared to what people who have lost children go through. Embryos are not children YET. That is the point here.
Michal Figas 7 years ago
I got a spin-off question. //I'm rather against the "Life begins at conception", mind you.// What if you were to choose to rescue either the 5-yo, or (instead of the embryos) a pregnant woman's baby (let's ignore the explanation of why and how). I assume most people wouldn't be so sure of the answer this time. This is no check-mate kind of argument, unless you're ignorant enough to score every aspect of any issue from your own perspective only. It does, however, imply the superiority of the "born = alive; else = not alive" approach.
Danny Mahoney 7 years ago
The embryos are life, but the minute you take them out of the building which is on fire and don't have environment control for them immediately they'll die. Therefore the five year old is the only intelligent and responsible answer to the question. Discussion over.
Marilyn Matthews 7 years ago
You make the assumption that you can't save them both.. but you underestimate God... with His help you CAN rescue both.. too many people underestimate God and what He will enable one to do.. to live through.. to accomplish.. with His help... remember David? He didn't hesitate to take on the impossible.. and he succeeded with God's help... a man or woman using only his own strength might not be able to accomplish the 'impossible' .. but if God wants it done it WILL happen... so your argument is just short sighted and without faith.
Paul Kasprzak 7 years ago
It's not a valid "shut down" of pro life people. What if the fertilized eggs were yours and the five year old wasn't? What would you choose then? How about you have a five year old and viable embryos. You're the last person on Earth. Do you save the embryos that will save the human race, or save the five year old and doom humanity? Stupid question from a stupid man.
Derek Matchatis 7 years ago
Loves IT! The body belongs to the the owner. Stop your fukn religious s**t...and shut up.
Adam Brashear 7 years ago
I don't think this question that was asked is profound by any measure. All first responders are trained in resuscitating physical human being life. So as a human responder to any emergency incident in which lives had to be saved the human being is a natural and most moral natural response. Furthermore you can take his argument and place it any situation such as a vehicle full of embryos and a five year old passenger in a collision with a exploding oil tanker on a highway during rush hour traffic. Would that change the outcome as to what a passerby would do? Nope! A passerby would do exactly the same - save the human life or lives. Giving no thought to the cargo plainly identified as embryos on the side of the vehicle. However, one would give a different conclusion if the lives to be saved were on a different planet such as the moon or Mars. Where the definition of life is microscopic. And the only passersby are scientists, then a scientist would attempt to save "lives"
Reagan Colbert 7 years ago
What complete and utter BS. First of all, if people didn't harvest embryos like some kind of genetically modified product, that would never be a scenario at all. If we never had practices like this, it wouldn't be an option in the first place. And second, as a strong Pro-lifer, I am literally torn by this question. One life vs. 1k lives? I can't choose. Yes the five year old is the breathing, screaming life before you, but only because those 1k can't scream yet, can't tell you that they're about to die. They don't even know it, because they weren't given the chance at complete, mature development. Instead they're harvested like a crop. My gut says save the 1k embryos. Then again, you never know if those lives will be "harvested" or not, so you're taking a chance either way. Every "organism" should have the chance at life, at being saved.
Lilli Werstler 7 years ago
You can have any sort of trick questions ready to make your point. I think that you are either pro life, or you are ok with killing the unborn
Gene Laratonda 7 years ago
If you see your mama in one corner and 3 ugly children in the other corner, who do you choose? If you see your childhood bully in one corner and those are you're 10,000 vialble embryos who do you choose?
Teresa Kander 7 years ago
There IS an option C....grab the container of embryos, and tell the child to grab onto the back of your shirt and not let go...then everyone gets out safely.
Shannon Mizell 7 years ago
We were all embryos at one point. Look at us now. Nevertheless, frozen embryos have the potential to be a human at some point with a beating heart, lungs, brain, etc. I think this a similar analogy with the debatable conundrum that has been argued over the years......"Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" We eat eggs that are not fertilized. But, we also eat chickens too. Maybe we are treating children the same way.
Mike Henderson 7 years ago
I'll answer your question. A fertilized egg ( embryo ) is not a child. It's not viable. It becomes viable only when it attached to the mothers womb and can be nourished. Your argument is nonsense and without merit. conception is usually accepted as the onset of pregnancy that begins when the fertilized cell (blastocyst) implants itself in the lining of the womb of the mother
Mike Henderson 7 years ago
it's a bogus argument. I'll answer it for you. Conception means fertilization. Viable embryo's are the result of fertilization .Fertilization clinics keep eggs and sperm from donors. After fertilization they then implant after a suitable host is located. Now the viable aspect. To be viable and considered conceptual the embryo must be settle in the womb and be nourished by the mothers system. If it does not become excepted is not viable So your argument is nonsense. conception is usually accepted as the onset of pregnancy that begins when the fertilized cell (blastocyst) implants itself in the lining of the womb of the mother
Daniel Scarborough 7 years ago
The issue with the situation, is that the scenario, has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should or should not be allowed. If you admit that the viable embryos have "less value", then you have admitted that they have value, and have not proven that they are not "life". So you are still ("potentially") taking a life. My question in retort to his, supposedly, genious question is this; how weak do you have to be to not be able to carry two five year olds? If the container is the same weight as the child, and the child is not severely handicapped, the situation is simple to resolve. Piggy back the child and carry out the embryos at the same time. I happen to have a 6 year old, and if I had to carry three of him out of a burning building, I am certain that I could muster the strength to do it. IF I fail, then I will only be judged as evil, by the amoral liberals, who try to come up with any stupid scenario they can conceive to try to trip up moral people.
Dennis Pedigo 7 years ago
No matter how you slice it the embryos are not valid unless they inhabit a womb. Since we are talking about abortions don't we need a womb? Your scenario is stupid. Of. Of course you grab the kid.
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
Admit your Scenario is flawed… You been #Trolled for 15 hours dude! Paradolia was the kicker then! You failed! Just admit it!
https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552
In final Reply to:
https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672 burn-59f5c...ec-png.jpg 
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
Admit your Scenario is flawed… You been #Trolled for 15 hours dude! Paradolia was the kicker then! You failed! Just admit it! https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552 In final Reply to: https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672
Jerry Frankowiak 7 years ago
If the Embryos was in a woman and you save her ..do you save one or two ...think about that ...
Alex Raedish 7 years ago
No contest ... No-brainer ... 100% accurate. Could it be that the ant-abortionists/right to lifers had their brains aborted?
Clarence Page 7 years ago
It is not a simple question, rather, a complex setup, a maze designed to trap. Further, it has no bearing on reality.
Usman Mahmood 7 years ago
According to Islam life does not begin at conception but at 120 days after conception. According to science; that's the stage after which there is a rapid burst of neurological development. Aborting before 120 days is ok in my books, but not after. According to Islam that's the line. No one has to agree, but I feel that's really an acceptable middle ground between pro-lifers and pro abortion lobbies.
Usman Mahmood 7 years ago
Allow me to answer this man's question; I'll choose the live, screaming and kicking child of course. However despite the irrelevance of the hypothetical question allow me tackle the subject more seriously. According to Islam life does not begin at conception but at 120 days after conception. According to science; that's the stage after which there is a rapid burst of neurological development. Aborting before 120 days is ok in my books, but not after. According to Islam that's the line. No one has to agree, but I feel that's really an acceptable middle ground between pro-lifers and pro abortion lobbies.
Markel Fãith 7 years ago
Truthfully speaking this is sort of a trick question because you put an actual baby screaming for life versus potential babies or babies that haven't been born yet. Instinctively people will go for the baby crying. Why because it's crying it's right there in front of you so of course you're going to save the baby that's crying versus The Thousands that you can't see. In all honesty if it came down to it I will save the ones that I can actually save if I can say the Thousand embryos I will save them if I could save the baby I'll save him you see you don't. I mean that's like saying who would you save your mother is drowning on one side and your children are drowning on the other side of you which one would you save and if some people would try to save their children others would go and try to save their mother. The correct answer is you'll save whoever you can save in try if possible to go back for the remainders. Firefighter do it all the time and yes I do believe life begins at concep
Natasha Millard 7 years ago
I love Ben Shapiro's video response to this one. You can listen to it here (starts at 2:45 and ends at 15:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMyEu3hSjX0&t=999s
Glenn Taylor 7 years ago
What a ridiculous and disingenuous question. An embryo is not a fertilized egg so it's merely organic matter no more less so than muscle tissue or any other part of the body. It is not growing or evolving so therefore it is not new life. Wow, so much for the question shuts down pro-lifers every single time. Talk about a lame article with a big agenda.
Rusty Morris 7 years ago
There are at least 5 decision points, i.e. choices, before the vast majority of females face the option, i.e. choice, of abortion. As for Mr. Tomlinson's question,: Since the 5yo was able to is able to walk and/or run, I'd tell the 5yo which way to run and then I'd grab the embryos. If it means I die, I die.
Sylas Condon 7 years ago
Your mind is corrupt to think killing babys is ok no matter how big or what stage it is still a baby!!! God will hold you accountable!! People say freedom of choice,but don't care about the baby choice to freedom of life. I'm tired of people thinking the Catholic religion is the true Jesus saving gospal it is not. The Catholic sistem is paganism. Catholic worship status and the bible tells not to worship status...
Jerie Armentrout 7 years ago
Exactly on point. It is an individual womans own decision whether to have an abortion or have a child. No one else should be involved .....at all. Not even the provider of the sperm. He does not have to carry the child in his body and does not have to be responsible for the rest of his life for that child. It is not a matter for government, religion or any other person to decide. Just for the woman who is pregnant.
Robert Keller 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro ripped this guy a new awhile better than anybody could. Look it up.
Judy Zilinski 7 years ago
This is not a straightforward, black and white question as the writer alludes to. Let us change the scenario to be that there is a child and 5 elderly, seniors ( 100+) with dementia that you can get out. Who do you choose? Of course, we put a value to life in a crisis situation. First responders often face those challenges at some time in their career. Abortion is not a question if one is more valuable than another. I fail to see the point of this. It is a made up scenario, in a situation that could never happen and does not measure what it suggests it does. It seems if you do not answer in the manner this fellow wants you are a monster for making your choice.
Johnny Owens 7 years ago
I think Tomlinson is a liar, because I believe he has gotten an honest answer in a decade of asking. I will answer it, I will save the 5 year old. So Patrick, there you go, you can never use this scenario again, Johnny Owens would save the five year old.
Rallem Semaj 7 years ago
That is a specific scenario thought up by an evil mind. The question I would answer is save the child, not because the child is worth more than the thousand embryos, but because I know the child is alive, from my senses. With the embryos they are just a Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, where I cannot really know if they are alive, or dead, just from a label on the box saying they're alive.
Jim Flaming 7 years ago
If you save the embryos you risk not being able to keep them frozen and then you will lose them and the 5 year old. Anyways I don't think people are saying that embryos are equivalent to born children. Only that an embryo is alive and a human. Anyways I didn't know you could freeze an embryo. The analogy is not a very good one
Ken Groen 7 years ago
My right answer is you save the one child, I don't believe in artificial insemination therefore I wouldn't recognize embryos outside of a woman to be actual life. They would just represent a scientific experiment. I like it when people claim to know the answer to something that people have been arguing for years.
David Champeau 7 years ago
It is a ridiculous argument. Black and white/A and B choices are set up to favor the authors view. The real answer is C: Either. We make choices before we incarnate in this world and while we exist. Saving any life is the right answer. It has nothing to do with your stance on abortion.
Jerlana Knight 7 years ago
I would be far more inclined to respect and at least listen to the pro-abortions crowd if they weren't hysterical and sometimes violently emotional and threatening whenever someone makes an argument for responsibility, education and frank talk with the people who want abortions. I raise the idea of education and explaining to the people who want abortions about responsibility (inadequate, but a good start) and I am The Devil Incarnate. EVERY pro-abortion candidate I have EVER met CANNOT argue, CANNOT be reason, CANNOT be logical and occasionally cross the line into club-thumping, screaming, insane-asylum violence.
Jerlana Knight 7 years ago
This is twisting basic logic so hard that I would lose my temper if I wasn't giggling so hard. First off is the assumption (typical, boring and so unrevolutionary it belongs in the instruction manual of a buggy whip) that anti-abortion people are evil incarnate. Second off is that NO ABORTION EVER involves an 'abortion' that takes place OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. Bringing it up is like proposing a theoretical where the person being discussed a) wants an abortion b)has been raped c)has cancer d) is in an abusive relationship c) is poor. It's the most self-serving, unintelligent. Pro abortion people want you to believe that an embryo being aborted from the womb IS THE SAME AS AN EMBRYO BEING ABORTED FROM IN IT. And pro-abortion people NEVER discuss the portion of abortions that occur because the person is too lazy, vain, stupid to get their tubes tied or a vasectomy or thinks birth control is uncool and somehow never connects that with pregnancy until it's too late and they're the victim.
Tony Wright 7 years ago
What some one else does with there body is their business. Simple. I can't see what's wrong with that rock solid logic. No need for hypothetical thought experiments. I honestly can't even begin to imagine the line of reasoning I'd have to employ to make what some one else does with their body seem like my business.
Hagen Walter 7 years ago
it's not a question of morality ... it's exactly about the thing that this bloke reckons he has the moral high ground on ... taking personal responsibility for your actions ... which is exactly what the elite psychopaths don't want you to do.
Gregory DuBois 7 years ago
The correct answer is a, save the crying child who would suffer more by such a death. But, this does not destroy the anti abortion effort because the question is actually logically parallel to if there were two living people in the room, one in each corner and you only have time to get one. You still have to decide. You must save one. That is a moral obligation. The tragedy is that you are not given the power to save them all. But by some criteria, you will make a pro life choice.
Wendy Morelli 7 years ago
Actually I don’t engage so much in that argument. My argument has to do with 1. Choice is not merely the right to control our bodies in the right to not bear children- it’s also the right to bear children and not have the government limit family size. If you give up the right to terminate a pregnancy you will also lose the right to have more children than the government thinks you should have. 2. Mothers are at least equally or more qualified than corporations governments or the military to preside over life and death. Yet so far this is currently who selects those who have the right to live or die. We decided that without the contribution of women these other people with that power do a lousy job.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Or better still: You have been seeing 3 girlfriends Can't decide between them Think you love all 3 equally You are all discussing your future when 1 takes you aside to say she's carrying your baby Fire breaks out You can save either her OR both others Which would you choose?
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And another You have been seeing two girlfriends Can't decide bwtween them Think you love both equally You are all three discussing your future when a fire breaks out and you can only save one One has just told you she is pregnant with your child Which do you save
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And another, what if you had separated from your partner because they are a really nasty, criminal, even, person, you wanted your baby embryo to be given the chance of life, but your ex partner wanted the embryo destroyed, a fire breaks out, your ex is overcome, if s/he dies you get to choose whether the embryo is implanted in a surrogate (or yourself if you are female), do you choose to save the ex partner, or the embryos?!
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
The oh so clever author's questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Firstly, there are many pro life activists and organisations that DO care for, and even adopt, babies that pro memememers want to kill (and, no, I'm not rabidly anti-abortion or dogmatically pro-life). One of the biggest is the Catholic Church (and, no, I'm not Catholic), that is one of the most successful adoption organisations, especially for disabled children. Secondly, what if the choice was between saving a woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and the baby?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out).
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
His questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Here's another question: What if the choice was between saving a drug addict, criminal, low life, woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and and a container of eggs? Rare eggs! Very rare eggs!! Either in shells, or frozen embryos as in his example?! AND THEY ARE THE LAST SURVIVING EXAMPLES OF THE SPECIES?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out). Or what if you're in a zoo breeding lab, and the same woman has been overcome by fumes from the fire, and in the other corner of
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Ooops, that last sentence should have been in the middle somewhere!
Load More Replies... Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
His questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Firstly, there are many pro life activists and organisations that DO care for, and even adopt, babies that pro memememers want to kill (and, no, I'm not rabidly anti-abortion or dogmatically pro-life). One of the biggest is the Catholic Church (and, no, I'm not Catholic), that is one of the most successful adoption organisations, especially for disabled children. Secondly, what if the choice was between saving a woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and the baby?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out).
Ann Darnell 7 years ago
The headline makes it sound like someone has finally solved the puzzle with one profound question. However, the question is not all that powerful. For example, if there was a fire and you could only save the child in the room leaving her elderly grandmother behind which would you choose. The hope is that there will be time to save everyone but, due to the constraints of the question, there isn't. Time and the fire are the limiting factors--not whether or not the embryos are, in fact, living human beings.
Gordon Levett 7 years ago
One of my fellow colleges asked me one day, if I saw a black man and a dog drowning in a swimming pool, who would I safe. I said the black man of course. He became angry with my answer. I'd save a life first and foremost. The child over the embryos.
Chris Raimo 7 years ago
Wow. A cocky a*****e for sure. It’s a good point and I think most people, regardless of their stance would save the 5 year old. But I do t think that’s the argument coming from most sane people. Embryos are not the pain point. 15, 18, 20 week fetuses are. That’s who pro lifers refuse to acknowledge in this debate. So replace those 1000 embryos with 1000 women with 20 week old babies in them. What’s the right answer now?
Daniel Lacerda Marchon 7 years ago
What a piece of b******t, the argumento most common accetable is that life begins when the pregnancy starts, or when the embryo attaches to the uterus wall... Other way pro life would be protesting against embryos being kept in fridges. Also the pro choice does not debate about cells or embryos but about fetuses, wich are 6 to 8 weeks. But pro choicers extend the "freedom of abortion" up to 24 weeks or more, wich is indistingushble from infanticide.
Rebel Angel 7 years ago
Listen dude, 1000 lives are more important than one and that's a fact is that embryos are alive and if one of those embryos were yours, we wouldn't be having this discussion....deal with the fact that we were all embryos and if our parent didn't care about life more than you obviously do, you wouldn't be here to support murder
Chico Martins 7 years ago
I'm sorry, but it is a stupid question. Viable embryos does not mean that a life will grow form it. They'll probably end up in the garbage. The kid is alive. There's no other choice. Take the kid and get the f*ck away. The real question is: why the hell people still get pregnant, if they do not want kids?? It is simply stupid. IMHO they all shoukd get a ravaging case of crabs, or some ugly std, just to learn to wear protection, and also to stop being so cheap and buy some f*cking pills!!
Ruth Howlett 7 years ago
On a sign near Thamesville Ontario is a puppy and a fetus. The puppy says to the fetus, "You mean you don't have a human society to protect you."
Judy Thiry 7 years ago
I was adopted as an infant. My bio mother had one other alternative--- abortion. But does that make me any less glad to be alive? The fact that she didn't want me has no effect on my life other than she choose to give me to people who desperately wanted a child.
Sheila Foley 7 years ago
Let me state that I'm not anti-abortion. I don't embrace abortion but I never want to go back to the days prior to legal abortion. However, I don't think the argument proves that they don't believe the embryos are people. For example, if your child is in one corner and two children unknown to you are in another corner, and you can't save all three, who are you going to save? Your child or the two unknown-to-you children? Most will pick their own child, does that mean the other two children aren't seen as people? I don't think so. My problem with anti-abortionists is are they foster parents? Have they adopted an unwanted child? If they have not, then they have no business being part of the discussion. As everyone knows, parent or not, giving birth is the simplest part of raising a child. Someone HAS to take care of these children, and take care of them WELL.
Elizabeth Casey 7 years ago
That's not a bad argument. A human embryo in a petri dish is not totally worthless, but only the hopeful parents associated with each particular one ought to place a great deal of value on it. It's blatantly not a person yet. I don't see a case against abortion. It's all utterly absurd pretending to care whether or not someone else goes through with a pregnancy, and that's not something anybody should give the slightest flip about. Mind your own business. An embryo/fetus does not know or care at all whether or not its development continues or completes. The fact that it's biologically human is immaterial and unimportant. The "potential" doesn't matter; only the actual. If your parents had aborted "you," you wouldn't have known and it wouldn't matter. (Just be born at another time, hopefully in a better position!) You wouldn't have been yourself yet--just the beginnings of what would become "you," not even conscious of your own existence. (cont.)
Elizabeth Casey 7 years ago
And to assume that any given "proto-child" would, if it could understand and be fully informed ahead of time, choose to be born, is asinine. No one asks to be born. If abortion is even being considered, there's a good chance that the situation is not a very kid-friendly one, and quality of life is key. The very last thing this world needs is more humans born to parents that are unable or unwilling to provide a good quality of life for their offspring. Far better to simply end a pregnancy than to allow for suffering. Pro-choice doesn't support the dismemberment of fully-developed infants that can feel pain. It's not pro-abortion; it doesn't advocate this as a birth control method. In a perfect world, nobody would ever need it, but this world will never attain that level of perfection (and doesn't need to.) Safe, legal abortions should always be available when required. Attempting to minimize them is commendable.
Load More Replies...
Blue Visor 7 years ago
Cassey LaPointe and Brandy Baran. The only people with the correct answer. No one has the right to make your decisions for you, regardless of stance and or belief.
Tim Fitzgerald 7 years ago
there's a difference between, embryos in a test tube then one in the womb..
Paul Muscarella 7 years ago
Yes grab the child and GTFO They need to stop telling woman what to do with there body's its Her choice .
Dennis Ginther 7 years ago
Jesus tells us not to be our brothers keeper. When a baby is attached and inside the mother? It is the mother. A separate Soul is not created until the umbilical cord is cut. The beginning of a new individual. Sorry it can be no other way.
Eva Rea 7 years ago
I was on the pill. I missed one, I got pregnant. I knew the exact moment I conceived but I got rid of it anyway at 9 weeks. I had no way of looking after it and I did not want to give it away. I developed clinical depression over the next 10 years and even though I had another child in better circumstances, I still could not forgive myself for what I had done to the first "child", to me, not embryo. In answer to your question, yes of course I would only grab the child in the burning room. Other than that I would beg you to shut up because you are a man, and you will never know what it is like to be pregnant. No doubt you are one of those boyfriends who, if their girlfriend should accidentally get pregnant, would say before you had heard her speak "It's not convenient for us to have a child now, if you do, I won't back you! Like my first husband said to me when I told him. I divorced him soon after. You men stay out of this! It is the women's decision and hers only.
Mamat Parish 7 years ago
Abortion has become the common birth control method. I think that is wrong. It's NOT freedom, but bondage! Abortion does not come without consequences. Some die, some get sick, some hurt for years because they aborted and have guilt. Some get their insides screwed up and pay for it when they are older, and yes, some get by with seemingly no issues. Abortion is so easy to do, and the cost is minimal compared to other surgeries. Still, why do you think you can force me to pay for something I don't believe in. If you believe in it, pay for it yourself! Don't FORCE me. That's not right. I think if one had to actually pay for the full surgery, they would think twice about the roll in the bed with a guy who doesn't even love them. Granted there are many reasons why women abort, but the number of abortions in this country alone should give one room to pause.
Doris Rogo 7 years ago
What he posted is a moral dilemma, similar to the trolley or the train ones. If you don't know it, it sounds sth like: There is a train that has no breaks and is heading straight towards 5 workers that are on the line. You see it, but have no possibility of warning them so that they can get out of there. However, you have access to a lever that can put the train on another line. On that line there is one worker, alone. What do you do? A. You let the train go on the line it is already on, killing the 5 workes. B. You pull the lever and divert the train towards the one worker, killing him. No C variant or other options. What this results in is a moral discussion about the value of human life. I sincerely believe that life begins at conception and if you read any article on how that embryo and later fetus and baby develop, it's impossible to say otherwise. Life is a continuum, you can't split it into categories. If it is not alive, what is it? It's definitely not dead.
Trevor Feldt 7 years ago
Nifty question. B, 1000 over 1. Let me ask you....... If Martin Luther King's mother, Jesus's mother or Mother Teresa's mother were in line for legal abortions would you hand them a coat hanger? We can all ask stupid questions.
Janice Janes 7 years ago
I suppose you could change the situation. You walk into a room and there is a 5 year old and a brain surgeon. The brain surgeon is of much higher value than the five year old so it would make sense to save the surgeon. My personal view is half and half. Abortion up to 20 weeks. Anyone who can't decide whether they want a child after 5 months is a moron. Taking a pregnancy past 5 months then deciding to kill it, is barbaric. Sonograms prove at 5 months the fetus is no longer a glob of cells. Rape? Most women know they've been raped immediately, so waiting past 5 months to get an abortion is inexcusable. Surely it must have occurred to some of you that people who abuse their children had the option to abort and chose not to.
Kerry Seiwert 7 years ago
I have never thought that a fetus is a human being, but it is a life. Change the scenario to a mother and a child? Or an old person or w baby? Who do you save? It is a Sophie's choice, and really, an unfair question. Most people would save the more innocent of the two, and that is generally the child. However, that doesn't mean that you don't believe the other choice is important or valid. It is just different. That doesn't make me anti-abortion or pro-life. I do believe that life begins at conception (whenever that is), but that life is not necessarily a human yet.
patrick percy 7 years ago
this is so stupid of a question and it does not mean anything for or against abortion!!!!! The answer is A, you save the child that is born, but that does not mean that the 1000 embryos are worthless or not already living organisms, it simply means that the life of the child is already viable and a choice needed to be made... if the embryos were the last on earth then you let the child burn and choose the 1000 embryos.. and the reason most people do not answer him is bcs he is a fool.. this neither helps nor hurts the argument
patrick percy 7 years ago
this is so stupid of a question and it does not mean anything for or against abortion!!!!! The answer is A, you save the child that is born, but that does not mean that the 1000 embryos are worthless or not already living organisms, it simply means that the life of the child is already viable and a choice needed to be made... if the embryos were the last on earth then you let the child burn to death and choose the 1000 embryos.. this guy is a fool,, and the reason most people do not answer him is bcs he is a fool.. And this argument neither attacks nor defends pro choice or pro life..
Elizabeth DeMairo 7 years ago
Brilliant question! Of course I would grab the child and not risk either of our lives to take the embryos. I would not choose an abortion for myself, but I would never presume to tell someone else what to do. I am totally in favor of birth control and any organization which gives women the resources to control what happens to their own bodies. No "pro-lifer" will ever give a direct answer on this.
Richard Mahn 7 years ago
The person has to become a murderer in the scenario...I don't think the person would be considered a murderer. It also has to make killing the 5 year-old a choice of my own body, and a woman's heath convenience. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (emphasis mine)
Richard Mahn 7 years ago
Abortion makes multiple people murderers. Even this scenario doesn't leave someone a murderer. We are addressing hardness of heart, being a murderer, and eternal damnation when it comes to abortion...none which are addressed in either scenario. To a pro-abortionist, taking the life of another human, whether in the womb or not, is "one's own body" (it's not her own body! She didn't have her own heart, brain or body mashed up, but someone else's!) and "woman's health". Murderers is what we have become for "self" and "convenience". Saving people from a fire is nothing of the same. Eternity is at stake here...yet we thinking abortion is just about the baby...nope, it makes us the murders!!! "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Cor 6:9-10
Alan Bordelon 7 years ago
A child within a woman's womb is not a part of her body, it is a living being occupying the inside of her body. It is a life she is responsible for, exactly like the person who, when hearing the cry of the young boy in the fertility clinic, is now responsible for saving his life. If the person hadn't heard the young boy's cries, he wouldn't be responsible. But, once he becomes aware of the boy's plight, now he is. Just so, a woman who chooses to engage in the act of procreation is responsible for the life she is given to care for as a result of an act she engaged in.
Kevin Logan 7 years ago
A, is the logical answer, but the pro lifers will c**p on about everything and take no responsibility for the aftermath. I seem to recall a case a while ago about a female who got raped by a sexual predator and became pregnant. plus she found out she now had an STD. Then the poor female got ambushed outside of a female clinic and was unable to enter plus several people were taking photos of anybody who just happen to stop anywhere near their front door. Owing to the stress of the confrontation and her pregnancy she attempted to take her own life. and the pro lifers called her selfish for her actions.
Liesl Howes 7 years ago
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#
Mark Kessinger 7 years ago
Most of the pro-life movement has never really been concerned about embryos or fetuses; if they were, then they would be solidly in favor of expanding access to birth control and sex education for young people. But of course, most prolifers are resolutely opposed to these as well. And while I don't doubt that a desire to control women's bodies is part of what is going on, I don't think even that really gets to the heart of it. You see, what really just galls these folks is when they see someone violating a rule that they believe has been divinely instituted, but then "getting away with it." When someone breaks one of God's rules, then by God, they want to see some divine wrath reined down on that person! And it infuriates them to no end when the hoped for fire and brimstone fail to materialize. You see, they are really angry at their Sky Daddy for not being the authoritarian jerk they want him to be, but they don't dare say that. (cont'd)
Walt Smith 7 years ago
You give yourself WAY too much credit and seriously over simplify "pro-lifers" into a straw man that anyone can take down. Believe it or not "pro-lifers" are more nuanced than the one dimentional blind man you paint. Granted that some say that life begins at conception but I don't and no one I've talked with does. Personally, I believe that life began eons ago and that this mortal body began at conception. I don't know when the spirit enters the body. For all I know it is different for everyone. I believe that life is precious and that late term abortion gets very near murder - closer than I want to get. I believe there are circumstances that justify abortion. I also see abortion being used too freely as a matter of convenience - or rather inconvenience. And yes it is impossible to come up with legal definitions and boundaries that will sit well with most people. Either position is not well served by bashing the other and claiming victory.
John Bretner 7 years ago
I think the Question that You Posed as to Whether You would Grab a Child or the Embryos.... is Irrelevant..... it's a Psycological Ploy of Dodging the Real issues (Instead of Answering the Questions, Turning the Table around and Asking a Question to Detract attention from the Original Issue).... And is more a demonstration of ignorance than any real Intellect..... Science Agrees and Many Mother will Without a Doubt have to Agree that Life Begins in the Womb Long Before the Actual Birth..... This is Proven Beyond a Doubt.... By the Observance of Twins in the Womb... That Personalities start to Develop Long Before they are even Born...... The Fact is... Abortion is Murder (Premeditated Therefore not Manslaughter) and the Worst Kind of Murder.... Slaughtering the Most Vulnerable......Those Who Ignore this Fact.... Are IGNORANT and Running away from taking Responsibility for their Actions..... (With the exception of Rape) That is a different scenerio all together.....
Ross Hammond 7 years ago
There is no wrong answer. Same question put in a different way. Say there are two people i n wheel chairs and can save only one.Which do you save...Right it doesn't matter, either is saving life...numbers are a red herring
Cameron Gilbert 7 years ago
I wouldn't have a problem with abortion if people didn't get them for the wrong reasons. Sure, there are valid times to undergo an abortion, for personal health reasons. But in some, if not most, cases and statistics that I've seen, women are getting abortions more out of convenience than health. It needs to not be a convenience to terminate a pregnancy, but it does need to be a right that women have to do with their body what they want. There needs to be a "fire in the room" in order to actually validate the loss of those embryo's.
David Ratch 7 years ago
Interesting perspective, but very misleading. No matter which side of the fence of this issue you're on, A is the correct answer, but for a different reason. During an emergency, where there are multiple casualties, or potential casualties, triage rules dictate that you attempt to save the life of the patient with a pulse, first.
Festus Adibe 7 years ago
All he has done is present a variant of "The Trolley Problem" and then insist that all those who choose a different answer from him must be morally deficient in some way. I would modify it to a little bit like this so it more closely resembles his argument. You have been captured by a villain. He has a gun to your head and two buttons in front of you and you must press one. If you press the blue button, a thousand people you don't know and haven't met will die at random in faraway countries. If you press the red button, you get to watch a child that you know and care about get tortured to death. If you don't press either button, the terrorist will kill you and still press both buttons. Which one will you press? P/s: If you don't press the same button as Patrick you are an amoral monster who should never be found anywhere around children and also a liar.
Jessie Davidson 7 years ago
I think anyone who wants butt into others lives, tell them what they "should do", should by law, keep their mouth shut until their own life is perfect! Everyone is born to be different & have the right to live it differently without having to fight others their entire life for that right. We wouldn't have people "looking for love in all the wrong places", depressed, suicidal, addicted to xy&z because they wouldn't have bullies telling them what is acceptable & what isn't, they would be allowed to be themselves, no one would be trying to "DEPRESS THEM". I was pregnant at 18, I thought about an abortion, it would be the only acceptable thing to my family, yet I didn't. I decided everyone is living their life as they want, I am going to stand up, be brave & do as I knew in my heart what I wanted. Yes, my immediate family disowned me & were mean. So I went to live w/my grand/great-grandparents.They loved it. They've seen S**T HAPPENS, everyone keeps their damn mouth shut & make good of it
JD Myers 7 years ago
A question I ask. , if you are so against abortion, how many times did you offer financial aid to the woman? How many babies did you volunteer to take in and raise as your own? My wife and I had the chance to adopt a newborn if only we would pay all expenses, hospital and legal, I borrowed money and paid al expenses. We brought our 4day old son home December 26, . And then we raised his son too. So, if you are so against abortion, offer to pay all expenses, adopt the child, raise it as your own, save a baby. Or shut up.
Jim Copi 7 years ago
At conception the egg and sperm nuclei merge to complete the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain the genes directing the development of a baby, who is the embodiment called " a miracle of life"!! The embryo is a human being with unrealized potential. Why would anyone want to destroy such a wonderful gift?
Claire Perry Artwork 7 years ago
Well * I * believe life most certainly begins at conception ! If not...when the bloody hell DOES it begin? It is the beginning of a biological human-being. It is a fertilized egg that has all the DNA to make it a human...not a cow...not a chicken, etc. HOWEVER, I still believe in a woman's right to choose. It is her body and her decision. Most of all ...it is NONE of anybodies business that she is pregnant ! That is her business...not yours and not mine, unless she chooses to include us.
Luis Diaz 7 years ago
You will never win an argument that way and I'm probably on his side. It's silly to create that scenario to try to change someone's mind about something or see it in your terms. It's a fantasy situation. In real life there is a lot of factors that can come into play. For starters most people are not heroes. Most people would probably only think of themselves in that situation and live with it. If they do survive they wouldn't think twice about all the embryos that were destroyed and think only of the dead kid and how horrible it must have been to burn alive. Next morning they go to church or Starbucks and forget about yesterday's events. Welcome to the real world.
Gail Baber 7 years ago
If the child were your own, prolifers, I’ll bet the greater good would ‘burn’ without a thought.
Christine Agin 7 years ago
Moral judgments don't define humanity. If my child is in there with your child; I am going to rescue my child. It doesn't make your child not human life. This is a stupid argument and I say that as someone who believes life begins at a heart beat not at conception.
Lorna Reid 7 years ago
Patrick, your exaggerated hypothesis has nothing to do with anything, but to tell the world how ignorant you are. I am not even going to comment because you THINK you know everything and why through pearls before a swine??
Sonya Edberg 7 years ago
How about choosing between a baby, or a woman who is hugely 6-months pregnant
Pintér János 7 years ago
Replace the "human" word with "unicorn" (or whatever nonexistent, irrepeatable lifeform), then ask again: only one newborn, or the 1000 embryos?
Deborah Hamilton 7 years ago
1000 viable embryos or a five-year old child..... of course I would choose the child. The key words here are "viable embryo" and "5 yr old child." Who knows if any of the 1000 embryos will actually implant themselves into uteruses...and continue developing into babies. The child, though, is already past being a viable embryo and is therefore a sure-thing.
Šimon Špaček 7 years ago
Honest answer? For beginning lets say that I would care about him/her and wouldn't just run. I do not know how I would act in this situation, I never faced something like that... but lets get back to my answer. As Patrick wrote himself "the smoke is rising" and I wouldn't care about reading some damned labels. Anything dangerous (explosive) should be clearly marked, so I do not have to worry about it, I would just grab the child, took it outside and demand a cold beer from his/her parents.
Ann Maunder 7 years ago
We have seen videos from face transplants to people having brain surgery while awake on television. Why then has the procedure of abortions not been shown from the time of conception to a person at the 24 week stage? Why do we not get an in depth report in a program showing what happens to the babies born alive ? So many important areas not covered nor researched on this subject.
Brian Haller 7 years ago
Have two adopted children. I believe the point being made is invalid.
Tom Cooke 7 years ago
Very dishonest in his question comparing frozen embryos, in a container, to an embryo produced by nature's natural process. Frozen embryos are a product of man's hands and until placed in a female body is not a natural process. We all must make tough choices in life's emergencies. In that same exercise whom would you choose if it were between your 5 year old child and your mother who is an invalid? Because you choose to same "A" in his example only means this is a living breathing child and you must make the better choice. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life because you are trying to compare the beginning of life with a life of 5 years old. Life process started in the frozen embryos but was halted by man's hand: so is it really life since it was stopped? If you want to discuss the beginning of life at least be consistent and honest with your argument.
Arthur Reber 7 years ago
The so-called "pro-life" folks are not and never have been pro-life or pro-children. If they were they'd be supporting birth control, women's health issues, parental leave programs, Head Start, pre-school programs, etc. etc. etc. The anti-abortion movement is an anti-women's movement, in particular anti-women's sex movement. If a woman has sex for pleasure, without wishing to become pregnant, she has, in their minds, sinned. The punishment for that sin shall be to carry to term an unwanted child. That's it. Simple as can be.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
So you are lumping everyone who identifies as pro-life in one collective category that universally defines them all as the same person type? Shows your low intellect and narrow-mindedness, Arthur. My mom is self proclaimed pro-life. She donates money to a couple programs that assist unwed, young mothers. She is pro birth control. She volunteers at health clinics for the poor. She makes contributions to a local orphanage. She loves people, and gives up time and money to help people who need it, even worthless bigoted sacks of s**t like yourself.
Load More Replies...
John Rod 7 years ago
Now imagine a woman reading this in a clinic. This doesnt help or solve anything just disregarding the taking of a life. There are many outcomes in life but they're are also humane things to do. The child is livng and breathing those embryos feel no pain so the humane thing to do in that situation is of course the child. But this is about abortion where they're women contemplating what's in their stomach and not someone else's child or scenario. I get hes trying to steer away what is wrong but it's taking a life and its probably the hardest decision woman has to make in her life. No an embryo is not a child but its very much alive and people should think like this when talking about this situation. Im a vegetarian and I get s**t like this comparing human life to animals all the time trying to make one more valuble then the other its a life nd im sure that what most ppl that are against it are tryna to state. Its a decision that can mess with someones metal state and a women's reproduct
Giselle Richards 7 years ago
Yes! "A" is the answer. For all I know the "embryo machine" is just an ice machine. The child is crying, is alive, and needs our help. SAVE THE CHILD!
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
This is part 2 of the other part below: assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in, assuming that all the equipment designed to keep the pre-born children alive was somewhat portable. And even if not, I might still take a chance and take the "container" with me. This is my answer. I do not feel trapped by it, but I do feel that Mr. Tomlinson should hear/read my answer.
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
It has NOTHING to do with equality. Here's my answer to Mr. Tomlinson's question about a rather lame and less-than-believable answer. I accept the challenge without hesitation. If I am alone and able to save ONLY the five-year-old or the embryos, then, of course, the answer is A, but NOT because of a lack of equality. It is a matter of the fact that pre-born babies do not feel pain until the 8th or 9th week of gestation. The five-year-old would certainly feel pain, panic, confusion and any other number of physical and emotional traumas, the pre-born infants would not. But the point then still remains that 1000 human babies have still died, and I can still stand before God knowing that I did all I was able to do, but I would still do more. I would tell the fire & rescue team about the babies. I would pray for the safety of those babies and, if I saw an opportunity, assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in . . . pt 2
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
I'm still in the process of reading and have yet to get to "the question," but I already have objections because I get upset whet other people's ideas are purposely misrepresented, and that is that "people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their bodies, without having much interest in dealing with the aftermath." First, it has nothing to do with what women do with their bodies. The living baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body, and, by definition, cannot by part of a woman's body. Second, it is a bald-face lie that people who are, INDEED, pro-LIFE do not care with the aftermath." Pro-life organizations are all over the U. S. and Canada who are dedicated to helping women or couples help raise a child, and I am sick and tired about pro-deathers/pro-murderers lying about that. Third, How does this jerk face know that people have not answered the question honestly? Does he carry around a poly-graph machine? Does he, himself, measure heart rates? Does he think he's God?
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
It has NOTHING to do with equality. Here's my answer to Mr. Tomlinson's question about a rather lame and less-than-believable answer. I accept the challenge without hesitation. If I am alone and able to save ONLY the five-year-old or the embryos, then, of course, the answer is A, but NOT because of a lack of equality. It is a matter of the fact that pre-born babies do not feel pain until the 8th or 9th week of gestation. The five-year-old would certainly feel pain, panic, confusion and any other number of physical and emotional traumas, the pre-born infants would not. But the point then still remains that 1000 human babies have still died, and I can still stand before God knowing that I did all I was able to do, but I would still do more. I would tell the fire & rescue team about the babies. I would pray for the safety of those babies and, if I saw an opportunity, assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in, assuming
Cathy Mitchell 7 years ago
Don't believe the author is truly interested in a respectful debate - just starting a forum for pro-life/Christian bashing. Based on comments so far, several took his bait. :-( Question to him, "if abortion is just about a woman's right to choose, is there a point in the pregnancy where you oppose abortion, or is it OK to abort right up until the day the "fetus" is born? Does Dr. Gosling having to kill the "products of his abortions" bother you?
Jeff Walker 7 years ago
I'm strongly pro-choice and despise these tactics. The ONLY thing Tomlinson wil accomplish with this inanity is to harden both sides. Abortion is legal and will continue to be legal for the foreseeable future. Stop just trying to win idiotic soundbytes arguments and p**s people off.
Sharon O'neal 7 years ago
the only thing i can say is: the child who is crying is a child who is scared and can feel pain. if you have to choose then the child crying would be the only choice as the embyo's cannot feel pain and do not know what is happening at this stage of their life. they are still people and it is a shame to leave them , but God would say take the child who feels the pain and let him have those who can't . it is a painful question but it is not murder. in this you have no choice , but when you do have a choice you do not kill the embryo just because you don't want it. there is a difference between sacrifice and murder. it is hard to leave the embryo but you must take the child who feels the pain and suffering! there is no good ans to this question.But God knows why you have done what you did , he will not hold you responsible for the embryo you had to leave behind. if there were two children crying who would you save? the one closest to you and cry for the one you had to leave behind.
Scott Taylor 7 years ago
Absolutely spot on and brilliant. I will definitely use this question if I ever run into an idiot. You handled the Trolls well. Not that they get what you're saying. They don't get logic or metaphor, only appeal to emotion. Zero critical thinking skills. The perfect slaves.
Tim Douglass 7 years ago
This scenario is called the "trolley question" and is a common type of ethics/morality question that *does not have a correct answer*! This is also why self-driving cars are so hard to design.
Ingrid Ericsen 7 years ago
Okay lets reverse it. A women who is 6mths pregnant gave birth prematurely. Her child, now in her twenties is about to graduate from medical school. On the same day that this doctor was born, another woman terminated her 6mth pregnancy, justifying her act by claiming it wasn't a real "life" because it hadn't yet been born. Seems we can call it a life when convenient and a collection of non viable cells when it isn't. Life begins at conception. Living cells make up the sperm as well as the egg. The only difference is in the stage of development that the newly created LIFE is in. So much for this moron thinking he can stump anyone with his question!
Sherin Cunningham 7 years ago
The boy of course as there are more women with eggs to donate...and men to donate the sperm...
Roger Kvistad 7 years ago
He missed the mark by a mile. An embryo is in the womb of a mother and this idea of a thousand embryos in a jar is preposterous. It's toying with things that God never intended it to be. There wouldn't be an issue of abortion if the morals weren't out of control. Sex was meant to be in the confines of marriage and if done so would eliminate the whole issue.
Justin Matthews 7 years ago
This gave me pause and I enjoyed thinking about it, thank you for the post. It does show how we instinctively identify a child as far more important than an embryo. People are wrong when they say it shuts down the debate however. The debate is about whether it is acceptable to destroy embryos and has nothing to do with children. When you walk into a clinic they do not ask you if you want to destroy an embryo or a child, it is all about the embryo. What pro-life people are saying is that it is wrong. I am pro-choice but I do not believe your question does anything to end the debate though it does force pro-life proponents to agree that an embryo is not the same as a child. Maybe this question can help scale down the rhetoric and make the discussion more honest.
Alverne Dickson 7 years ago
I don't viable embryos are yet babies! Wouldn't think twice about grabbing the little girl.
Pete Specht 7 years ago
Blah blah blah , blah blah. Quit your stalling and avoiding the question! Should you choose the Child or The 1000 Embros? Don’t think, choose! There is no try, there is only do!
Robert Moore 7 years ago
His scenario only points out one of the weaknesses of the anti-choice crowd. Nothing except religious modern mumbo jumbo claims life begins at conception. The Catholic Church once taught that life began at first breath. Now, for mostly political reasons, it has joined the embryo-as-person team. In fact, the reason male masturbation was always taught to be sin is basically that each sperm cell is half of a person although until the twentieth century, the concept was that the person was in the sperm and the ovum was just a receptacle for the person in the sperm.
Conrad Lashley 7 years ago
Why are so many of these so-called pro-lifers also pro-war, and investment in education, healthcare, etc? Their faith convinces them they are speaking for the non-existent god. Delusional at best, but their greater crime is wilful ignorance.
Stephanie Milovski 7 years ago
Rape is the second reason and I truly can't believe he forgot about that.
Barbara Kelly 7 years ago
My concern is that this topic has become political issue, buried under moral rhetoric. Once the government can outlaw abortion, it can also impose it - witness China's one-child-per-couple laws. Reproduction is - or should be - personal
Rhoda Pelliccia 7 years ago
What a stupid argument. The same story you are in a burning building and hear crying. You throw open the door and you are in a recreation room with a child crying in a corner and 15 old people sitting at tables but crippled and cannot walk. You can save only one. Do you leave the child and save one old person or do you save the child and leave the 15 old people to die? You know the answer. Does that mean that old people are not important because they already lived their lives? A good argument for medical insurance companies for at what age should we stop surgeries needed or other medical services. What do you say to this. Is an old person not worth anything because they lived their life?
George Greene Jr. 7 years ago
The answer is simple! you tell the kid to come with you AND grab the container! DUH!!!
Polly Perkins 7 years ago
I am pro choice and agree that this evidences that a child has more value than an embryo but I don't think that shuts down the pro life argument at all because they could just say "yes, but we aren't asking them to choose between a live kid and an embryo we are asking them to choose an embryo over a nothing, an embryo has more value than a nothing." - I disagree with them but also find this metaphorical argument unhelpful.
Jason McArdle 7 years ago
The important thing to remember here is that this is a hypothetical situation. It's not real. It's made up. Let's try this, you walk into the room and it's a 5 year old child and your mother. Which one do you save? Does your response prove that one is not a human life? Probably most people are silenced by his question because of the stupidity of it. At best, his hypothetical question could possibly, maybe give insight to a person's moral character. But it does nothing to prove whether an embryo/fetus is a human life. It is life. It is alive. It grows. It will never become a cow, dog, pig, or dolphin. It will only ever grow to be a human because it is human. It is human and it is alive. You can invent all the hypothetical arguments you want about what i would or wouldn't do in a preposterous situation but it doesn't change the facts. Also, Christians do adopt. I personally know 7 families...Christian families that have adopted. Half of them have adopted and/or fostered multiple children
Brandy Dor 7 years ago
It's a Sophie s choice question there is no right answer if you leave the 5 yr old your a monster if you leave the embryos then people think your proving their point
Peter McCall 7 years ago
save the child , easy, millions more can be made at the drop of a condom so preservation of eggs/sperm not needed. people who practice safe sex should be protected as the failure was not thier fault, and the choise to keep or remove shold remain with the mother. in the case of promiscuous sex and treating it like a lottery then sterilisation is required. simple
Timothy O'Donnell 7 years ago
I would put out the fire. There is only one correct answer and that is A). The 5 year old would definitely die of smoke inhalation, whereas, the "embryos" that are in a sealed container would not. Therefore, 1001 lives saved.
Karolina M 7 years ago
This question is evil... It's a lose lose situation either way you go. How bad you feel afterwards, will depend on what you believe in though. Whether you believe that spirits of both embrios and the child would be suffering equally or not. It's not all just physical. But then the impulse to save the child is obviously stronger because you can hear, see and communicate with him/her. So it hits your conscience stronger too. The decision made on the spot in that scenario would be mostly affected by it. Tbh, either way I would feel like I failed.. that I could not help all!
Branislava Simić 7 years ago
Personally dont care if women get abortions, it is their body...it is fine... Personally also think that young girls shouldnt get them for health reasons... However, the argument this guy posted is dumb. It doesnt change the fact that abortion is unnatural and that causes great damage to body, especially to young girls. Of course the person would chose a 5 year old child because that child has family, friends, has some experience, is screaming and asking for help etc... Actually my aunt had a really complicated delivery and doctors chose to save her life and not the life of the baby that was ready to come to world. It is just a common sense. The comparison he made is basically irrelevant but glad that he had 5 minutes of fame.
Brendan Gerrard 7 years ago
Has anyone prolife or not ever claimed that a five year old is better or worse than an embryo? The question is when does life begin. Conception seems to be the sensible choice. This is a straw man scenario.
Jennifer Bourget 7 years ago
A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING. JUST WEEKS OLD IN THE WOMB. IT STARTS AT CONCEPTION. 8d79b30d23...39ed99.jpg 
Tea 7 years ago
OK, let's imagine that your, your best friend's, your wife's/husband's mother, or just simply mother of someone close to you made an abortion instead of giving birth. Imagine a woman, young and inexperienced, killing a child, (who is a living thing and who didn't choose HER as a mother and didn't want to somehow appear in her belly). Killing another human fearing poverty, fearing social standards, fearing that you won't have freedom anymore after you become a parent. OK, health problems bla bla bla. But other parents do this because they are cowards. Because they are selfish. Or maybe because they are *#*#;&%s who go here and there, do so and so, get pregnant. Its not child fault. The problem is, people don't want to change something within them, face their fears, share love and carry out their duties. They rather go and shout: Hey! Its my choice. Everyone has to sacrifice something for better. Sacrifice their time, money, some health. What's a point of living then?
Zake Melie 7 years ago
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard. Completely out of topic. The teal question should be would you save a child or a pregnant women with embryo inside her because we are talking about abortion i.e an actual women with embryo inside her. What would your answer be then?
Jennifer Bourget 7 years ago
LIFE BEGINS AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. PERIOD. WHAT HAPPENS FROM THAT MOMENT ON IS IN GOD'S HANDS. AND IF YOU WERE A WOMAN AWAITING TO BE IMPLANTED WITH ONE OF 1000 EMBRYOS , THOSE EMBRYOS ARE ALSO AS IMPORTANT AS ANY CHILD. BUT IN THIS UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WOULD IN MOST WORLDS NEVER HAPPEN...OUR INSTINCT TELLS US TO GRAB THAT CHILD WITHOUT FURTHER THOUGHT. SO HIS WHOLE QUESTION AND SCENARIO IS WITHOUT FACT. BUT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. THAT BABY...YES BABY IS FORMING FROM MINUTE 1. THIS IS WHY PREGNANCY TESTS CAN TELL YOU YOU ARE PREGNANT SO QUICKLY. BECAUSE TISSUE AND HEART BEAT HAVE ALREADY STARTED FORMING. THIS IS THE OLDEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME.
Joel Schama 7 years ago
Tomlinson plagiarized this thought experiment which has been around for more than 12 years, and is perfectly willing to take the credit for it. And he wants to talk about morals? That's a laugh. He should adopt some of his own. Moreover, Bored Panda should research before posting. :(
Brandon Rodriguez 7 years ago
People who demand a fixed, fully one-sided answer to questions YES or NO, HOT or COLD, are stupid and are not after the truth, but are only after winning an argument. You cannot always pin every situation to the very end of the spectrum. There is always an in-between. This is why we use the word "reservations". Also, the question contains non-existing, mythical elements that readers cannot fully connect with. A vial with 1000 embryos? What the hell is that? Let's change the question to choosing between a child and a mother carrying a fetus inside her.
Chanthong Yang 7 years ago
These are the stupidest questions to asked. You have to be dumb to asked this type of questions. These are the force the scenario type of question where the scenario doesn't even play out in real life, and doesn't even offer a alternative to the person answering. Basically the questioners is forcing the questions and placing the obvious, thinking that by picking A your basically devaluing B. A person with a brain would say C, what kind of moronic person are you to asked a force the scenario type question and expecting a person answering to not force the alternative answer, who make up the rules that one should play by the rules?
Kyle Smith 7 years ago
I do love that the guy was called out for blocking people that answered. If they are blocked, how do we know that they are actually being a******s and that you aren't just being petty and blocking those that don't fall in line with The Narrative™? This is one of the reasons why it requires something extreme to block people from my accounts. I only have my ex and some of her close friends blocked.
Kyle Smith 7 years ago
The child, as the test tube babies require specific conditions to survive and removing them from cryostasis without being properly thawed will kill them anyway.
Daleen van Dyk 7 years ago
Life begins at conception. Eggs alone and sperm alone is not life. Eggs that are fertile by sperm are life.
Esther Meyers 7 years ago
I AM anti-abortion, except in certain circumstances, but I agree that there is a huge difference between an already born child and one or 1000 who aren't yet born. Obviously the born child must be saved. But it doesn't mean that one should purposely kill a child that is growing, either. There is also a big difference between an embryo and a fetus. Having waited 7 years to adopt our son, I know that there are MANY people out there who would have loved to adopt many of those aborted babies. And there is no way you can convince me that late-stage abortions, where the fetus COULD have survived outside the mother's womb, isn't criminal.
Sue Kaufman 7 years ago
Life is passed along from human to human, from tree to tree, from fish and squirrel to fish and squirrel, in every form of reproductive biological life. There may once have been a beginning, but until all life is wiped from the Earth, life will continue to be passed on, already in existence. Mr Tomlinsons' question is beside the point. The odds of such a moral dilemma actually happening in real life are exceedingly small. A long, rambling argument is a poor argument. Life enters all nature's wombs as two entities already living, recombining to make another life, and so on and so on. it surprises me that no one adds this fact to the argument. I am pro-life and pro-choice. My beliefs are my own; your choices are your own. The law allowing abortion is all that stands between us and a billion person American population in a world that has already run off the population cliff.
Shannon Flood 7 years ago
Pro abortion activists have used this argument, or ones similar for a long time. Whoever this schmuck is, I doubt he is the first person to ask this question that "no one has ever answered honestly". (If you read it, someone DOES answer honestly .... and he calls them "an amoral monster that should never be allowed around children". His other tweets also try to TELL you that "no one believes life begins at conception" .... guess what ... WRONG! I do, and so do millions of other people. See, this same type of "no win scenario" question can be used in others ways. How about if you are in a burning building, and there is a white child, and a black child .... you can save only one. There is no option C. Do you save the white child, or the black child? You better not save the white child, or the black one ... because whichever one you don't save, will have died because of their race ... so that make you a racist.
Ron Lewellen 7 years ago
In the Hebrew Bible under Mosaic law, if two men are fighting and one of them accidentally strikes a pregnant woman then the punishment to be rendered is tooth for tooth, eye for eye, life for life. If the woman loses her child due to being struck then no life is to be taken but a fine is to be paid.
Theresa Yarbrough 7 years ago
I'm pro-life. I would save the life. My grandmother was a Christian, she told me that when my mother was in labor the doctor told them things weren't going well. He then asked, "If we have to make a choice, do we save the mother or the child?" She told the doctor, we already know and love Evelyn, please save her life if you can."
Carl Montefusco 7 years ago
Embryos are not a child in their mothers womb..Frozen Embryos are not a child in their mothers womb .The real question is would you save a women who was killing her unborn child or the pregnant woman who was having her child.If you save the pregnant woman you save 2 lives..the other woman you save only one life ..the only life she thinks is important.So do you save the selfish woman or the mother carrying her child...this answer tells more about you ,who you choose tells who you are.And how much your political agenda means to you and how many mothers you would kill along with how many children to further your agenda..Adoption is a option and many people do adopt.And yes birth control and self control is better than abortion...a word that was used to describe a very ugly and vile thing not all that long ago...!
Vicki Poulton Rosengren 7 years ago
I think back to the time when there wasn’t a safe place to have an abortion. Many women died from blood poison from back street doctors. Dirty instruments. Dirty back room. When a young lady gets pregnant and is terrified to tell her parents she’s going to try to get rid of it come hell or high water. We need to have safe, clean legal environment for people who are desperate. Just think about that for a minute. I personally get ticked when I see all men making decisions as to what women can or can’t do with their body. Pro lifers think about what I just said. I don’t like abortion either but when a woman wants to stop a pregnancy and they don’t have a clinic to go to it’ll be back to the olden days. NOT GOOD
Henny O'Connor-Vellinga 7 years ago
I am both pro life AND pro choice. Personally I would never have an abortion......pro life. I don’t believe in forcing someone to feel/believe the same way. If you want an abortion and can be ok with that, I can accept that and be ok with that.
David Schmidt 7 years ago
You know why no one would ever answer that question? Because it's a false choice fallacy, predicated on a ridiculous hypothetical. If you had a 3-year-old child and a 1-year-old, and you could only save one, does that mean that you're choosing between your belief in the rights of infants or toddlers? Of course not.
Schuyler Pierson 7 years ago
The question is loaded. It assumes that the women getting abortions are making a choice between whether to save a human being or an embryo which is simply not the case. The decision on whether to get an abortion is a decision on whether to kill a living thing or not to kill it. Do you want an honest answer to a dishonest question? Sure. I would save the five year old child, because on one point, our dishonest questioner is correct: the five year old child has more value than the embryos. But abortion isn't about saving life. It is about destroying life. A more honest question would be: you're in a room with a woman who made poor decisions and now faces the prospect of becoming a parent, and a viable embryo. The woman does not want to be a parent. She wants to continue partying and making bad decisions, but in order for her to do so, you must actively kill the viable embryo. Do you: A) kill the embryo or B) allow the woman to live with the consequences of her decisions?
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
A frozen person doesn't have a beating heart...an embryo in a mother does
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
Also, the embryo in a mother is viable without having to do anything but let it be. A frozen embryo must be implanted to be viable.
Load More Replies...
Chris Johnson 7 years ago
That's one of those questions that can't be answered until you are in the moment, The question tells you that you can't do both, But who knows if you can or can't. It's a trick question by the way it is worded. Why couldn't you tell the child to run to you, while you are running to the container. No one can yes what could happen, unless you are there at that moment. Please don't ask me a question and then tell me want I can and can't do. How ever it would turn out has Nothing to do with being able to save Millions of life's over a what if question.
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
Missed the mark because an embryo in a mother is viable and one in a container has to have a "host" so to speak to be viable.
Antonios Georgantas 7 years ago
This is an easy argument. The child has infinitely more value. This point does not even need proof. Its not even an argument. It is not a point that flavors abortion either. Simply when the fetus is equated to an alive individual with memories responsibilities loved ones, etc,to make an anti-abortion argument, its not a valid. Anti-abortion should use other arguments.
Daniel Tanner 7 years ago
It is a trick question that serves no purpose whatsoever. Same question phrased differently: If you were a fireman was in a burning building and found two "full grown" adults that need saving but you could only save one what would you do? Point in fact, it is an impossible situation with a horrible outcome whichever way you look at it. He doesn't prove anything by asking it.
Sheremy Page 7 years ago
im pro life but my answer would be (A) DUH...and no it doesnt shut down the argument because choosing to end a life because you were too stupid to prevent it in the first place if you didnt want it and only having time to save one life are two totally different things...when a mothers life is at risk and the only way to save her is to abort the baby then yes i would agree with abortion in that instance...he is an idiot if he thinks he has solved anything...and birth control can be gotten for free at most health clinics around here, im not sure about everywhere, but there is always the condom and abstinence ;)
Valefar 7 years ago
There is no genius here. This is a false dichotomy, a form of illogical reasoning. Tomlinson did not create a genius argument, he deceptively put forth a well-known form of logical fallacy to falsely claim victory in a debate of his own creation. There is no right answer in a false dichotomy, only the laughter of it's creator when he sees he duped you. BoredPanda can do better than give a megaphone to this troll.
David Blomberg 7 years ago
I am pro-choice but false choices. It ignores the issue of pain and assumes we have a moral duty to save all lives. I would save the screaming child to prevent pain, which an embryo cannot feel (even if you consider it a human instead of a potential human).
Jeff Bjorck 7 years ago
I would save the child. The fact that we can now store human embryos as "viable" is a red herring. Such embryos have no chance of life unless artificially implanted in a womb, and then they still must successfully attach and begin to grow. If I saw (a) a 5-year-old and (b) a six month fetus wriggling in its own blood, I would still grab the child because the odds of her/him surviving are far greater. That does not make the premature infant "not alive" or "not human." If I saw a healthy 5-year-old screaming and another 5-year-old unconscious and bleeding badly, I would again save the healthy child, but that does not make the other wounded child "not human" or "not alive." This author's asinine argument uses "Sophie's Choice" to set up an impossible scenario, which proves nothing other than the truth that every medic on the battle field knows: "Give your efforts to the one MOST LIKELY to survive." This does not determine humanity.
Cassandra S 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro always answers pro-abortion arguments with facts. Ben answered him brilliantly. But he blocked him.
Robert Harrison 7 years ago
The answer to this question is that you save the child because it has already survived childbirth. There is never any guarantee an embryo will survive birth, let alone the effects of a fire. The real question against anti-abortionists is if abortions were illegal, would you want your 14 yo daughter to seek an abortion from a back-alley butcher? It's a simple as that.
Daniel Blumentritt 7 years ago
Interestingly, quite a lot of people quite a variety of honest answers. The idea that it's NEVER been answered honestly is bogus - he only accept as "honest" answers he agrees with.
Daniel Blumentritt 7 years ago
Interestingly, TONS of people gave honest answers. He just blocked them.
Reagan Britt 7 years ago
This does nothing to the argument. It is a bad and flawed hypothetical.
Peter Hingle 7 years ago
This Patrick guy comes across as a jerk but let's change the choice to a healthy five year old and a crippled five year old with Downs Syndrome. When we devalue human life in any form we devalue it in all forms. We make value choices all the time. It doesn't mean the embryos have no value just not the value of a 5 year old. For the record many pro lifers adopt children.
endelbendel 7 years ago
This is the trolley problem in philosophy, which is unsolveable. The most coherent solution, utilitarianism - greatest good for the greatest number, does not do justice to individual value. My answer is to get my a*s out of there without carrying anybody bc of my bad shoulders.
Carl Edgren 7 years ago
Found this "pro-lifer's" response http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/no-saving-child-instead-embryos-burning-building-not-negate-pro-life-position/
Rachael Klein 7 years ago
Why do these pro- choicers automatically assume that because someone is Pro-life, they have not adopted or fostered children? That they do not agree with giving help to those who actually NEED it, not just want it so they can be lazy? That they don't volunteer THEIR spare time to help people in need? That we are all against birth control? That when they see a child in need they don't pull money straight from their almost empty pockets and buy that child what it needs? These are all myths and they need to stop. Every time you morons start an argument, you sounds no better than racist who use stereotypes to explain it away.
Christie Walker 7 years ago
I always ask if they believe in prenatal care. If you believe in god's plan you don't need a doctor or vitamins etc. If you choose to intervene with medical care by human you do not trust gods plan.
Annette Moody 7 years ago
A seed is life. A sperm is life and alive, therefore what is alive and living is valid, and it follows an embryo is already viable.
Jerry Nenarella 7 years ago
You grab the kid and go! Shut the hell up and let the women decide for themselves!
Leanne Pippin 7 years ago
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read! It is just pedantic nonsense! The answer to this question is NOT going to define life or the value of one over the other. It's a ridiculous set up scenario. Here is another one, pick the place, but instead of the embryos make it between a small child or your grandmother, or one of your parents, or even your own child. You have to pick one to save, the chances of you leaving your own child to save someone else's is extremely unlikely. The child left behind his just as important. So someone chooses the 5 year old to save, that doesn't make the embryos any less important. While they are life they are currently in a frozen condition, which is a WHOLE other debate, therefore the logical choice would be the 5 year old child. Here's another scenario, You are in a burning building with your terminal child who only has a few months to live and another child who is perfectly healthy and has his/her whole life ahead of them, who would you save
jaw386 7 years ago
Direct quote: “This question absolutely eviscerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true. No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women.” There are two problems with this argument: 1) The criticism of the people who believe life begins at conception as being emotional and trying to control people, (ie. Women) is the very basis of the question given in the first place. The question puts the person in a situation that is firstly, an extremely rare situation and then asks for a response that is controlled by the individual asking the question. The question is looking for a emotional response based
jaw386 7 years ago
on the tightly controlled situation, and then pronouncing that the “obvious” answer to this question once and for all debunks the idea that life begins at conception. 2) I can also make up any number of situations that would call for a certain response, that if not given would raise scepticism of the person’s reasoning for answering in that way. a) There are two women trapped in a partially collapsed building. One is 70 years old and one is 7 years old. The building is one fire and will very shortly collapse completely. There is not enough time for you to rescue both, but you do have time to get out with one of the individuals. Which person do you save and why? b) There are two vehicles traveling the same direction along on a two-lane highway right next to a river. In car A is a father and his 12-year-old daughter, while in car B is a 30-year-old man driving home to his wife and kids. As both cars are right beside each other, a large truck, travel in the opposite direction hit the t
Daniel Valone 7 years ago
'Pro-lifers' stopped the use of fertilized egg cells for stem cell research - calling it murder. Yet every day fertility clinics flush fertilized egg cells down the drain when the 'parents' no longer need or want them.
Elaine Gavigan 7 years ago
Disagree. I do believe embryos are children and that life starts at conception. Ask most parents and they will tell you the same thing. Ask any woman who has had a miscarriage. I don't think such a delicate subject should boil down to the question you propose. I am pretty sure most people would pick the child obviously in this situation. As I did.
Juan Manuel Dominguez 7 years ago
1/Of course in that scneario you save the child. But now let me ask you something. If there is no fire, you enter in the room and see... 2/a kid/person with a Baseball bat swinging around those "viable human embryos", would you stop him? 3/ option A) you ecourage him and he destroys the enbryons Opt B) you stop him and some or all of those embryons live. 4/ as in your case, there is no option "C". Please give your honest answer. One day later, I am still waiting for his honest answer....
Ron Scala Sr. 7 years ago
Abortions were very common up till the 1950's also that's when the USA added god to the pledge of allegiance and it's been all down hill ever since
James Shields 7 years ago
i honestly thought a even thought it makes me sound like a terrible person mainly because i do believe that life starts at conception
Chris Miller 7 years ago
How exactly does one safely remove 1000 (-190 degree) embryos? - where would you place them after removing them? No matter what you do the fire would be catastrophic...
Diana Strahl 7 years ago
Life begins when the children leave home and the dog dies. But, seriously, if women want to control their own bodies, then why don't they? Use effective BC or keep your damn legs closed. THAT"S the no-brainer!
Michael Corral 7 years ago
Wow this is a weak argument. An embryo is not a fetus. And yes, science says, even at the zygote stage, it's human. And if not, what species is it?
Barry Nolan 7 years ago
I like his question. I immediately picked answer a. I would do it every time if I was faced with the same situation.
Andrew Mutz 7 years ago
I would try to save them both but in order of importance starting with me.. after that if it was my child I would go with child, if it was my wife's viable eggs and a strangers baby I would go with the eggs. The important question is why did someone leave a baby alone in a burning building?
Patricia Ross 7 years ago
In that situation I would grab the 5 year old because he is at a point in his development that he has fear and will feel pain. So in my opinion, his need is greater. That doesn't mean that I don't think that embryos are not alive. They take in nutrients and grow and develop. If you know of something else other than living things that do that, please let me know. I don't think this answer make me a liar. I do think the guy who wrote this is very intolerant of anyone's opinion that doesn't match his.
Dan Beulen 7 years ago
you have to know they are there first..most couldnt recognize a container of embryos..and why where you there...dont judge by what ifs...if most knew.they would save them all...eggs are not growing humans tho and children are not born in jars anymore
Patrick Freeman 7 years ago
This is an extension of the "Trolley Problem". A ethical thought experiment. It was first introduced by Phillippa Foot in 1967. It goes like this. You are on a trolley that it out of control. The track ahead of yeah has a switch that can divert the out of control trolley down a different track. To do nothing would run over five construction workers that are working on the track ahead. To throw the switch diverts the trolly but runs over a random person. So... do you kill one to save five? There are lots of different interpretations and ways to make it harder. The one person you kill has the cure for cancer... so you choose to save hime and kill the five. Lets say one of the five is the single parent to twins that were just born and their mother died during child birth. And on and on. The point of the thought exercise is there is no right or wrong answer. So this guy hijacked a very old ethical dilemma experiment and demands you accept the conditions of his premise as the
Glen Steen 7 years ago
I wouldn't want my wife/girlfriend to have an abortion. However, I am Pro-Life and fully support Planned Parenthood and all their activities for healthy pregnancies, birth control etc and for abortion as required. Abortion-1...90-png.jpg 
Monika Soffronow 7 years ago
The absolutely horrible truth is that when abortion is not a legal alternative, women have abortions anyway. They, and only they can judge if they want the pregnancy or not, and only they can decide if the risk of severe complications or indeed even DEATH from an unsafe abortion is worth it. Those opposed to legal and readily available abortions are the real moral owners of murder - by denying women the right to safely decide over their own bodies.
Pat Orsban 7 years ago
A, of course. The embryos have not been fertilized. I do support a woman"s authority (notice I do not say right, no one has the right to kill another, but many have the authority to do so). to kill her unborn child. I am just not some whiny liberal who has to call the unborn child a fetus, to feel better about murdering unborn children. Perhaps, if the whiny liberals actually said what they do, they might do it less.
Patricia Speelman 7 years ago
I think the argument is spot on! Next time I get into a discussion about pro life vs pro choice, I will ask the pro lifer that very question. Thanks.
Anthony Hunt 7 years ago
If you were in a burning building with two briefcases, one with 2 million dollars and one with 1 million dollars and you can only save one: How much is the briefcase that you left behind worth?
Joe Lucier 7 years ago
Hello. Thanks for your thought provoking question. Here is your question. A person goes into a burning building and only one can only take be removed from the room and building. The choices are, you, the asker of this original question, or a pregnant woman. Which do you choose? I challenge you to ask all the others you have asked your question. And it could just be two people since people may be angry at you, a man, and a pregnant woman. For you personally, what would you choose?
Jesse Egbert 7 years ago
Saying this hypothetical "shuts down" the anti-abortion argument is a little exaggerated, and I'm saying that generously. I would first like to say that to make a hypothetical so strict makes it unrealistic. There is never a case in reality where there does not exist some hope. It could be possible to save both and one who earnestly believes (hoping myself to be one) that there are 1001 children or persons in that room that need saving would try to save them all. An attempt should be made. Regardless, if even in our ignorance or our own weakness that we might fail to recognize or even qualify the lives of both options, the reality remains the same. Regardless of our choice, if we choose to save the child in option A, there are still victims of the fire (the other persons in option B). Regardless of which we choose, if only able to choose one, it does not nullify the fact that human life was lost.
Tom Benvie 7 years ago
Same scenario-instead of the embryos, there are two old people and one child. Who do you save? Most people would select the child. Same scenario. Ten middle aged people or one child. Most people would select the child. Same scenario. A newborn and a three year old. Interesting, but I bet the three year old wins out. Because our nurturing mind tells us, not our analytical one. I'm Pro Life, and adoptive father of four.
Livi Liv 7 years ago
If this question is aiming to show that people don't care about unborn babies, it's probably true for many of us. In my opinion, there is a massive lack of awareness about happens during fetal development. All I know is what I learnt about sex, once a sperm fertilizes and egg, a baby begins to grow. Any thing that stops that growth or even ends that growth is a death. If a woman loses her baby while in the womb, even early in pregnancy, it is considered a miscarriage. This is a death. So why would abortion be any different?
Livi Liv 7 years ago
A baby won't grow unless an embryo is implanted in a uterus, so fertilization is not the same as conception anyway. Further more; At what point do you believe human life begins to matter? Do you know for certain at what point a baby is considered human? Is it once their limbs and brain and body begin to look more like the rest of us?
Morgiana 7 years ago
Not implying anything about the right choice, but that question was flawed. Frozen embryos aren't "alive". They are store to either be used one day or be thrown away. Same goes for people that freeze themselves to be "revived" in the future when we are more technologically advanced. If it were 1000 of those frozen people I would still save that one 5 yr old who is "alive".
Black Dahlia 7 years ago
One should be required to get a license to have a child. There should be a very minimal fitness and knowledge test that must be passed in order to get this license. If one fails, they are offered the choice of contraceptive implants or ineligibility for public assistance. Actually, there should be one government-funded free service for unlicensed pregnancies: abortion. Our country would be a much better place in the space of just one generation.
Leonardo Della Pietra 7 years ago
The question is illegal: how could you expect anyone to argue to such a question ON TWITTER?!?! One should be given enough characters to give a complete answer. Even if for choosing between A and B you only need 1 character. Then: if I'm pro-life (whatever that means) and I'm fighting to make abortion illegal then I'm fighting to live in a world where those embryos are not existent. You cannot create a situation that goes against my principles and then ask me to take stance just to show that my choice is highlighting the limits of my reasoning. You have already put me over the limits. It's logically equivalent, for example, to a mother in a Nazi camp which can save only one child out of two and has to decide which one gets killed: it's not a way of demonstrating which one she lover the most. Mr. Tomlinson should cool down. There are other ways of talking seriously about abortion. And no one has an answer which is valid for everyone. Personally I think I'm against-abortion pro-choice.
Linda Sheppard 7 years ago
There is no for or against and should never be argued.It is purely a decision the adult/adults have to make. It is their private matter they are the people who have to be happy with the decision for the rest of their life. Arguing over this is as stupid as arguing over whether an individual should have sex or not , pro sex? anti sex? Maybe bring out a law that allows sex only after a couple have passed a test that they are capable of caring for a child. Ridiculous? Yes. You can join groups, protest all you like, but how dare anyone try and put their views on to an individual . When children get head lice, do the anti abortion group leave the nits (embyos) in the hair. I hope so. I am on the side of individual choice. I would of course save the 5 year old child first even if there were a room of 1000 kittens. It is simply a matter of individual choice.
gary hutchison 7 years ago
why are all replies about abortion?, it was a very simple question, A or B ? save a child or a canister of embryos . me i`d pick C, forget them both and get the f**k out.
Michelle Dodson 7 years ago
I just want to point out that there is a big difference between "pro life" and "pro choice". I am pro choice, which doesn't mean I am "pro abortion". I simply mean a womans' choice is NONE OF MY F*****G BUSINESS. And it isn't any of yours either.
Petrino Brown 7 years ago
I firmly believe babies are all evil and should all be aborted immediately and sex should be banned entirely and all men should be castrated.
Jon Jansen 7 years ago
1. My family and I are democrats 2. We are prolife. We have adopted children (2) so the argument of “we don’t see it” is like when someone says they don’t see that is like when a white man tells a black man police brutality doesn’t exist because he’s never seen it. 3. A scenario like this does “win” the argument for abortion. The morality of an issue is not determined by an exaggerated experiment. Come on now. You sound like the Donald. Makes one point in your own mind then refuses to hear other points of clew
Emma Jay 7 years ago
I think this scenario misses the mark of pro - abortion perse. Pro - abortion pertains to couples,,, a mother...a family as they are confronted with any decision. The individual if in the scenario...should not be criticised who they save or for that matter judged for their choice. In the bible, a child should be born in love. Not in a dish. pro-abortion is in line with this setting. We can not judge anyone in this setting...if man makes their own rules with playing god by putting all these embryos in a dish and expects God to be challenged for his people to prove their belief for their amusement will be on his own head. Choosing in faith to follow god' s way is the test. Freely following god's counsel. ones choice.
James Cates 7 years ago
This hypothetical question is also lying to you, trying to evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false equivalency. I can rip the question into tiny little pieces, given the ludicracy of the question itself, but that is neither here nor there in terms of importance. The fact of the matter is, that although the embryos have indeed the spark of life capability in them, they are not alive per se. Why? Because they are frozen so that the growth process is effectively dead. It is not until they are placed in a suitable environment for growth that their "life" will continue. The phrase "life begins at conception" is assuming the egg is fertilized by the sperm in the environment of the female body that allows the life to continue. A frozen embryo is not the same.
Celia Citerio 7 years ago
A - of course , but I don't agree with abortion as a form of anticonceptional metod ! there are plenty of them these days! thanks Patrick to try to open peoples eyes!!!!!
Fkgk Dmvkfk 7 years ago
I would easily pick A. F**k the embryos there not alive yet but that kid is. Honestly.
Ania Tamas 7 years ago
I don´t agree with abortions but still , each individual should choose what they want . Is the woman pregnant because she raped ? Is the baby healthy ? Could I take care of a very sick baby ( who knows what problems the child might have in the future) ? Is my life in danger because of the pregnancy ? etc etc And I know many say that the baby might be adopted but not forget that there are so many babies out there without a family . And what if the baby will be fine but the family will abuse him ? There are so many questions . We need to educate people about birth controls .
Roger Hawcroft 7 years ago
The question is typical of those put to philosophy 101 students. It *is* about values and illustrates that nothing is black and white and most of our value statements are not thought out. In differing contexts some will decide one way and some the other - most will react without rational decision but simply out of conditioning, ideology, or imposed notions of value. I don't believe that there is. a right or wrong answer, though I tend to believe that most would opt for rescuing the child in this situation. In reality, I think what the question does is illustrate that "belief" is an errant concept and cannot be relied upon to solve dilemnas.
Marc DeGiovanni 7 years ago
I agree to your premise, and agree to the same verdict you do, but your question and hypothesis are not correlative. Exchange embryos in this hypothetical 'one-or-the-other' situation with a sick elderly man on his death bed, and the same number of people will answer "A.) save the child" This does not mean the elderly man on his death bed is not alive. I won't get in to a definition of life, as I personally believe more liberties should be given to parents for making decisions based on their pro-creations. Your scenario is causing people to chose what is more viable to them. Instead of embryo, exchange it with a "born at six months premature baby" in an ICU enclosure or the 5 year old, and despite being a gut wrenching decision, virtually any sane person would pick the more viable option of the 5 year old to save. Again, that does not mean the 6-month born premature baby is any less "alive" than the 5 year old. It means we are making a decision based on viability.
Valerie Aaronson 7 years ago
I love his point. I'm pro-choice and I had an abortion. This will sound very strange, but I did it out of love for the embryo. It would've been born terribly sick and would have suffered tremendously, and I couldn't let that happen. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one, but stay out of other people's business. Anything else is misogyny, even if done by women.
Laurence Hazlewood 7 years ago
Here is MY question. If all Life is sacred and only God-given how come this God Creator allows 30% of all KNOWN pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion (aka -miscarriage) and nobody KNOWS how many UNKNOWN pregnancies spontaneously abort before gestation can be identified? Where IS this sacred life that so many Pro-lifers who are also coincidentally pro-gun ownership and pro-cutting public health measures and who coincidentally deny the right to life for Black People, the children of the poor, refugee children, the victims of mass-shootings and police brutality, where IS Life Sacred to them? It would appear it is only sacred up to the moment when it impinges on THEIR welfare, THEIR lifestyle or THEIR Wealth. Do tell WHERE this callous and impotent God resides that allows the deaths of these unborn infants or what the response should be to all those Christian Right wingers who drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or shoot drugs whilst pregnant or in proximity to their unborn foetuses.
Weeping Willowz (WeepingWillowz) 7 years ago
Anti-abortion is actually really stupid. Think about it like this, a teen of 13-14 has been raped and impregnated. But, they have found out that they’re pregnant. People who think abortion is WRONG are basically saying that a person so young has to deal with the pain of childbirth, being called a s**t or a whore for having a child so young and (in some religions) being forced to MARRY the rapist. (Btw, I’m NOT being racist or anti religion, I just know that in some religions it’s tradition to marry the one that you bore the child to)
Weeping Willowz (WeepingWillowz) 7 years ago
Also, a study has shown that embryos are not classified as living, human or a child/baby. They are not a proper life form until they have developed further.
Load More Replies...
Abe Aboud 7 years ago
So, if there was a fire and the author of this monstrosity and a 5 year old girl were trapped in a building, and I could only save one, which would it be? Of course, if I save the girl, I am automatically admitting that the author is not a living human being. In life, we often have to make hard choices, sometimes at the expense of another life. A mother dying of cancer decided to avoid chemo so she can give birth to her girl, and the girl is alive and well now. She was not a life worth saving and her late mother was somehow a liar? Rubbish!
Bobbie Hammond 7 years ago
I do not believe in abortion, with that said, I believe a woman should have the right to make that decision on her own. I know other women that have had abortions that regret having done so many years later. There are some that have no regret at all. I believe before a woman has an abortion she should talk to at least 3 other women that have already had abortions and make an informative decision. Do not trade one problem for another.
Chris Owens 7 years ago
well...if he is in a clinic, then it has fire suppression per NFPA code for public buildings....so his scenario wouldnt happen and why is there a child in the fertility clinic why is the child that shouldnt be there , in a room with frozen embryos this guy does what all liberals do, take the most extreme situation to try and justify their ideaology and then when someone answers logically as I have, they call you names
Charles Gill Sfo 7 years ago
I love beating up on pro-lifers myself, because they're dishonest. Then again, I read an interesting article by a rabbi in the Jerusalem post. His argument goes like this: The writer of Deuteronomy, who lived two hundred years before Aristotle, was clearly Aristotilian. Deuteronomy 30 gives one of the 613 commandments, "Bocher chaim." "Choose life." He asks, "What does this commandment mean in its context?" In essence, he argues that all life is becoming what it is. All life is life in potentiality. For the mother that means treated with dignity and respect, as made in God's image. Any attack on her is really an attack on God's image within her. The same for the husband. We must help him reach his fullest potentiality and that means a living wage and respect in the work place. It reaches out to the animals. Jewish and Muslim law states that if an animal suffers when it dies, it becomes non-kosher. Animals have rights too. God put us on the planet to guard it and to keep it.
Charles Gill Sfo 7 years ago
We as Christians have a moral obligation to promote the plethora of gun problem in this country and the global warming problem. When we as Christians say the Our Father we ask that he lead us not into temptation, and the story above is such a temptation. We must choose and we are only given two negative choices. It's true, when the pro-lifers argue for pro-life, it is a sick joke. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the fetus isn't a life. It's potential life & on that basis alone we must help it fulfil its potentiality. Every cop on the beat and every soldier in the field faces a similar question. The guy in front of me holds a gun. Either I kill him, or he kills me. Choose life. Best to make sure war never comes in the first place. That means ending poverty, making sure our children are never tempted to put themselves into that position. That's the Christian position. Choosing life means bringing the fullness of life's potentiality, this instant to every person we meet.
Load More Replies...
Chris Manns 7 years ago
Why is there a 5 year old left alone in a Fertility clinic ? Why is the Clinic still operating without a working sprinkler system ?
Samantha Street 7 years ago
That’s all fine and dandy and a big thumbs up to the smarty pants who cooked this up. However, I am 1000% Pro life and no one with their quick wit could make me change my mind. Clearly, the child is living and breathing so you would save him. That doesn’t mean that those embryos “died “. They are not inside of a woman’s body attached to an umbilical cord, sustaining LIFE. Also, my pro life argument goes back a little farther. There are so many forms of protection and birth control out there, there is little to no excuse to have an abortion. As far as the “what if it’s rape or incest” argument goes: less than 1% of the thousands of abortions they occur each year are due to those two reasons. The number one reason is simply birth control. STOP HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX. That simple! 🤔
Frances Escoto 7 years ago
For one thing embryos are not babies until the embryo is fertilized by a sperm. Once the sperm penetrates the embryo (at conception) that is when the embryo becomes a BABY. So an embryo in a tube is not a baby. It is an unfertilized embryo. When women ovulates that embryo sits in the uterus until it gets fertilized by a sperm. If it does not get fertilized by a sperm it leaves the woman's body by menstrual period. SO THOSE TUBE THAT HAVE EMBRYOS IN THEM ARE NOT BABIES. NOT UNTIL IT IS FERTILIZED BY A SPERM!!!
Daniel Pearson 7 years ago
I REALLY QUESTION THIS GUYS THOUGHTS AND WILL CALL HIM OUT TO RELABEL HIS QUESTION AND USE THE WORD BABY INSTEAD OF EMBRYO IN HIS QUESTION AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSES HE GETS.
Camel Olah 7 years ago
i am merely going to say that life seems to start when the sperm penetrates the egg...20 years ago they put a camera in a woman and filmed the entire pregnancy and it was seen that there was an electrical spark at that exact moment i think it might be a soul arriving in this world so ya it sucks maybe you live or maybe you will die so i dont know any answer its a c**p shoot in a way....
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
I think it is a clever question but manipulative. The same question could have been asked where the choice was a five year old child and an old woman, or a child and the doctor. The choice does not have to mean that one is deciding between living and non living. The answer reveals only the value system of the person answering, not whether or not life is present. Some people might choose the James T Kirk approach and simply rephrase the question a la Kobayashi Maru and IMO this is legitimate. For example, why not yell for help or grab a fire extinguisher etc etc. FWIIW I would choose the child who would feel the pain of the fire.
Kenley Morrison 7 years ago
the bible is actually pro-abortion. If a husband suspects a woman is pregnant with another man's child - there is a process where God is supposed to actually facilitate the abortion. That does not mean that abortion is good or right. It just means that there are higher priorities that essentially mean that those who are against abortion are not defending any sacred ground at all.
Joseph Beaudet 7 years ago
Both. Well if you can carry "1,000 embryos just sitting in the corner". You get down low and calm the child down, tell him or her to look you in the eyes and be strong and make sure him or her stays in front of you holding onto your shirt while you carry the embryos. After getting out the build hopefully people are standing by to get the embryos to a proper place in time with the right temperature and maybe some will be saved.
Kathy Coleman 7 years ago
Until it is viable outside of the womb, it's a parasite. I feel for the pregnant woman who has to carry the parasite until it is a viable child, and believe it is HER DECISION to carry it. No one else can tell her what to do with that child/parasite/embryo/whatever you want to call it. I would be more inclined to feel for the "pro-life" contingent if they actually cared about the CHILDREN who they are forcing into a horrible, loveless life.
Justin Lawson 7 years ago
It’s important to remember that supporting freedom of choice is not the same supporting, or even approving of abortion. I’m not a fan of tattoos, so I’ve made the choice not to get any, but I don’t judge anyone for choosing to get them and I’m not going to lobby to make tattoos illegal. More relevant to the topic, I believe smoking is terrible and lethal, so I choose not to smoke, but, again... I pass no judgment and I’m not going to go on a mission ban smoking or the manufacture/distribution of tobacco products. Every person should have the right to choose what we do to and with our own bodies. Our country was founded and built on that principle. Supporting freedom does not have to mean supporting what one does with that freedom. What if the government decided to pass a law requiring women to have an abortion if she had already had a child or any number of children? The moment we start allowing our freedoms to be compromised, this is the slope we start sliding down.
Rebecca Coomes 7 years ago
Perfect answer here. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/fire-in-the-clinic.html
David Wall 7 years ago
This poses a comparable question on how might we value life. Likewise the reason we’re in this rather b/w scenario isn’t the point. Here it is. A 95 YO man is on life support. There is also a 20 week old foetus supported in an artificial womb. The power goes out and there’s only one power generator left with enough power to support one. Choices: A) Save 20 week old foetus connecting generator to it’s life support B) Save 95 YO man with generator C) Do nothing and both expire
Dan Forster 7 years ago
ahh...America the land where your civil liberties begin at conception and end at birth.
Marc LaClear 7 years ago
Also, if you're not willing to help a specific child does that give you no right to say it is wrong to kill said child?
Marc LaClear 7 years ago
You're in a burning building, you can save 2 children (who are not your own) from one room, or you can save 1 child (your own) from another. What do you choose?
Little Miss Divinity 7 years ago
we would instinctively grab the kid in a moment of panic because, honestly, a screaming child is more tangible than a thousand silent embryos. Honestly though, this has nothing to do with abortion. I can't comprehend the though process of someone willing to kill their child so they don't have to have an inconvenience. Really, just wait until you are married for love, it is an insult to yourself and your partner in reality. It's nasty how people sleep with whoever they want whenever they want for entertainment. that is only a small part of it, what it really is is a bonding experience to be shared only as a husband and wife and a means to reproduce. it just happens to be fun. I'm not against birth control either, I'm against sex before marriage. And yes, i understand people make mistakes but that's what adoption is for. and yes, many christians adopt kids like that, the "christians" you guys hone in on don't truly have God's live in them. they are not real christians so please stop us.
Rhiannon Mueller 7 years ago
LOL - what an idiot question - trying to throw someone off with an event that will never happn. But just in case you're wondering - those embryos must be kept at -196C. And they're kept in a giant vat. They can't be away from a power source and I can't lift the vat. In the outlandish event that I have enough time to procure a battery and hook it up to the vat and get a lift to lift the vat and get it out of the building - I sure has hell have enough time to put the kid into the lift and get our asses out of there.
Cindy Wayson 7 years ago
Its called taking of your own responsiblity. #1) It is not the taxpayers responsibility to take care of people's birth control #2) like i taught my own children, the only 100% effective birth control is abstinence any time after that you are taking the chance of pregnancy and you simply don't have sex if you are not willing to except that responsibility. #3) in those cases of rape you could always find someone to adopt a newborn.. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE 'S HEALTH CARE OR BIRTH CONTROL nor does it say that you are entitled to sex. That being said in my opinion the child/children would be the obvious choice to me simply because without a viable mother you couldn't nurture the growth of a baby and it simply could grow to term.
Donald Rackley 7 years ago
Shuts down nothing. Ridiculous hypothetical. Same fire. Five year old child versus 80 year old man. Who do you save? Does that mean the other has no value? Perhaps, but only to a libtard.
Sioux Cline 7 years ago
I have one question for this man. Have YOU ever had an abortion? If not than you don't know the feeling of that life inside of you, even though it's only 9 weeks old, wanting to survive. I am not against abortion. But to say that NO ONE thinks abortion is killing a being you are wrong. There is more to a human being than a bunch of cells. There is a soul. Abortion should never be taken lightly. It is a very serious thing for a mother to terminate the potential life of her child. And most women who endure an abortion hate it.
Brandon Hockaday 7 years ago
So why are there embryos just chillin in the place anyways? Oh yeah, because abortion is legal.
Rebekah Thurston 7 years ago
The same reason why I would grab a five year old child before a bunch of old people that doesnt mean the old people aren't alive. Once I got the child out, I would go back in for the embryos.
Katinka Min 7 years ago
There really are people out there who'd save embryos over a child in a fire?? (Or at least claim they would) Wow. The question is really good, though. I'll keep it in mind should I ever run into this discussion. Fortunately, I live in a country where an abortion is not easy to obtain and only allowed in the first trimester, but at least there are no maniacs outside clinics going batshit crazy over other people's choices and it's not a public discussion.
Aysel Jafarova 7 years ago
That is a ridiculous comparison, embryo has only one cells fused of mother father Dna, nothing else than this, and can't be considered as an individual or human being. Abortions are done after the age of 12 weeks or so, where the body is recognisable by doctors to be aborted, by which time almost all the organs are formed and hearth started to beat. That is a starting point of being a human being. So yes abortion means killing an Individual, innocent individual.
Johnaka Doe 7 years ago
Well I say I am pro contraception many at the same time if you have issues both female and male, yes it's your body, but it's my tax money funding your choices and contraceptions sooooooooooooooooooo adulting is tough, but you are responsible for your choices first and formost.
Benjamin Gilmore 7 years ago
I think that this is a question that misses the point of abortion. Yes a live baby has more worth than an embryo....but you're not choosing have an abortion or kill a baby....your choosing ...kill the embryo or don't.
Brianna Taylor 7 years ago
Just to humor this idiot k ill answer the question. The average human being eould obviously choose to save the child that is right in front of them and interacting with them. For me i would pick the child because if you want a real messed up answer id much rather let the embryos die because it would be easier than killing the child and hearing the screams, to literally torture any being is cruel. An embryo wouldnt be developed which means it wouldnt feel it. The way people think these days sickens me. Yes people have sex for pleasure but the original reason for sex is obviously two create life. So any two people that are going to interact in sexual activity knowing full well the risks, one of them being pregnancy, then that is automatically your responsibility. Whether or not embryos are babies, if something is or has the potential to become a living being you don't kill it. That would be insane. And it's very unlikely that we would ever have to choose between a child or thousand embry
Barbara Howe 7 years ago
The answer to the question is that you should save the 5 year old child. Not because that child is more valuable than the embryos but because at the level of life they are at, the embryos do not feel the same level of fear and pain that the older child does. But it doesn't mean they are not important also. Sometimes decisions are situational. And then we just have to do the best we can and so you can't always compare apples and oranges.
Mark Littleton Sr 7 years ago
Kind of a foolish scenario to satisfy ones agenda anyway. Non the less...We should all be willing to sacrifice our own lives for the lives of others. After throwing the 5 yr old on my back I grab the embryos and do all I can to save us all. If it is in Gods plan for us to survive or die that's up to him. Am I copping out here?
Eric Veach 7 years ago
I think I can save all of them...might die...whatevs. Why can't the five year old run, or follow you if you say to? How big is the room...maybe I can't save any of them. Stupid question. Unless I knew they were in there to begin with, I doubt I'd even notice a jar in a corner. Why is there a five year old hiding, unsupervised in a corner? Not exactly Sophie's Choice. This dude must mostly talk to idiots.
Full Name 7 years ago
This guy is an idiot. I hate this type of stupidity so much. It's an emotional argument pretending to be a logical one blasting emotional responses. This is such disingenuous garbage I can't handle it. He lost me at "No one believes life begins at conception". *palmface*. So they're ALL lying? It's vast conspiracy to control women's bodies? Hey buddy, this fake-a*s feminism won't get you laid so f**k right off. FYI, I'm pro choice, but I'm even more pro-objectivity and this guys seems to lack it in spades. Not everyone who feels differently from you is lying and has an agenda. I have no patience for idiots like this guy.
Full Name 7 years ago
He would've been smart to quit while he was ahead. The "what would you grab?" thing is an interesting point that would give anybody some pause, and I thought I saw where he was going with it....but then he veered off and crashed into a tree with his argument.
Load More Replies...
Seamus Kidd 7 years ago
its not as bright or brilliant as he thinks in his condescending and pretentious manner. the embryos have potential , they are not of use in the tube and might even fail to be productive how does that equate to the actual time of conception which is at the core of the debate.
Barbara Burke 7 years ago
His question is stupid because unless the embryos is inside a womans body, it will never grow. An abortion takes it out so it can't grow. It is a baby inside the mother, when taken out it is whatever science decides to do with it.
Trebor Erebut 7 years ago
This type of question can only be asked by a naive person. In a recent movie about an earthquake in China, a woman has two children but in a dilemma no one should ever face, she can only save one leaving the other to die. No choice is ever right here. A choice being made here does not mean one can choose to kill a child. D U M B !!!
Jenna 7 years ago
Actually all that was done was the simple bait and switch tactic. Instead of keeping abortion/infanticide as the center of the debate the man tossed in a streruous hypothetical in order to avoid facing abortion/infanticide's grim reality. Going by his thinking human life retains value depending on the stage of life he/she is within...as well as it's condition. It's a very dangerous view to have
Louis Gittings 7 years ago
while i know it's not a perfect position, as a man who could potentially lose a child to a woman's choice to abort, reasoning we're not gonna strap her down, put her legs up in stirrups for nine months, and ensure the fetus gets essential pre-natal nourishment through iv's, i have no choice but to adopt a PRO-LIFE, AFTER BIRTH stance.
Nigel Oswyn 7 years ago
Its not a realistic scenario, therefore its not an argument. Where are there 1000 embryos in petri dishes waiting to be rescued? It makes no sense and would never be a valid situation.
Sick Boy 7 years ago
The guy came up with a good riddle but completely misinterpreted the responses of anti-abortion people. Their refusal to answer the riddle comes not from some secret acceptance that the eggs and fetuses are not living entities - because they are - but from the refusal to accept that the value of a life can be scaled and put into perspective after all.
Athena Brown 7 years ago
Here you go: https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m40s -- answered from beginning to end.
Red Rum 7 years ago
IF you DON'T murder the baby at any stage of development , about 9 months after the moment of conception - a baby is born. That's How you "shut down" an Idiot. Thanks for the picture Patrick S. Tomlinson and for pointing to where the real problem LIES. Difficult to repent if you cant admit to murder. No need to be in the book of life when you pen the book of death. God will deal with you, on that day you will believe.. I promise.
Athena Brown 7 years ago
Here you go: https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m40s -- totally answered from beginning to end.
Nathan Haws 7 years ago
This is why his argument totally fails. http://www.dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro
Dave Sergison 7 years ago
The issue about abortion is not simply about pro life or the right of a person to have control over their own body. There are failed arguments for both sides. My own view is really quite cynical about the nature of human beings. To argue that the point of conception is the beginning of life is nonsensical as that seed of life cannot possibly survive without the support and nurture of the women’s body. And yet to argue that a woman has a right to choose over her own body is also nonsensical when she has put herself in a position to become the carrier of a potential life , surely there is then a duty to nurture that life . There are obviously medical and physiological exceptions to that statement. But ,if we allow the very seed of life to be destroyed at inception simply because of a right to choose to destroy the result of a previous right to choose how big a step is it for us to allow people , physically ill or aged to be destroyed because they need help to survive ?
Janice Carmack 7 years ago
I know for a fact that an embryo is not a child and nothing like a child of any age. I lost an embryo when I was only 4 weeks pregnant many years ago. I saw that embryo and what it looked like at that time was a piece of meat fat, it had NO human form. So I will answer honestly and say that I would definitely save the child and never think twice about those embryos. They can be made again but that 5 year old child cannot. Embryos are a life form when they are created, but they are NOT children!
Carlo Mazzurra 7 years ago
No, he made a Kobyashi Maru where the only outcome is his opinion. And when it started to fall apart, he retconned conditions to only have his outcome. But it still falls apart. "I" can carry 2 5-year olds. So, I got the kid in one arm, the embryos in my other arm. Also, he never said the kid was disabled. Throw the kid out the door: "RUN!" grab the soon to be hard boiled eggs. Denying a third option makes the entire argument moot, an unsolvable moral dilemma, with only his "I will block you" solution available. He's really full of s**t.
Adrijana Radosevic 7 years ago
I'm gonna be honest. I'd get put. I don't give a f**k about babies, or embryos.
Adrijana Radosevic 7 years ago
and besides, let's all cut the bollocks here. If men were the ones birthing, you could get abortion at the ATM machine. Yes, we'll keep killing the s**t you seed in us and there's nothing you can DO about it. If I can't kill it while it's inside me, I'll kill it when I bring it home. Couple of years in jail is well worth avoiding bringing up something I consider a useless piece of s**t to this world. ok? ok.
Load More Replies... 
Michael Olsen 7 years ago
I agree. A simpler question to use also is... if the woman has the baby, but can not afford to keep it or it is unwanted or a child of rape, will the pro life person adopt the child and love it as their own for the rest of it's life?
Zsuzsanna Budapest 7 years ago
means nothing. Destroying their "argument" is meaningless to them. Its all about hurting sexually active females. Its all about them getting none. Male rage against the females who supposed to put out on their demand. Cursed abortion freaks.
Keith Smith 7 years ago
The answer is A, of course, one certainty over 1000 possibilities, but if we stop one woman from being a murderer, I'm still saving that five year old, a few years from now.
Keith Smith 7 years ago
The answer is A, of course, one certainty over 1000 possibilities. Yet, by stopping a woman from murder, I'm saving a five year old, albeit a few years early.
Diana Gilbert 7 years ago
At the age of 18 years old, I found out I was pregnant at 2 months. I never ever thought of an abortion; I carried the fertilized egg to full completion and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. I would never have considered abortion. Carrie-Ann...cc0853.jpg 
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
And she will always be grateful you made that choice.
Load More Replies...
Michael Tucker 7 years ago
OK - so Life does NOT beigin at "conception. Here's a question YOU can't answer. Just when DOES life begin. And please don't play the hypocrite and claim something stupid like 'when the water breaks', or some other nonsensical moment around actual birth, because babies have been remove from a mother as early as 16 and 1/2 weeks AND LIVED! The simple fact is abortion is killing a human. The question of whether or not you have a right as a woman to do so, is an entirely different debate. The question of when the life being carried becomes viable, is a different question. But to claim the what the mother is carrying 9 months is not a child, is insane - and WHY "Pro-Choice" people look like total idiots when they attempt to hedge all around the subject. Again: The simple fact is, "abortion', is killing a human.
Aaron Rieke 7 years ago
how can a grown person not carry a (2) 5 year olds out of a building? I have had to do that since both of my kids turned 5. These Kobayshi Maru tests are intended to make people choose one or the other. I would choose to try to save both. The chances that I am the only person left in this clinic with some lost child is remarkably small. So the test supposedly has no outcome possible for everyone to live. Ask Kirk how that works out.
Dane Soloey 7 years ago
There is no right answer, true. But this is not a "shattering" argument because this is not an argument at all but an entrapment that only serves to prove a single point.
Enrique Morales 7 years ago
The scenario is a no win situation. "I don't believe in no win scenarios". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-H1lz3OJ4
Rhona Laroche 7 years ago
I believe in common sense an embryo has potential to grow into a viable person but not until after it's first breath therefore life begins at birth not conseption easily understood buy those with common sense
L. Timbs 7 years ago
These two different examples are like comparing apples to oranges. The embryos are unattached so you will feel unattached to them as well. If a pregnant woman is killed, the culprit is charged with a double murder. Therefore this is ignorant and the guy doesn't know what he's comparing.If you don't want a child, be intelligent enough to buy birth control pills. Planned Parenthood will give them to u for free. It's not the tax payers responsibility to take that on. A pregnancy may be an inconvenience for some but remember someone else dreams of having a baby that can't have them. One day you'll be older and wish you had a son or daughter to love you and care for you. Good thing you weren't just a blob of flesh to your mother or you wouldn't be here.
Hawke Hill 7 years ago
So maybe we should also ask the opposite side of his "simple" question.....if a woman or girl was at an abortion clinic and a fire broke out and you had to rush in and could only save one ...being the woman who is aborting or the "doctor" who is performing the abortion who would you help ....morals do play a part and as much as we all think of ourselves as being above other species we actually act lower when it comes to actually living that morally instilled part of us! If anything threatens our children we stand like madmen to defend but had our parents "chose" not to have us you would NOT be here to write your views on this so think about it and the saying..."life is precious should hold alot of wieght!
J Robert Lysaght 7 years ago
This is a nonsense. His question only illustrates why we have laws. If someone harmed my son, if you let me decide, the penalty is a death sentence for the attacker, his family, and anyone who he ever loved. Laws are made outside of the heat of the moment, using common sense, precisely because a human being will save the crying child over the embryos. Not because, standing in a burning room, he made had a rational debate with himself and DECIDED the embryos weren't alive, but because the embryos, simply put, weren't crying out to him in terror, a terrible criterion for value. ask the same question again. burning clinic, and instead of embryos, two children, but one is my child. According to the author, my child should have legal priority over this other child. Does that make sense? This is rhetoric, and contributes nothing
UncleMatt Johnstone 7 years ago
They have relegated their arguement to the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" question.
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
Here's an alternative question... Instead of a child with 1000 embryos, how about a 25-year old woman vs. 1 embryo. Because that is what we're talking about here in the abortion debate, whether one embryo is worth more than the life and well-being of a woman. I agree that the child vs. embryo's comparison calls out the hypocrisy, but the woman vs. an embryo comparison truly calls out the patriarchy... and you might get more misogynistic idiots willing to stand up and declare just how little they think of a woman's life.
Albert Pablico 7 years ago
Let's test the analogy: If there's a fire in a hospital building and in 1 big room there are 100 elderly cancer patients, in extreme pain because of their sickness, who only have a few days to live, and 1 healthy 2 year old boy. Now there is a way to help the 100 patients to escape the fire but only if the 2 year old will be left behind because of his uncontrollable tantrum and panic. But if you will try to take the 2 year old to safety first, you will have no way of helping the 100 elderly patients. Who will you save? Those who answer that they will save the child, does that mean that the 100 dying elderly are less important than the 1 child? Of course not! But under the prevailing circumstances, as in this scenario, if we can only choose 1 of 2 answers, any answer chosen doesn't make the other option as less important.
Jim Deferio 7 years ago
Lets say there is an eighty year old and a five year old in the burning building and I can only help one out. I choose the five year old. Figure out why! Also, women must take responsibility for the outcomes of having sex! Because a child may be a financial burden does not lesson the value of the child so that you can murder it.
Melody Keefe 7 years ago
I'd save the child. If not, we'll get to the point where women are held liable for miscarriages. We are not brood pods for men's whims. We are living, breathing, individuals able to judge our ability to RAISE a child, not just carry it to term.
Derick Gross 7 years ago
It is usually baby girls that get aborted. What a weird take on this. In China now there is far less woman for this generation of men to marry because as soon as a couple realized they would have a girl they had an abortion. A woman that was never born probably has no rights.
Don Ronk 7 years ago
Number 1. The embryos are human beings, Number the 5 year old Is present in the world. 3. The embryos have to be implanted in a womb with no guarantee they will survive. 4. He is using an old Star Trek/ Star Fleet scenario of the Kobiashi Maru. If you are pro life you lose if you are pro abortion you lose. This was a no win scenario. See it for what it really is a trap by an elitist intellectual with a one world order view.
Stephanie Vick 7 years ago
This is the most intelligent argument I've ever seen. The responses are just as smart. I have nothing to add that has already been said.
Paul Prince 7 years ago
What is the real cost evaluation? The potential of one child or the potential of 1000? Einstein affirmed that our greatest potential resource is offspring, the collective not her yet, for they hold the future in their unborn hands. It seems like this guy {excuse me for the gender identification presumption} is approaching the subject with a calm collected head, then when disagreement onsets the outlashes at people and verbal assault on them begins. But this opinion is from just the brief skimming of the posts I did. Which brings me to the conclusion that you can choose a stance and not be condescending, rude or vulgar about it; although choosing not to, only derails from your opinion and instigates other irrelevant debates more often than not. But that is just my two gil on the subject.
Lee DeForest 7 years ago
Let me alter the scenario. Suppose behind that door screaming for help is a 1 year-old child in diapers and a 90 year-old woman in a chair with an oxygen tank & nasal tube. You can only carry one to safety... which do you choose? Just because you choose the child does not mean the old lady is not a human worthy of life.
Blake Carpenter 7 years ago
I can't read the f*****g article because every time I try to scroll down the page the f*****g ad in the top left keeps forcing a scroll to top.
Joe Furse 7 years ago
Is nobody going to point out that this "astute" (*cough) question has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion? Of course, the obvious answer to the question is A, but since when is preventing an abortion (or 1000 of them, for the sake of argument) the same as letting a 5 year old burn to death? This is more related to the ethical considerations of medical triage, not abortion. If an EMT comes upon the scene of an accident involving a school bus and a van from an assisted living center, and s/he chooses to save the life of an elderly nursing home patient over the life of a school child, s/he is not making some kind of moral pronouncement about the relative value of those two lives. The vast majority of abortion cases don't even pit the life of the mother against the life of the child, and even in that overused scenario it's logically fallacious to argue from an extremely exceptional (or in most cases contrived and hypothetical) case to the general question of abortion.
Rick Casey 7 years ago
if a child is crying for help in a burning building and there's no one to hear it, is it still alive?
Albert Pablico 7 years ago
People who thinks that sex outside of marriage is normal and for fun, will also think that a fetus is just a mistake that prevents them from having more fun.
Roderick Brentnall 7 years ago
Against abortions but elects Trump. Must be a Murican thing. abortion2-...c609c1.jpg 
Wale Ogunrinola 7 years ago
Assuming there is a ten year old beautiful girl sleeping in one corner as option C, the dynamics of choice is complicated.
Peter Heckert 7 years ago
Reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, ad hominem. You want an honest answer? Ask an honest question. If this is your “Gotcha!” argument, you’re grasping at straws, and demonstrating the pro-death’s own death throes.
Janice Repass 7 years ago
To your point, I would, of course, grab the child. But, those embryos are as yet unable to cry for help. Doesn't mean they are not yet people. And, what about the couples counting on those embryos, already thinking of them as their children? Which would they choose? It's a conundrum, not as easily solved as anyone would hope. Nothing grows unless it is alive, and the fetus grows from the moment of conception, right? Doesn't that indicate life then?
Randy Salazar 7 years ago
embryos are life, the reason it is difficult to rationalize the more obvious choice of choosing the child is that we are a feeling creature. a crying child affects our feeling more than a thousand silent embryos. our feeling and affection often prevails over our logic. you talk about someone using emotional response as a way to evoke a false equivalency. weeeeh, how about you, were you not using the same method in your question. if i follow your logic then you practically cheated the people who listen to your question... evoking a response that most people cannot deny and force them think that embryos are not life... i have a question and think about it: would you be happier and grateful to your mother if she aborted you then? would you then say it is ok i am not alive anyway...or would you go to your mother now and say thank you very much for keeping me alive....
Tammy Hubatsek 7 years ago
Wow Mr Tomlinson!!! Are you that stupid on purpose? Put your kids in two corners. One of them has two broken legs and can't walk, the other is an equally helpless infant...choose.
Nick Huff 7 years ago
God Bless You Patrick@stealthygeek. The answer would be A because the embryos should be INSIDE their mothers. God did not intend them to be frozen and OUTSIDE their mothers. We as a society (mothers and fathers) are responsible for our embryos. We are all saved in a fire because of Christ.
Christopher Cherrone 7 years ago
Stupid argument. If you cant see that you must be pro-abortion. It makes no sense to even discuss this. Its invalid.
Julia Mitchell 7 years ago
That's like asking me if both of my own children were burning in a fire and I could only save one, which would I choose... Not a fair question.
Nick Huff 7 years ago
God Bless You Patrick @ stealthygeek. Since the embryos should be in the mother the only choice would be A because the frozen embryos are not in the mother. Embryos should only be inside their mothers. Our society (mothers and fathers) are responsible for allowing these embryos to be where God did not intend them to be.
Rob Watson 7 years ago
your cherry picked scenario is utter c**p. If your house was on fire and you could only save one of your five children, does that mean the four dead children had less value? NO. It ONLY MEANS YOU WERE FORCED TO MAKE A S****Y CHOICE. The woman's body is not on fire and she does not have to chose which children to save. Abortion is throwing those children from safety into the fire. It is NOT the same as choosing which ones to save and your argument is completely invalid. No reasonable person would choose to save embryos at the cost of killing a living child but that does not make your argument valid. Proving that a living child is more valuable than an embryo does not support any pro abortion argument. Speaking of responsibility, how about the responsibility to NOT create life if you are not ready to support it yourself. No laws needed, just humanity caring for its offspring that it created instead of throwing it in a dumpster.
Markovac Nadia 7 years ago
....."but,the bigger control is with embryos!" ,said one of the controller.
Miguel Angel 7 years ago
The right answer: YOU SAVE THE ALREADY BORN BABY, BECAUSE YOU EAR HIM CRY. Your instinct is activated and you do not even think about it. Not even thinking, because the embryos are not suffering the situation. This is why women who are going to have an abortion do not show them images or videos of abortions. A woman instinctively will always tend to save a child, even if he is not her child. If women who want to abort watch how an unborn baby flees the surgeon's weapon to end his life, and how it is broken up into pieces to be absorbed by a vacuum cleaner that are then sold to a company, in that case , women would not abort by instinct, just as she would save the crying child in the room
Christin Richard 7 years ago
This is an argument that will never end,because ,no one will ever change their mind, pro life will always stay prolife, and abortionists will stay abortionists.
Lorrie Hersey 7 years ago
The scenario is erroneous. The child is able to be saved. The embryos would not be recognized by the average person and is in an unnatural setting, being in a laboratory storage vault. The normal embryo is in a mother's womb, protected by the mother. You just can't justify murder just because some children aren't well cared for.
Anthony J Williams 7 years ago
funny scenario would never happen, maybe that's why you can't get a true answer...
Bill Cowell 7 years ago
There is always a "C." Liberal's are just too lazy or self-important to see it. Also, choosing "A" is the logical and correct choice, but that doesn't diminish the value of the embryo's, it is simply a practical choice. The chance of rescuing the five year old is much higher than trying to rescue the embryo's. Who's to say you can't do both? Life is not black and white, but life is. Life, in all its forms is precious, and making choices is what life is all about.
A.O 7 years ago
He has a point, but if you compare this fire to an abortion, a fire is completely out of ones own hands and unfortunately abortion is. The embryos and the child are all lives but its obvious I would save the child, however on my conscience I would know at the end of the day i did what i could to save a life from the unexpected tragedy I had no responsibility for, not end one.
Renee Curro 7 years ago
A human is viable when there is brain activity and considered non-viable when brain activity ceases. With this truth, approximately 6 weeks would be the cutoff for an abortion and death of anything further than 6 weeks. That would be in keeping with the standard for an already born individual and determining end of life decisions.
Linda Gonzalez 7 years ago
The question is based on a sophism! You can't say a borned child is an embrio or an embrio is not a child. Is like trying to rescue two or three children. Everyone would try to rescue the most, but if you can do it one at a time. You will start with the one that needs you the most!
Olivier Lambert 7 years ago
choices depend philosophy, others could answer they choice, the both of them.. there is no choice in the statement, if the single answer already exists? exemple : we release the child who will help us carry the rest.
Alex Devanny 7 years ago
I am personally against abortion ; that being said , you grab the child and run to the closest exit ! now lets go a wee bit deeper into this abortion question ; The truth is hard for most but is quite simple , as a man , its not my business ! Yes there are some men out there that will argue , what about my rights as a potential Father ? Answer ; if you are so far apart on this What are you together in the first place for ? MOVE ON ! find someone that shares your deep desire for children !
John Stevens 7 years ago
Tomlinson needs to do his due diligence. Or, he could just ask some wise people: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/
Dorothy Blair 7 years ago
A. 5 yr old child is alive but the embryos might be more in number but they have no heartbeat. My doctor never heard any heartbeat with any of my children til I was 3 months along.
Les Neilson 7 years ago
the moral decision to save a life, is so different from the decision to end a life, you gave me but a moment to make a decision and I did and I wanted to save them all, but those who chose to end a life have the ability to take a lot more time to make their decision. All those embyos were there to give life not take it
Matt Tucker 7 years ago
Choosing who to save between two isn’t the same as choosing to deliberately kill one. This argument to me doesn’t apply to the situation of abortion. If you had to choose between saving a 4 year old and a 90 year old man, who would you save. Almost everyone would still say save the kid, including probably the old man. Does that mean it’s ok to go murder old people?
James Stenger 7 years ago
Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was. Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3) This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins.
James Stenger 7 years ago
If you want an honest answer, then why not go to the one who created life. All of these comments; none of them mention the Bible. Since Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones going door to door trying to convince people that that the Bible is God's Word, here is an excerpt from one of the 2009 Awake magazine on this subject. This isn't what Jehovah's Witnesses say; this is what Jesus own father, Jehovah says. Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was.
Tonja Mason 7 years ago
I have asked a similar question myself. If you are a true Christian then somehow someway we are all related. God only created Adam and Eve from which we had to of somewhere down the kine come from. Or: if it is Science you believe in we all came from Apes. Your choice, Had you rather be related to everyone somehow or know you evolved from an Ape?
Denise Brumm 7 years ago
If you use the same scenario in a fire and there was theroetically one person awake, alert in the fire you could save or 12 unconscious comatose people you could save, who would you save. I would save the person who was awake because I could not stand to see them suffer. You are going to have to make a decision, right or wrong. By not saving the embryos from a fire you are not actively killing them like you would be in an abortion. This guy is just not as clever as he thinks he is. Just another excuse to kill an inconvenient child. Women's health? The woman whose health is in question was given a chance at life and was not aborted by her mother so she has a chance for perfect health and no one is trying to control her. She has perfect control over herself.
Deb Burton 7 years ago
Embryos are in the woman, they are not the woman. Fact... You sure are setting up a specific answer - those embryos are not in a place to grow, thay are not going to be all viable... Let's say they are and I know this, and I know there are all those women and men who want them - who am I going to cause more grief to? The five year old's folks - because that child is a known person. Therefore save the five year old - her btw will otherwise die a horrible, painful death. Embryos won't know. You just aren't adding enough heart into your scenario. 1 in 8 couples fail to concieve a child... I in 5 babies are aborted. Do the math... It is time to stop unprotected sex - for whatever reason it happens... For those that fail, carry the baby to term and have an open adoption set up. Take responsibility for your actions and don't murder an innocent teeny tiny baby... Please! ❤
Cat Anya 7 years ago
If this scenario was in any way shape or form close to the scenario facing a women with an unwanted pregnancy, I'd say it is a valid argument. It is not. Yes. Now if the scenario was you are allowed to save an embryo but you have to raise the child while having a lower quality of life for you and the child OR leave the embryo and ensure a better life for yourself-that's closer to reality. free birth control for all people.
Pedro 7 years ago
Well, this question sets in an almost impossible scenario. If an hospital is on fire, who would you save, a five year old girl with a broken leg or a 91 old man who is been 5 years in a coma with little chances of recovering? That doesn't mean the old man is not a human being. The real question is: if you are outside the clinic and firefighters had managed to put outside both the kid and the box of embrios. Would you throw the embrios back to the fire?
Mikleo 7 years ago
Using birth control to prevent pregnancies in the first place, is better than abortions. It's cheaper, safer, and no one calls using a condom murder. If she somehow still got pregnant, an abortion is still better than a child dying, because its mother is not willing or not able to care for it.
anarkzie 7 years ago
That's true in the same way that not smoking that cigarette that accidentally burns your house down is better than calling the fire brigade to put out your burning house. No one uses abortions as a casual form of birth control, I think in hindsight everyone who has had to have an abortion would have used protection or not messed up in the using of said protection.
Load More Replies... MagicalUnicorn 7 years ago
the woman who said she wouldn't even notice embryos makes most sense, i would grab kid without thinking about my views as well
Deborah Denley 7 years ago
She was correct in that a petridish full of embryos are not viable unless implanted in a uterus. This is also a naturally occurrence when trying to conceive the embryo fails to implant and the woman never knew she was almost pregnant to begin with. You save the living child. Neurological developments begin at 7 weeks gestation. Technically theses embryos are potential human life. No different than donor sperm or donor eggs.
Load More Replies... Anna Mcaffee 7 years ago
I'm again abortion, but I also think that everyone should have a choice of what they want to do, we are all different, nobody should force they're beliefs on others, they should live they're own life and not somebody's else.
Mark Frazer 7 years ago
we write laws all the time preventing one from infringing upon the right of others. we just have a problem determining to what extent an "other" deserves rights. you argument completely ignores the debate of, in this case, "how do we define the unborn. is it an other or something pre other. if its a human it has rights. if its just a mass of cells it doesnt.
Load More Replies... Hayley Lightcap 7 years ago
I'm pro abortion because it really doesn't matter if it illegal. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby they will usually go to great lengths to see that they don't. So might as well give them a safe secure environment to do it rather than kill 2 people.
Laurie D. 7 years ago
I understand pro choice. I don't understand pro abortion.
Load More Replies... Paul Schuh 7 years ago
Like many of the headlines here, this one is nonsense. He hasn't "shut down" anything. He's just wasted your time with a false dilemma fallacy.
Laurie D. 7 years ago
I totally agree. He didn't shut down anything and the whole scenario is stupid.
Load More Replies... Shannon McLane 7 years ago
First of all, the claim that Pro-Lifers only care about pro-child birth and pro-dominance over female bodies is not only insulting but devastatingly uninformed. I am insanely for the life of an unborn child being protected while at the same time implanting policies and procedures for medical care, education assistance, housing and food allowances for those who qualify. I believe very strongly that abortion is wrong but I'm smart enough to do the research and see why it was made legal in the first place. Single mothers need protection and if the $500 million dollars that PP was given every year was put into a program that actually helped their whole beings, through the most difficult time in their lives, and their children, that would be something I could champion. Also, I am leading an organization in my town that mentors teen parents. So please don't think that all pro-lifers are heartless. That is a blatant lie. I care deeply about the mom, the dad & the child.
Jen Nichol 7 years ago
How many unwanted children have you adopted? I believe all forced births should have to be raised by people that voted prolife.
Load More Replies... TeddyTheHuman 7 years ago
My policy on any ethical subject has always been if it doesn't affect me in any way, shape, or form i have no right to judge. Everyone is quick to support pro-life, but I rarely see any of them saying pro-government aid to hell those children and their parents. In my opinion, and i know this may get a bit of backlash, but abortion (during first few weeks) and condoms are the same thing. They are both potential energy. In both scenarios potential energy is prevented from becoming kinetic energy. The only difference between the two is the way certain people in society have manipulated their agenda to reflect their insane ideology.
Nia Loves Art 7 years ago
Abortion should be safe and legal until viability. It is, however inaccurate and disingenuous to claim that it is no different morally than condom use. Abortion is sometimes justified, but it is a difficult thing. In a perfect world no woman would need an abortion.
Load More Replies... CelSlade 7 years ago
All these arguments against abortion - never really think to ask the unwanted children what they would have preferred. The assumption is that they would be grateful for any life they got. That, once the mother ignores all her very valid reasons and goes ahead with the pregnancy, everything will turn out alright. This at best naive, at worse disingenuous. My mother had 3 children under 6, an alcoholic husband and cervical cancer when she accidentally fell pregnant with me. The doctors strongly advised an abortion. She refused and carried me to term - she gave birth to me in the intensive care ward as she was terminal by the time I was born. Before you get a tear in your eye at the Lifetime Movie strength-of-a-mother's-love sweetness of it, you might want to hear what happened next. She didn't die. But she never let me forget that I nearly 'killed her', or how much more difficult I made their lives. She should have aborted me as a childhood of abuse and neglect wasn't an improvement.
Barbara Whitfield 7 years ago
I definitely would grab the 5 year old child for one reason only....... He / she is the one I hear crying out to me to be saved.
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
Exactly. This proves that you are human and compassionate. Nothing else.
Load More Replies... FABULOUS1 7 years ago
I have never had an abortion and I dont believe I ever would even if I could still have children. But at the same time it is really none of my business what other women decide to do with their bodies. So many people take in orphaned children just to get an additional income and that child is sometimes left without the love and care they deserve, as soon as they turn 18 they are thrown out to deal with the world on their own and no family to turn to. Then you have women who use it as a form of birth control thinking it is easier to abort the unwanted pregnancy instead of taking preventative measures to get pregnant. But at the end of the day it is still none of my damn business what some one else does with their body.
Mar Ad 7 years ago
I think most people would choose the child. Selecting the embryos to save 1000 vs 1 lives is the greater good if you are a person who equates an embryo to a developed child's life. The sad thing is this is a weak argument because we see this sort of behavior in the world all the time. Starving children in the millions but we choose to stabilize a region first for the sake of a greater good. Don't call people amoral for choosing their answer whether you think it's honest or not is irrelevant in this case. As a modal fallacy, that's an almost impossible question to answer in an improbable situation. What's worse, we see this exact thing play out in everyday life all the time.
Jen Nichol 7 years ago
I would choose the kid and kick the embryos into the fire on the way out. The world doesn't need another thousand people.
Load More Replies... Angela Hunter 7 years ago
I don't think I could ever personally choose to have an abortion, but BY GOD don't tell me it's not my choice to make! Anyone who goes through the difficulty of that decision has to live with it and I doubt it's a decision that comes without thought or consideration. If so, they probably wouldn't have been great parent material. Mr. Tomlinson's question hits the nail right on the head and I WILL use it the next time a pro-birther tries to argue that "it's a child, not a choice". We all have choices to make in our lives and we make them and then live with the outcome. It's our life.
Judy Hogan 7 years ago
I was given the option to abort my first child in 1976. I did not choose abortion. I am very against abortion, but I am not on the judgment committee. What someone choose’s to do is their business and if there are consequences of that action then they must deal with them. Not me. We all need to understand that everyone’s business is not our own. If there is judgment to be reckoned with that person will have to deal with it. In the meantime I will pay attention to my own business and keep my nose out of others
Glenn Swinkels 7 years ago
Guy seems to just block people that don't agree with him. Seems like an a*****e. "Answer the question or shut the f**k up". Really? That's how you debate? So when someone does answer a or b you shame them for answering b. Block them and keep on ranting. And then you assert no one has ever answered the question. Like a scientist doing an experiment that deletes evidence contrary to his opinion. Well sir.
Hugo Raible 7 years ago
This man also keeps on insulting and blocking all people who point out his stupid logical fallacies.
Gordon Martin 7 years ago
Personally I find it offensive that people think it is OK to spend my money to take care of someone for 20 years instead of allowing the mother to have the abortion she wanted. I would prefer, just from an economic standpoint, my tax dollars go to a one time payment for the abortion than a series of lifetime payment in the from of welfare. Just because I claim to be "Pro-Choice" does not mean I am "Pro-Abortion", Everyone on either side of this argument is Pro-Choice, just the so called Pro-Life people want to force their choice on everyone else.
Mike Clark 7 years ago
Your position looks very similar to this one: https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/poster-neues-volk/
Load More Replies... Maria Tag 7 years ago
This is one of the WORST pro-abrotion speeches/posts I have ever seen. Shame on you.
Denise Geddes-mcclure 7 years ago
Maria Tag. Why do you say that? Because it doesn’t support your personal stance on the issue, or because you can’t answer the question without compromising your personal stance?
Load More Replies... Tyler Duffy 7 years ago
No he doesn't, this comes from the old Trolley Car question. If a Trolley car is going down the tracks comes to a fork and on one side is a single person and the other fork five people, you only have time to turn the lever to send the car down the track with the one person. What do you do? Most people would save the 5 and kill the one. The question goes on, you're on a bridge, tracks below. Their are 5 people tied to the track, car is coming. Their is a fat guy with a briefcase on the bridge with you , if you push him off his weight and the briefcases combined will stop the trolley, what do you do? Most people wouldn't murder the man. This is a b******t hypothetical question and if a you had to pick between saving a few kids or you're own embryos I would save my own embryos. This is a stupid f*****g question.
Stille20 7 years ago
Thank you! The question is about the person's gut reactions, not what is morally correct. Regardless of your views this does not support pro choice.
Load More Replies... Ehsan Es 7 years ago
Who the f**k is this guy? And what the f**k is he talking about? Such a dumb disillusioned self entitled f**k. I want my time back and an apoligy from boredpanda cheering on such a dumb idiot. The replies says it all. Omg, and this person was wondering around with this dumb question for 10 YEARS? And somebody even answering the question is stupid af. It's that childish frat boy one or the other question like "would you f**k a halfrobot chick or a hot chick with down syndrome? And you have to choose a or b and no c pls". From his fame by writing a book (apparently??) he could've used it better and promoted an alternative making everyone happy or should've just shut the f**k up. And big fail from this guy and boredpanda altogether.
Justin Dodson 7 years ago
Gawd thank you! This put me over the Bored Panda love affair I used to have. This is garbage. This tool bag is even more so
Load More Replies... Paul Nordberg 7 years ago
The 2 real take aways here are: 1) if you give him an answer he dislikes or disagrees with he resorts to name calling and insults. He doesn't want honest answers he wants either an echoing of his views or capitulation that his views are correct. 2) Anyone can build an untenable position, the classic 'inescapable box' as it were. As soon as you start limiting answers or building a scenario that can only go to A or B you've not only admitted that your point won't stand up to free discussion you've moved from adult discussion in to writing a teenage 'choose your adventure' story.
Just saying 7 years ago
This just highlights that human judgement in panic situations is subjective and unscientific. Some alternative scenarios: 1) You're in a fire. In a room are a child and a tramp. You can only save one. You save the child, because tramps are worth nothing in our society. In reality both are human, have value and dignity as individuals, but you choose depending on your biased estimation of their worth. 2) Same q with a child and her gran. You save the child because the child has more potential of life - tho you wouldn't save the embryos in the first question although they have more life potential. 3) In the room are your two children. The decision is agonising but due to the ridiculous parameters of the hypothetical situation you have to make that decision. You save the nearest,but your decision doesn't mean you thought any less of the one further away who you couldn't reach. Your heart breaks. Until Patrick can answer me these, I will not consider the anti-abortion argument blown away.
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
You and the tramp could team up and save the child. Help is always useful.
Load More Replies... Xelloss Nakama 7 years ago
Although I am pro abort, this argument is falasic. Now imagine THIS, the same situation, BUT the boy is your son and the container with all the embryos is instead the only cure for a terminal disease 1000 children have. Now, what would you do? Lie all you want, you would save your son, and that doesn't make the other children lives less important... That you have a more powerful empathic connection with one being, doesn't talk about the value of the others...
Jörg Zingler 7 years ago
Oh shut up. Thats an ancient greek philosophy technique. And I would save the 5 year old.
Carol Johnson 7 years ago
Totally agree with you Patrick. The argument is all about controlling women's bodies because that is how women can be kept in poverty, as a general rule.
Michael O'Connor 7 years ago
Sometimes, also, there are decisions that are not clean or clear cut, but they have to be made, yet they involve both virtuous (or at least permissible) and immoral outcomes. For G*d’s sake, let’s take a thorough look at the Second World War, and the secondary killing of millions of civilians. Even the Mahatma had a troubled heart in parsing “just war theory” on that unparalleled tragedy. We need to have a lengthy and well-formed soul search, not a clever paradox about abortion.
Load More Replies... Dani Goldenthal 7 years ago
I believe that if we 'call time of death' when a heart stops beating, then we should consider life to have started when a heart starts beating. Frozen embryos do not have beating hearts. Though they are the potential for life, they are not yet life, therefore the logical choice is to save the small child.
Nandita Iyengar 7 years ago
Hii.... I want to ask him, if he could save only one... Then he would... A. Pregnant Lady B. A normal woman... If it's A then you must understand that, there is something more to the lady that is not exactly a life but a developing one and so even destroying it is not very great.... I want to know his answer.... Because surely a life that is developing can never be greater than the one already developed, rest remaining constant... But the developing life is not to be taken for granted... This is what I feel..
Stijn V. 7 years ago
If i would run out and save only myself because of survival instinct and fear kicing in. Would that mean i am pro murder?
anarkzie 7 years ago
Unless you started the fire with the intention of killing the baby then it would not be murder just a selfish act.
Load More Replies... Ashley Smith 7 years ago
No one has answered honestly? Or he does not like the answer? The question is an impossible situation. The longest an "embryo" can survive in a petri dish is 13 days. So, a container of thousands of embryo's in the same building, much less the same room as a 5 year old is about as probable as winning the same lottery 3 times in a row. The fallacy is not with the answer it is with the question. Its not a viable situation, its not a viable question. It reality it is simply impossible.
Fran Warner 7 years ago
Also, I looked up how many embryos could actually fit in a real-life freezer container. The most-portable one I found was 12 lbs and held 100 straws. Would it be actually possible for me to pick up 120 pounds, and if the units are like the ones I saw, 12 handles at once? If the freezer or freezers is more stationary or heavier ... even worse! Even if I wanted to, could I move it? The child, providing the youngster is not kicking, screaming and flailing and is willing to come with me, would be physically easier for me to save. Furthermore, the average 5 -year-old is around 40 pounds ... far lighter than 120! What could I PHYSICALLY handle, given my strength, height and weight? This is one example of how this situation could not even exist as he posed it.
Load More Replies... Troy Curtis 7 years ago
First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality. To suggest you can either do "A" or "B" but not make a better choice "C" is setting the parameters so the person has to make a choice that they will regret. In life we would go for the life of the older child over those embryo's. That does not mean we do not value the life of the unborn child. It means we see a more apparent life in the crying child. But I could shut the man up by asking him the same question in another way. If his 4 year old daughter is in danger of dying in one room and in another room there are 20 other children also in danger of dying and he has to pick saving his daughter, whom he loves and knows or 20 children he has never met before...which choice does he make? See, if he picks his daughter he devalues those other lives. But if he picks them, then he has stated he does not love or recognize his own daughter as a valuable life. Either way, he is a horrible man.
The Paul 7 years ago
"First of all, it is poor philosophy to try and force an either or situation on a person's morality." Says who?
Load More Replies... Cassandra Bourke 7 years ago
His question is a false dichotomy and an example of leading the witness; it doesn't destroy the pro-life stance that life begins at conception, or rather that human life has value from conception. This question deals with psychology, with the number of connections that a living thing has to our to stir our instinctual response. Of course most (hopefully all) of us would save the 5 year old child, it does not however mean that the embryos do not have value as human life.
J-Yo 7 years ago
You could look at his question like this: The embryos could very well be replaced by a person in a coma. Although it would be horrific to leave the person in the coma to die, I would bet that most people would choose the child who is standing there staring at you. If those are your ONLY choices, instinctively you would choose the one who is consciously aware of what's about to happen to him. That doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other. It's just an awful predicament. Another thought about when life begins: If I drink and drive and hit a pregnant woman with my car and it results in the loss of her unborn baby, I could get vehicular homicide. The reason for the homicide charge is because the fetus is considered a life taken, not because it took away the woman's right to have the baby. If the argument is that it's not a life until birth, then that sentencing wouldn't be valid either.
Lisa Long 7 years ago
You are So pathetic you have to make up weird "never will happen' scenarios to attempt to de value human life. Your Question is as immoral as you are. Life begins at Conception is a HUMANISTIC Theory. HE (G-D) You know...the Guy you dont believe in...."KNEW US BEFORE WE WERE FORMED IN OUR MOTHERS WOMBS" HE has a Plan and a Purpose for Each Individual Life..even Yours. I Hope Someday you find out What HE had planned for you...and it was definitely not to be promoting the selfish annihilation of future generations.
Richard Meyers 7 years ago
I think that Mr. Tomlinson is wrong. His hypothetical question proves nothing and neither does my answer. First, an individual's life does begin at conception. I believe that as a fundamental fact of biology, a scientific conclusion borne of objective science and substantial research. Second, I do not believe that anyone is entitled to judge someone as more or less than anyone else. Yes, we do have comparable qualities, things like height, weight, IQ, speed at running 100 meters, but those are not measures of our value, just our capabilities. In the hypothetical situation above, there is no right answer. There is only doing the best you can with a very difficult situation. You could grab the child, the embryos, or both (one with each hand and drag them both. If you can't save both, you make your choice and live with it. The fact that one person chooses the save the child does not mean that the embryos are not human beings. It just means that sometimes you can't save everyone.
Anne Ford 7 years ago
He presents nothing more than a straw man argument, meant to evince emotion and nothing else. Much like the popular "who gets thrown overboard in a sinking life raft" Lord of the Flies game from the 1980's. The more poignant question to ask is, "upon what do we determine the end of life?" Whatever you define as the medical end of life will determine the beginning of life. Whether its a beating heart or brain function, or some other harbinger. Obviously, the argument ends when the opposite of the end of life defines the beginning of life.
Maria Fierro Meiners 7 years ago
This question is totally ridiculous and beside the point. You are talking about a life or death situation, ie a fire. Even firefighters have to choose between multiple people sometimes, making a judgement of who to save first. Sometimes the one(s) left behind don't make it. Abortion is completely different however because it is rarely a life or death decision and it is rarely about embryo's. So find a better question. This one doesn't cut it.
GlassOfWater 7 years ago
From studying human biology, I cannot help but think of the amazing potential of the embryo/zygote. The human body is amazing. I feel like destroying an embryo would be a waste. BUT I also know that I have never pregnant. Therefore I know that I can never truly understand or judge a person for choosing to abort a pregnancy. I'm not in their situation. I don't know what they are experiencing. I have no right to judge them. I may feel sad if they choose to abort BUT the only right thing to do I suppose would be to support them in every way I can. They would be in a stressful situation. Judging them would not help them. Aborting your pregnancy doesn't make you a bad person (sorry for any typos).
Lora Vandemark 7 years ago
I think Tomlinson is an arrogant intolerant a*****e. If he doesn't like your message he blows up. That gives him no credibility even if I agreed with him. Don't waste your time on this character.
ForThe<3ofFloof 7 years ago
There will always be pro-lifers and pro-abortioners. We may as well accept that fact and move on. I, for one, would be happy just being able to conceive...it's been a struggle.
I. Dondley 7 years ago
We are all pro-life. Some of us believe having an abortion is a woman's choice, other people don't.
Load More Replies... Lesly Clarke 7 years ago
I've asked it too and they never answer it, they try to deflect and change the subject. The bottom line, whether you are anti-choice or not is that abortions have been happening since the dawn of time, the only question is do we want women/girls dying getting illegal ones? Do we value them at least as much as an embryo or not?
Ikram Ma 7 years ago
thank you we all know that the percentage of abortion in countries where abortion is illegal is quiet the same in countries where abortion is legal so laws don't change much what changes is the risks for women having the abortion we need to think of them first what matters more a humain being or an embryo? for me the answer is simple the women are more valuable
Load More Replies... Dusten Carlson 7 years ago
If you actually read the thread, most people calling him out for this fallacious argument are themselves pro-choice. It's a terrible argument.
Olli Jokinen 7 years ago
Even though you would consider the embryos as life, one would automatically save the child. The embryos are potential lives, but only that. It does make them less worth due to the risk, that they might fail to survive a pregnancy. So as a "pro-lifer" (I myself am pro choice!), it would be easy to choose the child which has already prooven itself as a successful result of conception. The question is not that difficult to answer.
Kristi Zoebelein 7 years ago
Exactly. A pro-lifer would not hesitate to save the child and would still be pro-life after the incident. You could literally substitute all kinds of people in this scenario, a child and an elderly person, an infant and an older/heavier child, and on and on. Just because you make an instinctive gut decision on who to save does not mean that you do not see value in the other choice. If someone chooses to save an infant over an older child it does not mean that they find the older child worthless. I'm pro-choice and this post annoys me.
Load More Replies... K Blank 7 years ago
The reason people would not go for the embryos is the same exact reason which lets people fall asleep at night knowing there are genocides going on in other countries, or starvation in one's own city. Compartmentalizing. What doesn't impact people right in their face can go ignored because they have the privilege to do that. You can lay your head down at night feeling like embryos aren't worth saving, just as well as you can lay your head down at night while doing nothing about the starving or abused child 3 houses down, sex traffic victims in your own city, or genocide across the ocean. It is also the same capability in humans which lets them feel it's ok to act however they want behind the safety of their screens, in their nice warm room, sitting in a comfortable chair and ultimately do nothing, but yet feel like an accomplished social justice warrior... a champion of his/her cause. It's because you don't look these children in the face. If you could look them in the face...
Scott Ogden 7 years ago
No, if you choose the child its because you made a value decision. Its not heat of the moment, every good person would pick the child every single time. Thus value(child) >> value(embryo)
Load More Replies... Phyllis Titus McDermott 7 years ago
hell, GRAB THE KID!!!!! If you don't you are condemning an aware being to a horrible slow painful death, whereas the fetuses won't know that they're dying and won't feel anything.
Julian Lean 7 years ago
I think a woman should have 100% choice over whether to carry the fetus to term. I also think that men should be 100% free of any responsibility if the woman decides to have the child. If she has full control over her body and her life, then the man should too. She shouldn't be able to commit another person to fatherhood unilaterally (in the same way she should be committed to motherhood unilaterally).
Ann Benson 7 years ago
I would grab the child because I know that even though the child and th embryos are human life, I would have no choice but to grab the child, because it would be murder if I grabbed the embryos as they can not live outside their artificial environment.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
actually frozen embryos have survived for 20+ years
Load More Replies... Derrick Bayard 7 years ago
I am pro-choice and I believe that life begins at conception. Once an entity has 46 chromosomes, with human characteristics, it is human. As all humans, the fetus has the human instinct for survival. In order for it to survive, it must attach to a willing host; placing the host in a state of pregnancy. Since all pregnancies carry the risk of death, the relevant question becomes – should the government be able to force one person to risk his/her life to save the life of another.
Unlike his argument, which could easily be disputed by making a choice – between the five-year-old and the 1000 embryos, this argument returns the conversation to the right of a one to maintain autonomous control of one's being. The host should make the choice of whether or not to risk host life. the-true-a...a80859.jpg
almonious Or 7 years ago
The trick here is acting as if it is an either-or. Wither an embryo is a full human, or it is a collection of cells, which become a human , magically, after birth. The way to evicirate Patrick's argument is this: same scenario, a piece of juicy steak in one corner, that container of 1000 embryos, what do you save? A steak has more than 1000 cells, surely you'll save the steak? no. no one would. See?
Gregory Szpaichler 7 years ago
This is such b******t. A child and a bucket of slime. The slime will never be born, grow or survive to become a person because there is no womb. In order for those fertilized eggs to become anything, they would need a host. That's like saying you should not masturbate because you are killing babies. And medically speaking you would never have frozen embryos. Frozen eggs and sperm but fertilizing the egg takes place within minutes of the transplant. The correct way to present the problem would be to say, one child and 1000 pregnant women. Then you would have a real VALID test. So go find something else to do and stop pretending you are the master of the human race. In my opinion, you are nothing but a hack. Anyone can rig a question.
Cory Gross 7 years ago
It's really not that challenging of a question. This is one of those disingenuous sort of no-win scenarios designed to prove whatever the person in question wants it to prove, masquerading as a utilitarian ethical dilemma. Let's change it up a bit: the five year old is a white boy. The 1000 viable embryos are black girls. You save the white boy, therefore you are a misogynist white supremacist. Checkmate. I just proved that pro-choicers are misogynist white supremacists. Oh wait, it's probably more complicated than just A or B, which is exactly the point. What he considers an evasive refusal to answer the question is, more likely than not, pro-lifers simply not agreeing to the terms of his false dilemma, just as one might not agree to the terms of my "are you a misogynist white supremacists or not?" false dilemma. Any time someone wants to control the terms of the debate in such a way, you know they are merely trying to score rhetorical points for themselves.
The Paul 7 years ago
Oh, look, an elaborate excuse for not answering the question. Quelle surprise.
Load More Replies... Gerry Higgins 7 years ago
Any question that takes that long to ask is stupid. Children are children and we should not kill them. If you think I am wrong and killing children is a good thing, please explain it to me.
tara skogly 7 years ago
Agree with you that people should be allowed to do waht-ever with their OWN bodies. Thhis discussion, however, is about another body. Got it?
Load More Replies... Debbie Norris 7 years ago
I'd like to ask the Troy Borst fella...."if that 5 year old was you son or daughter...would you still go for the 1000 (no brainer) embryos??"
Marci Jones 7 years ago
Being pro choice is not equal to being anti abortion. That is the crux of the conservatives arguments. Life is not black and white. Some claim to be anti abortion but have no problem murdering the doctor that performs an abortion. Many times, these procedures are not for the wilful elimination of a fetus. It could be a D & C for an incomplete or missed abortion. AKA a miscarriage. The average person cannot make the distinction and needs to butt out of a woman's choice to do whatever she and her medical professional deem necessary.
Kevin Aye 7 years ago
NO ONE should be made to do or kept from doing things to their own body. From a simple earring to tattoos to amputation to abortion to assisted suicide. You do what you want with yours, I'll do the same with mine. And for $%^^&* sake, even if you're against abortion wouldn't you rather people who choose to have one are in a safe environment like a clinic or hospital when they do? Seems these people care more about the lives of the unborn than the lives that are ruined because of their interference.
John W. Eighner 7 years ago
The answer is simple: You save the one who isn't Frozen. First: Because they are frozen the embryos are nether alive nor dead. but are suspended in between. Since they are not actively alive, you therefore save the non frozen active child. Second: No matter how the Container is labeled, the embryos are not truly "Viable," until they are actually implanted, and the implant takes, in a mother's womb. Therefore you save the clearly "Viable," living 5 year old child. Third: Frozen Embryos are kept in highly insulated steel reinforced containers. Those containers in turn are kept in concrete and steel reinforced rooms, with very sophisticated fire suspension systems. In fact if it wasn't for the risk of smoke inhalation, and lack of oxygen(something that Frozen embryos don't have to worry about) that room would be the safest place in a fire. As such it is highly likely that the container, and the frozen embryos in it, will survive the fire, if left there; Whereas the 5 year old child wou
Beth August 7 years ago
This scenario can't be answered. It's just like the question of two of your own children are in the same situation each behind their own door. Who would you save? I would not be able to choose between the two and would try to save both. I also think that it is human nature to try to save the screaming child. Not because they have more value than the embryos, but because we can't deal with hearing the screams.
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
Sure it can. I would save the living, breathing, terrified child. Easy choice for those of us who can empathize and clearly picture that child in need of saving. You people are just horrifying...
Load More Replies... Caroline Moir 7 years ago
Birth control is the gold standard here. It frees women to have lives without having to worry about pregnancy. And the morning after pill is a godsend (yes GODSEND). It is not a mini abortion. Women do not conceive immediately after sex. It can take days for the this to happen. The morning after pill just helps it not to.
Hj Roberts 7 years ago
An embryo inside a woman is exactly that. It isn't about any other scenario. It isn't your business. Grow up. Shut up.
Vlatko Šagud 7 years ago
I don't have an opinion on the pro or against abortion, because I don't find myself to be competent or knowledgeable on the topic enough to judge it, or have sufficient experience on the matter. But what I can say is that the question proposed is an over-simplification of an issue which just cannot be answered in a yes-or-no fashion. Moreover, the guy who proposed the question shows contempt towards people of a differing opinion: He insults and belittles people who answered in a way he didn't like while lashing out with hatred. I understand that this is a very emotional topic for a lot of people. However, if you really want people to listen to your argument, you need to listen back and not insult them in the process. Pointing fingers and calling them names will not strengthen your argument, but will only make you appear as authoritarian with coercive methods of persuasion. But, this is my opinion. It is not a universal fact.
Victoria Normann 7 years ago
In my country (South Africa) our reproductive rights are protected by our Bill of Rights which states: In South Africa, any woman of any age can get an abortion by simply requesting with no reasons given if she is less than 13 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects. My personal belief is that life begins when the fetus is viable, so from about 22 weeks gestational age. I believe every person has the right to their opinion, as long as it does not infringe other's right
Audrey Gauci 7 years ago
Abortion should be allowed if there is a REASON. if the mother just simply thinks that’s the baby is an inconvenience or a waste of time and space then maybe she should think twice before she has sex.
Brianna Bastian 7 years ago
just to add onto this that a woman can't get pregnant without a man, so maybe men should stop having sex too
Load More Replies... Éirinn Colleen 7 years ago
What nonsense. This is nothing but a variation of the classic trolley car question, and most people can't answer that moral dilemma with a simple A or B either.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
The trolley bit is a false comparison, as it injects other completely different concepts into the question. Like involving the intentional killing of someone to save another.
Load More Replies... Richard Coffell 7 years ago
Let’s change the scenario a bit. In the flaming room is our 5 year old child and a 95 year old woman and you can only save one! These are decisions of triage that are often made. Does saving the child mean you don’t really think the woman is human? Does saving the woman mean you’re a child abuser? First responders have to make these choices all the time and what choice is made has nothing to due with a rediculous notion of who is really human or more valuable!!
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
At an equal chance at saving them, That would be a question of which one has the ability to continue to live longer.
Load More Replies... Meg Davies 7 years ago
So I'm a pro-lifer who wouldn't tell anyone what to do with their body but if the scenario was save a 5 year old or some embryos the answer would be the 5 year old because that 5 year old would suffer. The embryos would not as they haven't developed pain receptors or cognitive thought or even a sense of self. If the question was save a 5 year old or some pre-mature babies who are alive but could have been aborted (ie 24 weeks gestation) then the question is too difficult to imagine. It's impossible to answer! When someone can suffer allowing the to suffer makes you a monster.
invisible squid 7 years ago
Honestly, if it was my five year old child, I would grab it first. BUT that doesn't mean the lives of the embryos are less important.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
So if it was't YOUR child, you would save the embryos?? Honestly/
Load More Replies... Dan T 7 years ago
This is a REALLY dishonest argument. Replace 1000 embryo's with "1000 newborns under anesthesia whose parents haven't met them yet", and yes. The answer is still easily to save the one scared child who has a family that loves them, not because the 1000 newborns' lives don't matter, but because the new borns won't feel the pain and won't be missed as much. This is also compounded by the dehumanizing state of embryos. But literally, replace the 1000 embryos with a variety of other currently unconscious people. Unconscious orphans. Unconscious disabled people. Sleeping elderly people. Just because someone isn't currently conscious doesn't mean they're not a valuable human life. This argument literally comes down to prioritizing one group of people over another because of the circumstances. It's virtually the same kind of thing that happens when governments bomb schools and hospitals in an attempt to save their prioritized persons. It's disgusting, and doesn't "shut down" anything.
Ikram Ma 7 years ago
now replace the conscieous child again with embryos will you choose the unconscious people or the embryos ?
Load More Replies... Mako Angel 7 years ago
This is the dumbest article and argument ever! I just wasted 5 minutes of my life I will never get back! If the embryos are frozen the they are already dead!!!! That's like saying, do, you take the human body out the freezer and save it? Or do you save the live person in the corner? Wow! Have we really become this ignorant?
Sebastian Rijo Bobea 7 years ago
You can't ask a question claiming it will "dedtroy their argument, because they can't answer it" and when people do answer it you tell them they are "amoral and a danger to chilldren" you defeat the whole validity of this question about morality and then on top of that block people who disagree... i think this was a pretty average point tbh
William Iaconis 7 years ago
This is a classic false binary. In what fantasy land does ending life out of convenience correlate to sacrificing life out of necessity?
Susan Angelini 7 years ago
The question reveals the answer. If life does not begin at conception then one would not have to save the embryos would they? The question is not which one do you save first, but that both are in need of saving because Both are alive, you said so yourself or this question would not be possible.
Dominik Eppler 6 months ago
your whole argument is obliterated by the insanity of the scenario. also what sort of freak thinks up this sort of situation?
Ronald Thrush 6 years ago
I have a question for the pro-abortion crowd: You are in a room with only two exits. Through one, you will have your head crushed and limbs torn off. Through the other, you will be scalded to death by a chemical solution. If you stay, you will be there for 9 month, then leave unharmed to live the rest of your life. Which one do you choose? If you are honest, you would stay. That is what you would always choose, if it was really YOUR body.
Michelle Scott 6 years ago
An embryo has the POTENTIAL to become a child. In this example an embryo is only a collection of frozen cells with that potential - to divide further or fizzle out once thawed or to even succumb to the thawing process. It may or may not result in a child. A five year old child is a living human being! There is no question to answer - biologically, scientifically or morally.
Stephanie Gibson 7 years ago
He’s not playing fair and he knows it. So let’s turn the tables around. Same situation, a burning building, you can only save one, but this time the choice is between your daughter or your mother, who do you choose?
Gloria Yount 7 years ago
This question can be answered easily. If there were a room that had 4 little babies in comas & another room with one baby that was awake & alert . . . which would we grab up & save? The answer would be the 1 baby because if the one alert baby was let burn up he would experience severe pain but the 4 babies in a coma would not experience the pain. And then I would ask God to take them quickly. The same is true in the theory of the embryo's & the 1 older already birthed baby. The real question here is if there is a woman who has the choice to take birth control & chooses not to (she is accepting the consequences) but then plays around & gets pregnant why on earth should she be allowed to make another choice to have an abortion.? Isn't that the same as not holding up to your first choice you were allowed to make. And if you think that should be allowed then I should be able to save that 1 baby & make a second choice & go in & save those embryos too.
Deborah Hamilton 7 years ago
And another point.... those were viable embryos and NOT pregnancies. HUGE difference.
Jamie Peterson 7 years ago
This is not a simple question. It is a stupid question. And I am going to ask you one back. If you saw two people drowning and one was a child and one was a grown man, who would you try to save? These are questions with only one answer. And only one answer can be given. This does mean that the person who is trying to save the child does not value the life of the grown man. And your question to pro-lifers does mean they do not value the life of an embryo just because they choose to save the embryos. For that matter, unfortunately, an embryo needs a host. Without it he/she will eventually die. And we do not know which embryo will receive a host. So why would we not save the child that we know for certain will live. Here is my straight answer to your question when does life begin, so now you have a answer from a pro-lifer. Life begins at conception.
Tet Battle 7 years ago
Idiotic hypothetical scenarios divorced from reality concocted by pseudointellectuals
Keturah Sline 7 years ago
I REFUSE to call them pro-life because they are not "for"quality of life for the woman or the fetus. Let's call them what they are anti-choice. I am NOT PRO-abortion but I recognize that I don't have the right to determine what another woman does with HER body. I am PRO-choice and anyone who doesn't support a woman's right to choose is literally ANTI-CHOICE which is not the same as being "pro-life". Expecting a logical response from people basing their opinion on religious dogma and rhetoric is futile. It was good to see you expose the hypocrisy of their beliefs with this analogy though!
DopethronePunkUk 7 years ago
As a married man who's wife has had 2 early term abortions that was our f*****g choice, we were careful, we used birth control, we never wanted children or intended to get pregnant but it happened twice and both times we were absolutely not wanting children, the last one was about 5 yrs ago and neither of us regret the decision. It wasn't a f****n human child, it was just a bunch of cells bonded together. No regrets and would do it again if we felt it was the correct thing to do for us. We are not religious either so that takes the unrealistic, old-fashioned b******t out of the argument, we are intelligent adults who are fully prepared to live with our decisions. I will be having a vasectomy next year anyway.
Debby Lea Hardinge 7 years ago
I %100 support his argument. I would scoop that living, breathing child up and run! I would love to find out how many pro-lifers sign up to take care of all these unwanted children..I'm guessing zero. No one has the right to dictate what are woman should do with her body and her life decisions!
Thomas Petersen 7 years ago
By that logic I take it he doesn't believe all humans are equal. Replace the kid with your own kid and the embryos with a bunch of random kids. Now replace fire with guy trying to kill either your kid or the random kids. The argument is in itself trying to use emotions to make an argument. Such a bad argument.
FullSpectrum Survivalist 7 years ago
His argument is stupid and a Straw Man argument, it's like me asking you do you want my to shoot you to death with the 45 in me left hand or the 357 in my right, anyway you answer it you are set up for failure. We didn't have sex and make that baby they did. If I rob a bank and he Judge gives me time, should everyone else have to do time too? I doubt any sane person would say yes. There are consequences for actions in this World, and maybe even after. I think both now and after. If the baby and the embryos both weigh the same, then don't tell me I have to choose and can only grab one, option 3 is you can grab both, because even if you did grab both and not have enough time you wouldn't know that anyway, life is not a game with a clock on display for each action, this guy is an idiot. This also assumes that I believe embryos in a tube have a soul, I don't. I believe it gets one after it's in it's Mother, the same way it gets it's DNA. People have answered fine, he just won't acce
FullSpectrum Survivalist 7 years ago
People have answered him just fine, he just won't accept their answer because they are not falling for his trap question. Somebody go ask this idiot which gun he wants shoot dead with, I bet he won't pick one, who would that is sane? I believe in Freedom to own guns just fine, in fact more than most, but I wouldn't answer such a stupid question and pick which one I get shot with. If you want to shoot me, then do it but it's all on you. Me not answering that question does not mean I am not pro gun, or even that I think one gun can kill me less over another, and people not just giving that idiot an "A" or "B" answer doesn't mean they are not pro life, nor that they value the Baby over the Embryos, it just mean they are not stupid enough to answer his loaded question with he 2 options he gave. We always hear about a Woman's rights, but what about the rights of the innocent baby? How is it her right to murder that baby? Do you people know there are people that get pregnant on purpose
Load More Replies... Charlene LaLa 7 years ago
Just think about this fact : First of all , thanks for all the moms on the planet , who are really brave and take responsibilities for what they did . Because IF MY MOM CHOSE ABORTION , I WOULD NEVER HAVE ANY DAMN CHANCE TO LEAVE THIS DAMN COMMENT ! I won't blame anyone for choosing abortion , but when next time these people wanna talk about HUMANITY , then it's all B******T ! It's all about selfishness, and some people wanna make others to embrace that selfishness as human right ? It's not about human rights ,it's about abusing power to murder innocent lives
Goblin Shark 7 years ago
Tomlinson's question is extremely flawed because it relies on biological prejudice. Basically we have an instinct developed over a hundred thousand years of evolution that says 'save the child.' Unfortunately because the embryo is a relatively new concept to humans the instinct does not extend to it, yet. Tomilinson apparently is content allowing this to rule his decision making to the point of excluding logic. Try his same scenario but start replacing the embryos with adults. How many adults would you sacrifice to save the child? You find yourself making excuses to justify choosing the child over one adult, over two adults, ect. Does this make his argument valid?
James Myer 7 years ago
This is easy to answer. Save the child. Viable embryos are just that, potential life. They must be fertilized first before you have a life. You might as well say killing a fertile female is killing all the potential life her "viable eggs" could produce but without the sperm of a male and gestation, well they are just genic material.
David Haium 7 years ago
I, also, am against abortion.However, I don’t pretend to know when life begins but I do know when responsibility begins. For those who deem themselves righteous enough to demand an end to abortion for anyone other than themselves and is not willing, even anctious, to take the responsibility for those new lives that they are so ready to force “others” to bear, is the appitamy of hipocresy. I have wrestled with this question for many years and the same answer comes back to me every time. If you would make demands of others without taking full responsility for those demands, then you destroy any illusion of rightness. A parent who chastises there child for cursing at another and then does the same thing in front of that child, brings the lie to all else that they say. I have seen, first hand, what happens to a child that is put into the system. It is rare for one of those children to come out of that experience whole enough to not end up on the streets, prison, or Dead. Put up or shut up.
Lauren MacArthur 7 years ago
I cannot believe anyone "likes" abortion. However, there are times it, unfortunately, is necessary. I don't need to list those obvious reasons. Education is the primary answer to the issue. But, there will always be those who are too lazy, or ignorant, to find a better answer. Once conception has occurred, the blueprint for a human being has been established. It is sad that so many do not consider that. It is sad that rapes occur. There are many sad human conditions, and we, as a society, must deal with them. It is sad that, without some sort of relief, only those with money will be able to take care of their problem. I do not know how we deal with it, without encouraging its use as a birth control measure....which is wrong. I, and everyone else I am sure, would rescue the 5-year-old. Of course, timing is important, too. Once a fetus is viable, a whole new set of rules must apply.
Julian Lean 7 years ago
he's presenting a false dilemma. Maybe he should ask, what to you do if there are two kids in the room and you can only save one? Maybe it's a white kid and black kid, perhaps a boy and a girl. Who do you save? What if it's the 5 year old and his wife? What if it's Hitler in the room and the embryos? Ah, but he's so clever.... What if it's him tweeting inane stuff on the Internet and the embryos? Heck, I'd take my Starbucks coffee that was some how in the room (which is the reason why I was in the Fertility clinic in the first place).
Linda Larson 7 years ago
I choose A. I don't believe in abortion but I am Pro Choice. No one can know what someone else's circumstances are so don't judge and don't dictate.
Ann Benson 7 years ago
If I grabbed the embryos I would be committing murder. They can't live outside their artificial environment. I would need to grab the child and run.
Jean-Elise Kidd Medeiros 7 years ago
The argument is stupid and only to justify behaving badly. You are a man. What do you care? A woman has the right to choose to not have unprotected sex. It's very simple. Of course I would choose the 5 year old child. This child is attached to a human existence, probably loves someone and is loved by someone, has a fully formed CNS feels pain and joy, speaks, cries, laughs, etc and the others are in a jar. If there were no child to save then I would grab the embryos. First responders have to make these decisions all the time when traumatic things happen. They often have to choose between the the one who are likely to be saved and the ones who probably won't make it. Further, the embroys can not survive beyond the current state without a warm blooded mother, a woman.
Joan Degennaro 7 years ago
Not so easy , as an exmidwife I am neither pro or anti a abortion . I a agree that all life begins at conception but life “ which is an abomination , eg anencephalic , why should a female be forced to continue to full term a foetus which is not viable ?
Norm Greenaway 7 years ago
I believe life begiins at conception, However it is not a life of a child as we know it. It takes serveral weeks to transform into a child as we know it , which will survive outside of the womb. Abortion should only be an option, if means the survival of the mother, losing a mother in lieu of the child isn"t fair to the child, father or siblings Norm Greenaway Australia
Colin Cadman 7 years ago
Despite whatever side you fall on, I don't think the question is actually a measurement of how one values life. In that scenario, it's clear that the person would save the child - not because the child is worth more than embryos - but because that child will suffer a tremendous amount of pain. So, the questions weighs our judgement of pain and not our value of life. Besides, if the embryos are in a room set on fire, those embryos would have certainly been cooked to egg whites by then.
Jason Garcia 7 years ago
My answer is "A" and I'm still pro-life, second lets define a simple question. "I'm going to the store, you want anything?", most people I know would define this as a simple question. Third yours would be categorized as a hypothetical situation, where you hold all the power in this world to create the laws, the physics, and outcomes already designed in your imagination. Lastly your use of rhetoric is nothing new or original, read Aristotle, he wrote the book on framing words to your advantage. You could place a 90 year old with the kid and choosing the kid doesn't mean anyone values kids more than old people, means they had to make a judgment call and there would be no right answer, just an answer (like the one you "simply" asked for). The terms pro-life and pro-choice are created to cause discourse to begin with, if your not pro-life, doesn't that make you anti-life? How about not pro-choice, than your anti-choice right? You just conformed to the reality governments create for us
MD Matthew 7 years ago
I think an appropriate response may be in the form of a question as well. imagine the same scenario, but for whatever reason, you can ONLY help one, but instead of embryo its a newborn in a basket vs. the 5 yo pleading for help. As horrible of a decision, I think many would help the 5yo as it seems to be actualized and not just possibilities. both are living, and have value, but i think we place more value on the more actualized developed version of life.
Kathy Evans 7 years ago
The argument is a false equivalency. The situation would be no different than if you had to choose between saving the child or 1,000 unconscious adults who cannot escape of their own power, but are alive. It would be no different than any other tragedy. You save what you can. You see them all as having equal value - but you cannot save all. And keep in mind that the fertility clinic created most of them for the purpose of being destroyed. A lucky few will be implanted into a woman and even fewer will make it to birth. The rest will be killed - so you're not actually "saving" 1,000 children. You grab the older child because he has already survived through several years of things that could kill him and therefore has the best chance of continuing to adulthood. The embryo hasn't experienced life outside the womb yet, so there is no guarantee it will even make it to 5 years old. You grab the one that has the best chance at life.
John Shebanow 7 years ago
I am strongly pro choice. Life begins at human brainwave startup which is no where near conception. However, this is a b******t hypothetical. 1-∞ embryos are nothing compared to a living, breathing child. Each embryo needs to be implanted in a womb in order to have even the slightest chance of gestation. There is no equivalence. The real debate is when and if we, as born human beings, have the right to step in and terminate a successfully implanted, developing fetus. I think this is between a woman and her doctor, but this is not the question he posed. He asks if I should chose between a child and some embryos, none of which have been implanted, none of which will, necessarily, ever be be implanted. B******t. Now if he posed the question as a pregnant woman and a five year old, you might have a real question, but he didn't, he just wanted to make a stupid point so he could show off his pseudo superiority. A*s clown.
Barbara Smith 7 years ago
1000 viable fertilized human embryos does not equate to 1000 living children. With in vitro fertilization, doctors transfer multiple embryos to the uterus of the woman wanting to conceive with the plan that, hopefully, at least one will "take". Multiples happen (see the "octomom"), but not always. Things have to be just right for an embryo to implant in the uterus. These 1000 viable fertilized human embryos are the possibility for full term babies. But many will not survive. This is specifically why the Catholic Church does not like in vitro fertilization. You are creating life, in fact, over creating living children, knowing fully that some will not survive. This is what happens with miscarriages, but that is another whole discussion. The life is the life in either situation (non implanted fertilized egg and miscarriage), but if a woman miscarries early enough, they may never be aware they had conceived at all.
Barbara Smith 7 years ago
(Bored Panda had a word limit, so I couldn't post my whole answer in one go. Here is the rest:) But, with all this discussion, the young, crying child in the corner would be the right choice to save. This child has a family who would grieve terribly, and more potential to continue a long full life than many of these embryos.
Load More Replies... Steven Christie 7 years ago
I don't see why this guy thinks his concocted scenario is such a genius "test". Here, I'll answer it directly so I wont (according to him) have to 'shut the f**k up': If I cant carry both the embyos and the child, I save the child (answer A). The reason I don't see why this downgrades the argument about terminating embryos can be exemplified by MY own following scenario (which I wont be arrogant enough to classify as a "genius" invention): Instead of a baby and a bunch of embryos, what if the room contains two fully-grown, disabled people and I again have to choose which one to save: (A) my grandmother or (B) someone I don't know. I would save my own grandmother (answer A), but would still feel terrible that I wasn't able to save the other person as well. Furthermore, the fact that I chose to save my own granny would have no bearing on my view that the other person's life is just as valuable. Any other questions, Mr. Genius ?
Marie Cadavieco 7 years ago
sorry to sound stupid, but can’t most five year olds walk? What does the weight matter? I have carried two five year olds, anyway. So no, I will not make a choice. It is a value judgement no human being has the insight to make. I was .once asked in an ethics class which of several heart patients I would choose to have a transplant first, and I said that even a doctor has no right to decide the value of a Person’s life. A mother of a two year old might seem more worthy than an middle aged alcoholic, but what if the alcoholic helps to avert a disaster tomorrow and save hundreds of lives? What if the five year old grows up to be a concert pianist? But what if one of those embryos turns out to be another Einstein? The question you have asked is ethically repugnant.
Rachel McFerren 7 years ago
Science is awesome. The ability to create life outside the womb and preserve that for future use is awesome. But it brings up a dilemma such as this. Anyone would choose the visible child in front of them. Before the ability to create life outside the womb this would not have destroyed the argument for pro-life and I don't see how it does now. As far as I can see they are not viable until they are implanted in a womb. Life starts at conception but that life will not continue unless it implants. Once that life begins it is up to God whether it continues, not us.
William Rogers 7 years ago
As someone else has already stated, my reaction would be to do all I could to save that child. Something in a container under this dangerous and threatening circumstance would simply have to wait until I had 'secured' the child away from the area. THEN, if possible, I might attempt to go back and 'rescue' whatever was in the container.
Tracy Curtis 7 years ago
If he got pregnant had baby and was asked that question even he would hesitate to answer, very easy for people to ask this when there is zero chance of them experiencing it, it’s like me saying I understand the pain of being kicked in the knackers! Which of course I don’t so debunked question really god give me strength, I would have said the child by the way, I don’t believe in abortion for me, but other women it’s their choice.
William Rogers 7 years ago
Bottom Line: Knowing myself, my 'instinct' would be to do everything I could to save the child. "Things" in a container would not register on my radar under this kind of circumstance. I find this whole article brilliant.
James Doriguzzi 7 years ago
What if we reached a point where we could grow a fetus in an artificial womb? Suppose you could save one child, or a thousand fetuses developing at 20+ weeks gestation? I think it would be much harder to let that thousand developed fetuses burn. Another problem with this argument, besides only applying to fertilized eggs, is that a person could save the child while being disturbed about the loss of the embryos. The person would never destroy the embryos intentionally, which is not the same as failing tonsave them.
Steve Finley 7 years ago
It's a completely ridiculous and artificial scenario that comes nowhere near solving the problem or "eviscerating" anybody's position. You could do the same with any number of made-up "save this one or that one" scenarios. (Would you save the 50-year-old doctor or the 20-year-old gamer?) In fact, here it only extends the unexamined and unspoken "because it looks more like a person" fallacy on which so many pro-abortion or pro-choice arguments rest. The question of whether any particular pro-lifer's views with regard to caring for children after conception (which, incidentally, is the job of the parents, not "society" in the first place) is irrelevant to the question of whether life begins at conception. Arguments about the care of children after birth can be valid and worthwhile, but they don't remotely impact the question of when life actually starts.
M Katherine Jones 7 years ago
Opposing birth control is just ridiculous. There are too many people on the planet as it is! The wealthy and powerful are intent on not sharing with us and on reaping and keeping everything for themselves. Why bring anyone else into this dismal situation? The choice is NO ONE else's business. If a woman does not want to have a child or another child she should not have to. Her reasons are her business! The way the religious right pro-birthers think, all women should be pregnant all the time. That is ridiculous. Major Eastern religions believe that life begins with first breath. Some believe some infants die because their souls "decide" they do not want to be here. The pro rape/pro birth sickos really bother me. No girl/woman should have to carry that sick rapist's pregnancy. I have wondered if the pro-lifers picture that fetus as a happy healthy well loved 4 month old smiling and laughing. A fetus is a fetus. The 5 year old is real!
Travis Zirkle 7 years ago
Frankly, I would save the child and here is why. The embryos are frozen and not sentient at this point. The child will feel the fire and die a horrible death while the embryos will never know what happened. I am pro-choice though I don’t think the choice should be made casually. Furthermore, the choice is among the people involved. If there is a god, then God can take care of it if he has a problem. I am not qualified to do his job. I’m doing well enough to run my own life.
Sherrie Taylor 7 years ago
The most ridiculous question EVER. I would save the one who would suffer the most if left behind. It has absolutely nothing to do with the value of either. Having lost 6 babies in early pregnancy (painfully against my will), I can tell you that all loss of life is a tragedy and your scenario gives no hope for at least some life. Making a choice is not always a stance on what we believe, but on what we feel will cause the least suffering!! Its a stupid way to force an unrealistic answer. It means NOTHING.
Cheriese Vega 7 years ago
I want to know how many pro-lifers are willing to adopt and raise these embryos once they have been born. If they care so much for the unborn, why don't they offer to take the responsibility to raise them? Our country is full of children that are waiting to be adopted, but is anyone really coming to their defense? btw...I would save the 5 year old. No question about it.
Yo Gavin Gavin 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro already did a thing on this on his show He completely destroyed it
Valerie Oestry 7 years ago
This is false reasoning. All he has to do is ask a philosopher or theologian and they will tear this argument apart.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
He's too full of himself to consider anything other than what he has deemed foolproof. The smug photo says it all.
Load More Replies... Chris Ralko 7 years ago
I Honestly can't stomach, and have ZERO respect for any low-life who tells someone to " answer the f*****g question, or shut the f**k up!" Exactly what makes this a*s hat individual so bloody special and pompous that he's put himself way up there above everybody else? What? He wrote a book? Big deal. People write everyday. Or, perhaps it's because he thinks he's omnipotent now that he's posed his "unanswerable" question to the masses. I say give the d**k his 15 minutes of fame, and let him burn out like so many fire embers. Let him go the way of pet rocks and rubber puke....
Dan Shea 7 years ago
A) Their inability to answer a theoretical ethics questions that has no right answer is unsurprising. Especially given the 'generous' 240 characters that Twitter gives you to answer in (literally thousands of pages have been written on this question with no right answer in sight.) B) The fact that you agree with him doesn't mean that he 'destroyed' the Pro-Life argument. They have not been 'destroyed' until they convert to being pre-choice.
Jo Gi 7 years ago
I am pro choice. It's up to the woman to decide what is right for her. That being said for those who think that embryos are people, i ask this, is a chicken's egg a chicken or just an egg? Eggs are eggs, without a host to help them grow they are nothing, just like sperm is nothing. Saving the child is the right answer.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
So, if you were in a World Wildlife Fund or similar lab trying to save the last existing eggs from the last, now dead, members of endangered species, and there was a container of a thousand of these rare and irreplaceable eggs in one corner, and a single chicken in the other which was going to be used as a foster mum to one of the eggs, and the place caught fire, would you rescue the living chicken, or the thousand eggs?!
Load More Replies... Tammy Hubatsek 7 years ago
Wow Mr Tomlinson! Are you really that stupid, expecting ANY kind of reasonable response for a hypothetical question? Play it this way...put your children in two corners...one has two broken legs and can't walk. The other is an equally helpless infant. Choose. Here's an absolute, scientific REALITY: If the time of death is noted when the heart STOPS beating, then it MUST stand to reason that the life BEGAN with a heartbeat. Right?
David Muiznieks 7 years ago
The man oosing the argument is a simpleton. He believes one's instinct determines truth. If it were his 2 children vs 3 other childrwn the same age and he could only save his or them. He would save his own but that does not devalue the three.
Peter Heckert 7 years ago
Argument ad absurdum, false dichotomy, ad hominem. You want an honest answer? Ask an honest question.
Ramon Maldonado 7 years ago
Intellectually dishonest as it is a clear misrepresentation of argument. Embryos in tubes are not part of the equation. The concern regards embryos in utero. Scenario is not an analog and does not discredit in any way the point of view that all life should be protected. But moving past the flaws of the loaded question, it is the same as someone that is comfortable with abortions to decide which abortions should not be done.
Louie Kouris 7 years ago
I have to mention here that although I agree with the guy's point, I was angry at him when I read the comments on the 2nd page and how he called ppl names if they disagreed with him or challenged him. People are entitled to their opinions even if we don't like what they have to say. You don't prove anything by calling them names. I was pro-life once; more experience of the world changed my mind -i.e. how a person suffers when they know they were an unwanted / abandoned child. I was lucky no one abused me back then for being pro-life. If ppl had, I would probably have felt victimised & stubbornly insisted on my opinion. Allowing ppl to find out for themselves means allowing them to grow. Thanks, Louie Kouris
Brenda Eaves 7 years ago
I have an answer: You choose the one most likely to succeed. Is it easier, more expedient to grab the child and get out? Or grab the container and get out? As a pro-lifer, I would think of it this way: A life cannot be weighed against any other life. The child's purpose in this life may have been to bring attention to the rescuer in order to save the container, in which case the child's purpose in this world is accomplished and he or she is ready to move on to the next life. Feeling guilt for choosing the embryos would not be justified. We, as the rescuers, are in no position at the time to consider philosophy. We must act and we must act on instinct. In this case, survival is the instinct in question, hence saving yourself and other victim(s) is of utmost importance. Hence this question is easily answered. It is as simple as Schrodinger's Cat. Open the door, assess the danger, act with your best judgement of the situation at the time of the fire. Either way, success.
David Lewis 7 years ago
Don't have a problem with his view at all....I'd rescue the 5 year old
Steven Clennon 7 years ago
I disagree it is not the same argument. This is a question of saving life. Being anti-abortion is a question of whether or not we have the right to destroy a life. This argument is based in the same realm as "Is it ok to have an abortion if the mother's life is in danger." same type of question. My follow up question would be why are we having abortions? What are the numbers? How many mothers lives were in danger? How many were gonna have birth defects? Give me a viable reason that ending a human life was needed and necessary. To answer his question of course I would save the 5 year old. I wouldn't even think twice. (without the actual scientific side which I believe dictates that an actual embryo needs to be implanted but don't quote me i could be wrong) I didn't make the fire and I didn't chose to kill anyone. My conscience is clean. Can a person make a decision to END a viable human life and have the same result? I don't know I guess it depends on the situation.
Sean 7 years ago
One 8 month pregnant woman and an overweight man are the 2 you have to decide between saving as they are both struggling due to their circumstances. If you think for any reason that the woman should be the first one you help then this guys argument is flawed. Someone that has chosen this situation to look at is not really up for a valid debate. One objected that's why his hypothetical perfectly works out to guilt you into taking the one that's face you can see dying. It actually proves that if you kill something but can't see it's face then it's easier to comprehend. If anything it shows more strength towards discouraging abortions just because you don't get to see the pain in the unborn child's face. If you had to watch would you make the choice if "face to face" with the problem. I wish no one ever wanted to get an abortion but everyone gets to make their own choices in this life. We all have to live with choices we make. Don't try to guilt or punish those that make the hardest ones.
Ioanna Nikolaidou 7 years ago
there actually is a person who perceives the embryo as a baby/child, that is the woman carrying it and anticipating to actually hold it. that's why they grieve if they have a miscarriage. that's it. and that's 100% personal. as is abortion. it's something terrible to experience and NOT an alternative birthcontrol method, sex ed is of bigger value. but thank god there is this option for extreme situations. it's for the woman to decide
Mona Vine 7 years ago
I have another question for the so called prolifers. If you saw a young woman going into the clinic to have an abortion, and spoke to her, and she said she didn't want to do it but had no other choice. would you offer to pay for all the childs needs, education etc, untill it became an adult. Spend sleepless nights up with it when it's ill. clean up after it, even if it meant staying in some abusive relationship, whether it be a father , husband uncle or whoever . Be trapped for ever not able to get out of the relationship or the home environment in order to protect that child? If the answer is no then why do you think you have the right to force that life on another?
Brian Luscher 7 years ago
Another thing the right to life crowd ignores is that up to 50% of embryos (i.e., a zygote) is not born alive. They self-abort, fail to attach to the uterine, detach spontaneously from the uterine wall before viability, and many embyros that attach die in utero and are ejected as a miscarriage. God aborts more zygotes than humans ever have or ever can.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And 100% of people die. So by your argument murder is OK!
Load More Replies... Terence Staines 7 years ago
I appreciate what he's trying to do, but this smacks of 'mansplaining' to me. I'm sure there are a lot more effective, feminist arguments that exist, proposed and expounded by women... But maybe anti-abortionists need to be mansplained? They certainly wouldn't listen to a woman's argument, anyway.
Greg Blueye 7 years ago
"keep your policies out of my body"? - oh yes. We will not tell you where you wil have sex, with who, do you use any contraception, that you should be drank or sober and so on. But if you get pregnant remember taha this tiny thing inside you is not part of your body anymore - its someone else body that will become bigger and bgger. And this Patrick is manipulating ba$t*d. If we see healthy child that breath with the same air like rest of us, of course we will help him. Most of ppl will not know how to help embrions - maybe taking them will just make things worse? MAybe they need some energy? Maybe (potential) fire will do no harm. I dont know - do you? Greg from Poland
Christa Starkey-Mason 7 years ago
Frozen embryos don't have beating hearts. This guy's simple minded analogy is just plain stupid.
Mark Elliott 7 years ago
What a dumbass article, he just ends up blocking people and ignoring questions and then saying "NO NO YOU HAVE TO PICK A OR B NO NO" *Chucks a tantrum and throws feces everywhere* You're arguing that a conscious child vs non conscious embryo. It's easier to make more embryos anyway. This argument is dumb. And I feel dumber for replying. It's like saying: "IF THERE WAS A FIRE AND YOU HAD TO PICK A) TO SAVE A 5 YEAR OLD OR B) A 70 YEAR OLD UNCONSCIOUS PATIENT WHO WOULD YOU PICK? YOU HAVE TO PICK 1!!!11!!11" "IF YOU PICKED A THEN YOUR A MONSTER AND A OLD-PERSON-O-PHOBE" You don't abort a 5 year old so the argument on abortion is invalid anyway, we don't go around aborting 5 year olds, this is dumber the more I think of it.
The Paul 7 years ago
If you're afraid to engage with the question, but you attempt to characterize the person who asked it as immature by uncharitably rephrasing them in caps, the fact that you're afraid to engage with the question remains obvious.
Load More Replies... PennyDreadful81 7 years ago
Tomlinson didn't "shut down" anyone. He automatically went into the argument angry and came out the same way. He wasn't looking for civil, nuanced debate. He's a troll.
Marysia Jawłowska 7 years ago
Well, if you force people to make a choice between killing a child that stands in front of them and pressing a button that will cause the death of 1000 unknown people they cannot see, I assure you most would press the button despite claiming that all human life is equal. We understand that it's ridiculous and yet sacrificing a human being whose face we see and whose pleas and screams we hear is just too much for us to handle. I'm pretty sure there was some research on the subject that documents the fact that people make very irrational and technically hypocritical choices of that kind. This scenario perfectly matches all criteria so allow me to say it's not a sound proof of anything.
Irene Scott 7 years ago
Totally misses the mark, because there is no correct answer and everyone who disagrees or questions is called an a*****e or worse
Jane Caspary 7 years ago
JUst another point. If you are genuinely pro life, does your state support the death sentence., do you support the death sentence. How can one be pro life and accept their state taking a human life. If your pro life own it all the way.
Irene Anderson 7 years ago
Where are these embryos? Pickled in a jar? They are already dead, of course the answer is A. But you have not considered some abortions are done when the baby can survive. There are other alternatives for the Mother. If you had or have children how would you feel about killing your unborn baby, to hear it crying when the Dr. sticks a needle in it’s brain. Abortion is not the answer.
tara skogly 7 years ago
Easy to answer actually; I’d save the five year old. Why? Because if I had detached the container I would have destroyed the content. It is hooked up and preserved to hold a certain degree at all time. Detach it and you would kill 1000 embryos. Why on earth did this guys question stand unanswered? Are most people dumb?
Natesh Iyer 7 years ago
Another thing to remember burning embryos are not ready for birth but abortion means you are killing babies ready for birth if not touched. So the question is ludicrous.
Ben Mitchell 7 years ago
You know, except for the rare situations where a pregnant womans life is put in danger as a direct result of being pregnant, it happens and in those situations forcing her to keep the child is a death sentance for 2. There is no blanket right/wrong answer for abortion, in the majority of cases it should be the "could be" parents choice and it should be easily accessible.
Load More Replies... F Steagall 7 years ago
It is a false argument, you are assuming you or he has the authorty to set values of circumstance.
Jeanie Enyeart 7 years ago
I had a abortion when I was only 14 years old and it was wrong very wrong. But I also know that I had health problems and me and my baby would have died. I think abortions are so very wrong and didn't know that I would have died when I did it. Women know what they are doing is wrong all day long. You can say what ever you want it is wrong all day long. Our hearts know it. Women that do it have to live with it and the people that help them do it knowing it's wrong so there will never be a change to it cause no know whats to say they did something wrong. So why are we even talking about it. The law will never change. Just saying it is fact......................
Grandmajill1 7 years ago
Maybe a better scenario is a woman with a newly implanted embryo vs 1000 viable embryos?
Rachel Nielsen 7 years ago
Lol what a joke. "A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option." Morality doesn't exist in a hypothetical vacuum. How about this one? : Your mother and your baby are in a burning room and you can only save one. Which do you pick? Wait, you pick to your mother? You don't think your baby is worth what your mother is worth? That must mean your mother isn't human. Embarrassing that this got any credence at all.
Jacey Davison 7 years ago
I don't really see how this argument makes any difference to the abortion debate. If he is right, all he proves is that children have greater worth than embryos. At most, all this argument would prove is that abortion would be allowable to save the life of the mother as the mother's life would have more value than the baby's life. But this is the vast minority of abortions. So really, it's irrelevant. The example would perhaps work if it was a mother running out of a building where the fire alarm is going off and whether it would be worth inconveniencing her to save the thousand embryos. Her life wouldn't be in danger. The real question is whether she's allowed to kill the baby just because she wants to.
Mark Jago 7 years ago
all good and well but it's a s**t scenario in the first place let's replace the cells with a premature baby in a Humicrib in that corner one that right now can be terminated if still in the womb on the operating table waiting to be chopped up but is in this scenario out and in a Humicrib waiting to be saved what then ? your not asking the right question son not too bright after all
Gayle Bynum Cardosa 7 years ago
Gale Lett, there isn't just stranger to stranger rape, there is rape of a husband to a wife. There are scenarios acted out every day in this country where spouses and significant others are truly held hostage in situations many people cannot even fathom. I'm not talking about chained-in-the-basement Ariel Castro situations but Stockholm Syndrome or violent, you'll never get the f**k away alive situations. THOSE are going on all around us and you would never in a million years know who those situations are happening with. TRUST. Those people are getting raped and impregnated and they have no.f*****g.say. I can promise you.
Amanda Richter 7 years ago
I’m a big believer in pro-choice, personally, I don’t believe that anyone should push their personal beliefs onto anyone else because NO one I mean no one believes exactly the same. Abortion is a personal choice, the key word there is personal it’s no one else business what your choice is. I would grab the child personally, because in fight or flight situation that child represents the future and our instincts demands us to protect that child, not eggs. Harsh yes but unfortunately accurate, and all I would see is a child in danger not a machine that is holding a bunch of eggs. On a religious stand point, god gave us the ability to think, invent, and to push the boundaries, is it not a waste of god’s gift to ignore that ability and is not different forms of birth controls falls under our ability to invent? The funny thing is that birth control such as the pill can help balance hormones which in turn helps relieve problems such as migraine, which I have had personal experience with.
Simon Leister 7 years ago
The question is flawed and manipulative. It is not actually a question about humanity it is a question about pain and suffering. The child is "crying", the child will suffer from being left alone. The suffering 1 child is being compared to 1000 humans who won't feel pain. What's unspoken on the question is the suffering of the 1000 families who lost their future children, what is unexplained in the question and answer is the basis on which the writer makes his conclusions. At no point does he explain why A is a more moral response than B. Neither does he address the question of what an embryo is. He says that it's not a baby or a child, but is it still human? How is it that the product of 2 humans creates something that is less than human? He doesn't answer these things.
Leigh Hunt 7 years ago
"no one has EVER answered it honestly" Bull s**t. It's been answered and rebutted many times, and he either is deluded, or a liar. I think that there is a lot wrong with this. First of all, "life begins at conception" is a claim (it actually begins long before that.) not an argument, and the frozen embryos are not implanted in a uterus, and they are not doing anything metabolically. A pro-life person can honestly answer that they would save the child, and it doesn't contradict their position even mildly, let alone "shatter it. Basically he fails to address any questions about abortion, and continues to relegate himself to one of the two oversimplifying camps of pro-life and pro-choice. I think that people in these two camps should respectfully disqualify themselves from asserting opinions on the matter, let alone act like they have some panacea argument, when they have nothing.
Mark Nelson 7 years ago
Most prolifers equate any termination of an embryo or fetus as killing a child. So it does trash their arguement
Load More Replies... Danyell Rosenbaum 7 years ago
The Fact that me and my mother are alive today because she had what some would call and abortion, lets me see another side. Things aren't always what they seem, and of course this will always be a huge debate, but it may help to take a second to think you have no idea what the situations are. My mom's first pregnancy had complications so severe that carrying the fetus to term would have killed both. So what choice would you make? Make sure you do your creature math correctly.
Suzanne Keefer 7 years ago
I agree with Patrick. Oh, and one more thing. Some of the nastiest people I have ever met are Pro-Lifers. Many are cruel and heartless with no consideration for the woman or the child's welfare.
Renee Ahlich Ryan 7 years ago
Abortion is the murder of a human being. Some abortions even take place after birth. Most forms of artificial birth control dispose the egg after it has been fertilized; in essence another form of murder. No one has been able to answer your question to your liking because you are most likely closed to the idea that God does exist, and has set moral boundaries for all of us. He is the Creator, our Father, and we are His children. Thus so, it is immoral for man to create life, much less artificially in a petri dish. No one wants to tell a woman with problems conceiving that she should leave it to God. This is a very personal subject. No one wants to go there. The fact remains that it is wrong. Your question doesn't prove anything. Life artificially created poses the problem.
Anne Smith 7 years ago
You don't save one or 1000. You save one, or you remove a tray of embryos from a freezer. You run with them through a burning building, during which time they begin to degrade from starting to thaw. And then you put them...uh, where? In the large deep freezer conveniently located across the street? They will all die. If you want ANYONE to live, you take the 5-year old.
Anne Smith 7 years ago
You don't save one or 1000. You save one, or you remove a tray of embryos from a freezer. You run with them through a burning building, during which time they begin to degrade from starting to thaw. And then you put them...uh, where? In the large deep freezer conveniently located across the street? They will all die. If you want ANYONE to live, you take the 5-year old.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
Logic isn't allowed in the scenario, Anne. You broke the rules. All the dude would say in response is that you're dodging the obvious fact that you're his inferior.
Load More Replies... David Carr 7 years ago
I love how his entire argument is an appeal to ignorant emotion and it's being lauded as the smartest thing a leftist can come up with. It is objectively, factually more beneficial to save the thousand, but anyone who actually sees that and goes with sentiment over sentimentality is "lying" because his limited imagination cannot contain their reasoning process. Stupid, we're not lying. We just have the capacity for abstract thought, which you just proved you don't.
Mike Richards 7 years ago
i THINK THE MAN IS CORRECT IN STATING , It is the woman that has to face God not the anti anythings , it is her right to choose what she does with her body, our legal system shouldn't even be involved in such matters ! I don't believe insurance should pay for men's or woman's birth control ! I believe Insurance should cover medical problems equally , but birth control is not a health issue , it is just a licence to have unprotected sex on the go ! abstain , learn to swallow or buy condoms !!
Joe Dad 7 years ago
No one believes life begins at conception? No one? Really? Well, you're wrong because I believe, so that's one person for you. That's a terrible analogy, by the way. Why the hell would there be a million embryos in a room... that analogy cannot be used validate one woman's decision to abort her child. She actually had this choice: abort or not abort. She wasn't thrown into this silly dilemma of yours where she's in a burning room.
Audrey Gauci 7 years ago
If a women if raped and becomes pregnant because of some irresponsible man she should be allowed abortion. BUT, you can get condoms ANYWHERE! if your going to have sex and don’t want to get pregnant then you can prevent this by using your brain.
Panda 7 years ago
Birth control is not 100% effective. Stop judging women, because they had bad luck. Forced pregnancy shouldn't be used as a punishment for women who want to have a sex life.
Load More Replies... AJ Ventura 7 years ago
So this idiot makes up an imaginary question that could never happen and wants to use it to prove his point. Isnt that kind of like writing your own history book and then using it to prove that only what you say is correct? What an idiot!
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
And yet it takes so little to just answer the question. Still can't do it, can you? That's his point. Thanks for playing.
Load More Replies... Jacqueline Bohr 7 years ago
Actually for the anti abortionist of the Christian and Jewish variety this would be easy to answer. The christian scriptures teach that life is 'in the blood'. (Genesis and Leviticus) Those embryos need to attach to the womb's wall to start to develop blood. it is not until the third week that blood fully develops and starts to pump. Thus conception is not complete until blood exists in this religious ideal! These embryos are described by the man as "viable" , according to the dictionary 'viable' simply means that are "capable of working successfully; feasible" - thus it is referring to their future capabilities, but at that time are not yet there!
Mary Jarabek 7 years ago
for sure the child, but that doesnt make abortion right , not when there are so many ways to not get pregnant in the first place . there is no reason to have to get one if you just use protection ,,, and im not saying that some times its not needed , but too many women uses it like birth control.i have two girls who have been sexual active and are in their 20' and 30:s. and have always used protection .
Lora Vandemark 7 years ago
I think leaving a living 5 year old child that would feel the agony of pain is of course the right answer. Why is this a question? Embryos wouldn't even survive the heat.
John Walker 7 years ago
Luckily I can hold my breath longer than the average person, so I would rescue them all! Was fortunate for them I was there that day!
Marco Fittipaldi 7 years ago
Although I'm pro-abortion, I still consider fetuses to be alive. Beside that, if I HAD to give an answer to such a ludicrous question as this (is one of those classic arbitrary scenarios where things as posed deliberately just to prove a point), it would be B, as there's a big difference between a live baby and FROZEN embryos.
Brian Newman 7 years ago
I really don't see what's so hard about this. You are asking pro-lifers to choose between two choices, both of which end in death. Since death is as bad as it gets for a pro-lifer, choosing between two outcomes, both equally bad, may have no good answer. To improve this question, you should first ask the question about the train (the one that goes, "you are standing next to a switch for the tracks on which a runaway train is speeding towards another train, if the trains strike one another, hundreds of people will be killed, but if you flip the switch next to you, the train will switch tracks and kill a person trapped on the second tracks. Do you flip the switch?") Once you know the answer to that question, then your's has the proper context to understand the answer you receive.
Michele Caldwell 7 years ago
I don't understand his need to attack people who disagree with him or give an answer he does not like because it stops proving what he thinks his question proves. It is why I refuse to argue or even discuss with many liberals because when they don't have a response, they attack. Attack one's character, intellect, honesty... THAT Is what completely shuts down all further discussion.
Mike Stone 7 years ago
Simply because harm minimization exists does not nullify that harm occurs. I would choose a child over 100 cats, doesn't mean there's no moral jeopardy killing 100 cats. It's also a false equivalency. Elective abortion is not like a fire. The result of inaction in a fire equals death. In most cases, the result of inaction in a pregnancy equals life.
Matthew Daniels 7 years ago
How does this shut down pro-life activists? In your scenario, one has no choice but to let one die. We have to save one or the other. When you are having an abortion you don't have to decide which one to save. There is no choice but to let live or let die.
Matthew Daniels 7 years ago
How does your question shut down pro life activists? In your scenario you have a choice. Save one or the other? When you have an abortion you don't have to decide to save one. You only have one life growing inside you. The only choice you make is to let live, or let die. Try again.
Matt Luthman 7 years ago
If this was true why would a person driving drunk who would hit a pregnant women in an auto accident causing her to lose her CHILD charged with murder....even if she was driving to a clinic to have her legal abortion?? Try my scenario....you don't get charged with murder if you cause someone to lose an arm or leg which is part of the body and not a seperate life itself. So Explain that away Mr Liberal Freedom lover...why not legalize a mother to kill her child up to age 2 if she decides she no longer wants it??
Denise Fowler 7 years ago
for me, who believe in a womans right to choose, he presented another view point for me.
Benj 7 years ago
Idunno, I'm totally pro-choice, and my first thought was, before really thinking about it, grab the embryos - more possibilities of life. ...Then again, I may have been thinking along the lines of an "armageddon ark", which is another thought experiment, Not just a fire in a building.
blugeagua 7 years ago
Yeah... women have been saying this s**t for years already and no one ever listens to us. But when a man brings it up, all of a sudden it’s all ears and everyone agrees.
Pete Nosal 4 months ago
Anti abortionists goal is to empty the hall of souls and trigger the rapture,even though the Bible forbids trying to force it.
Nicola Dawson 4 months ago
I believe a person has a right to choose, what is the right decision for them at that time! Instead of trying to shove your opinion down a persons throat, ask why they have come to that decision, and it is not an easy option! Like has been mentioned, their not the one looking after the child/children! As, of the question, the answer will always be a, no human being, who emtionally intacked, would not ignore a screaming child, when it is life or death!
Gary Geracci 6 months ago
I have always believed that women should control their own bodies!. Now ,That said.that means as well, that she not bring unwanted children into the world. Use dependable Birth control!
Heidi Davies (Blondeheidi71) 8 months ago
It all comes down to 1 thing.. MY BODY, MY CHOICE!! Excuse my profanity but all of you F*****G pro lifer's need to SHUT UP and STEP UP and raise the children that they think shouldn't be aborted and see how that works out for them... Oh but NOOOO they can't and wouldn't do that, right?! THEN SHUT YOUR OUT OF LINE BIG OBNOXIOUS MOUTHS and find a productive hobby to do some good in this world instead of putting your noses in other people's business where you have no right to be!
Pete Nosal 1 year ago
I support a woman's right to make her own decisions regarding her own body and life. I just can't help but wonder about the other person involved, does his consent even matter?
Emily Redman 1 year ago
I am pro-life and given the constraints of this particular scenario, I would have to choose the five year old child over the petri dish of embryos. My choice has more to do with the amount of suffering entailed. The embryos don't have a nervous system YET, and therefore they will not experience pain in a fire. However, a five year old child has a developed nervous system and will experience a large degree of pain and suffering. So, give the exact parameters of this situation, this is what I would select. However, as someone else already mentioned. IVF and holding embryos may create a separate moral dilemma all on its own.
Deondra Loehner 1 year ago
An embryo is just an embryo until it is fertilized with the sperm, only then does it begin to take on a potential baby being.
Deborah Rubin 1 year ago
There's no such thing as a pro-lifer. They are anti-abortion, anti-a woman's right to control her own body. A good point is made here, if these people really supported life, why aren't they taking the babies that are born unwanted into their own homes?
Linda J 2 years ago
His question isn’t really valid. It’s only meant to attempt to prove a point. I could ask the same question about what if there’s a woman in one corner and a five year old in the other. Who would you save? Based on who you would save does that make you an “amoral monster”? Some people would choose the child and others would choose the woman. Does either have “less value” because they weren’t chosen. Using hypothetical situations to justify murderous choices is just a way to escape the reality of what’s actually being done. And creating a fake scenario to prove a point is disingenuous. Why the heck would there be a five year old and a bunch of embryos in the same room? Then he went to add additional unrealistic parameters that would allow this person to safely move these embryos. Some people would try to save both, if his parameters about safe removal were true. The same as if 2 5 yr olds were in the room, they wouldn’t choose. There’s no way they’d know that they don’t have time.
Craig Reynolds 3 years ago
Hypothetical question. A woman goes into labor but there are complications, the complication is that only one can survive so a choice must be made. The woman is not conscious and cannot make the decision herself and she is also not married but is of legal age. One must die so the other can live. Where should the law stand on this situation? As a married man, I would ALWAYS choose my wife over any child but the woman above has no one to decide for her so what do YOU people think the law should decide?
Hypatia Vasilios 3 years ago
I wish you'd stop calling these people pro life. They're not, they're pro birth.
Jaja Noro Yao 3 years ago
According to the radical left if being pro life is foring people to be prgnat then being anti gun is foring people to deny the blelieth of the Us.Only Radicals would want To ban Abortions in rape incest problem with the mother or child or ehrn the parent’s are poor. Also how is it sexist,if you only suport abortions in rape,insect mother or child problems Like Manny terostist hate muslims and want to dcatate what they do but some Muslims ating terrosrist are muslims themselves. Like even trump support abortions in these situations howether he forgot to put laws in these place. Also, Only an Idiot would be pro life in these situations like only an Idiot would support forcing people to vaccinate against the FLU, an easily curable disease to people who can’t even afford the vaccines. Also one the supreme court Banned abortion in southern states while they where in northern states and also the head was a woman so I guess it does not matter your gender to make stupid desisions on abortions
Elinor Storey 3 years ago
This argument is just like the typical you choose either your best friend or a hundred people you don't know to die. The embryos have the same worth as the 5-year-old, just as your friend vs.100 people do to you. The difference is that you know your best friend, or the five-year old, better than those 100 people, or the 1000 embryos.
Brendon Phister 4 years ago
I didn't know that when people choose to have an abortion, they are choosing between that and saving a five-year-old child's life. My mind is blown.
Annie Pearson 4 years ago
Obviously the right choice is B. The five year old can run. The embryos can't.
Justin Burch 4 years ago
This doesn't really prove any points in my opinion. You can pick choice A and still believe an embryo is considered life. For example, if there were six kids in a room and I could only save one, but one of the six was my son, then I would pick my son over the other five kids. It doesn't make those other five kids less of a life, but I made a decision that made the most sense to me. With this scenario, it would make sense to save the child that's already been born simply because it would have a greater impact in our world. That child is more cognizant, he has a family, he can experience fear, etc. His death would have a more profound impact in this world than the embryos. It's a simple is that. There are two bad choices to begin with, so it's a lose lose no matter what.
Joseph Romano 4 years ago
The embryos do not have to be "equivalent" to a child to be considered the beginning of life. I could care less about whether women get abortions or not, I am a man and don't have a horse in that race. I am stating purely from an observational opinion that saying life begins at that stage has nothing to do with whether they are "equal" to a child or not. If you are going to use that argument, then, you can begin to argue that people on life support, or, in a vegetative state have lost their status as human beings, also.
Kathleen Sack 4 years ago
The problem with the question is that it is so black and white and life is not. Even if I chose the 5 year old child first, I would return for the other even if I had to risk my own life. No one life has value over another. We all have equal value in the eyes of God. Also, you play God when you destroy human life. I do believe in choice and that choice takes place before pregnancy. Be responsible.
Laura Lacasse 5 years ago
this man is saying that if you disagree with him , you're uneducated, lying, and dishonest. see, this isnt okay. im pro-life. hes clearly pro-choice. that doesnt mean i wont respect him. he is trying to silence us just like he is silencing the babies. just because our views differ, that doesn't mean that we arent both human. lets be RESPECTFUL. if a pro-choicer wants to tel me their views, im not gonna just shut them up. cmon. its simple respect.
Laura Lacasse 5 years ago
this man refuses to accept that anyone else could be right. if someone disagrees with him, he says theyre lying. just because you disagree doesnt mean the other person is lying. im pro-life. i firmly believe life begins at conception. if a pro-choice person tells me they believe life starts at birth, then i dont need to agree, but im not going to say they are being dishonest. if thats what they believe, thats what they believe. theres no need to be so aggressive. its really simple. im pro-life and your pro-choice. im not gonna block you or say you have no brain or completely silence you like you silence babies. im gonna respect your opinion and try to get you to understand my view. its called RESPECT.
Tiny Hands 5 years ago
So, I run a pro-life club at my high school and have done lots of research on abortions and such. The problem that I have with this question is: if there are 1000 embryos and I take that tub, where would I find 1000 mothers willing to give birth to them? I couldn't just walk around the side of the road asking people. I probably would get arrested because I am holding a tub of babies. Obviously, if I knew 1000 mothers that want a child, then I would take the tub, but otherwise I would save the child because I am positive I could save em. I am in no way implying that this child is more important than 1000 babies, but if I don't know anyone willing to be impregnated on the dot, then it's a no brainer. Wouldn't it suck if I took the tub and then find no mother to give birth to any? That would mean I let the kid die for no reason. This is not a matter of pro-life or pro-choice, this is a matter of who I am positive will live. The answer really depends on who is there at the right moment.
Lohn Sillybob Crofton 5 years ago (edited)
hmmmm ....how many people have ever found themselves in a fertility clinic , on fire, and having to choose between saving a 5 yr old child or 1000 viable embryos???? I'll tell you ZERO.....how many women find themselves murdering their own babies everyday???? I'll tell you. 2,365 A DAY. That real......Mr. Tomlinson is a science/biology denier who would rather take the argument to the "theorhetical" and even "fantastical" rather than make a logical realistic argument why he thinks life does not begin at conception. Whatever choice i made in his Kobayashi Maru scenario would literally have no effect on the reality of whether or not life begins at conception or not. Its a typical liberal tactic...create a false scenario and then say...."aha I got ya.".......as for me I would capt kirk your a*s and say....." I deny your perimeters and I will try and save them all"
Lohn Sillybob Crofton 5 years ago
Patrick S. Tomlinson is a typical science/biology denier who would rather take the abortion argument to the "theoretical" and even "fantastical" by asking a loaded question. How many people have ever found themselves in a fertility clinic that was on fire and had to choose between saving 1000 viable embryos or a 5 year old child....ZERO...How many women decide to murder their own babies everyday......2,365 thats real...... Creating a scenario that will never happen and then trying to force someone to answer does in no way make you smart....it actually makes you stupid for thinking that it makes you smart. Its literally the The Kobayashi Maru from star trek.....well.... ill captain kirk you and say....."I'm gonna try and save them all"....
Jon 5 years ago
How fukin stupid when planned parenthood makes a killing in the money that could have been used to build homes for mothers all over the WORLD and maybe even get their groceries in bulk from somewhere like Sam's. Especially with people like the guy from Detroit who builds classy little quonset homes for poor families. We live in an age of dipshits. The women who are having abortions are having now to deal with the decisions they made and guess who their gonna blame, when, not if, the reality kicks in that they are here able to choose their own decisions and the little life they chose FOR to die never had a single choice, not even over THIER own bodies.....their gonna blame people like this amoral monster Patrick and wish they could lock him up in a room with neither embryo nor child in it, but with all the people who pumped so much fear of what a child isn't into their minds and hearts instead of offering hope, and light that m**********r up.
Matthew White 5 years ago
I think the difference is that by making contact with the child there is an acknowledged level of accountability. By the cry of the 5 year old, they are asking you the question, will you help me? Since the embryos are incapable of communication, they would never receive the same consideration. Another point. A five year old can be helped and cared for in an ongoing way, what would the average person do with a jar full of embryos? People should stop debating this, there are as many answers to the question as there are factors that would effect the answer - everyone seems to have a stake in this conversation and an opinion about it. There is allot of math involved here with regarding ultimate responsibility which starts with desire and willingness to have sex and moves right on to an impregnated rape victim. While I think that some people may consider unwanted pregnancies to be equivalent to the disease we want a cure for there are also choices made to terminate a wanted pregnancy.
Anne Bailey 5 years ago
That is a stupid, sophomoric question, akin to what if you could save a thousand lives by killing one small child? The correct answer is you cannot answer the question, because no matter what you do, it would be wrong. That's life, kid. Live awhile and you may get it. Or not. Not every moral dilemma has a correct solution.
Tina Fry 5 years ago
I would save the child. I too am anti-abortion. And I do not feel an embryo should be considered life. Life is when there is a heart beat.. embryo's dont have heart beats. Yes they are 1 part of an equation to create life. But without the other part it is nothing but just an embryo.
Lakasha Latoia 5 years ago
This is a stupid argument. This fictitious scenario will literally never happen. It's like saying to a gay person: "if you could take a pill to make you straight, would you take it? No, you wouldn't take my fictitious pill that doesn't exist?! Then being gay IS a choice!!"
Steven P. McCarty 5 years ago
Respectfully Mr. Tomlinson, this a trick question with only one correct answer. The live child must be saved at the expense of the embryos, why? once the fire starts and the alarms go off, the electrical power is likely to go off as well. in such an emergency, the apparatus needed to keep the embryos frozen will have failed. To think these clinics just have boxes of embryos lying around is rather naive. Please refrain from your liberal use of profanity at this point. You offer a weak argument that has no basis in reality. Perhaps I will offer a different perspective on abortion that you might find refreshing. The fetus is not considered a human being and therefore cannot be considered a person. Need I remind you that corporations are not human beings either? Despite this fact, corporations are considered to be persons. Perhaps corporate person hood should be applied to the unborn, if that were to happen the unborn would then be protected. Quick, delete this post so no else can see it.
Maximilian Walter 5 years ago
You walk into a pet store on fire and there are 1000 flies in one corner (why? who knows) and a kennel of pups in the other. NO ONE would save the flies, but that doesn't mean that they aren't "living."
Indian Animations 6 years ago
That is not in proportion to the situation making the comparison wrong. This is supposed to make embryos, living things and potential human lives, seem unimportant. They are still living and important, by aborting you are ruining a life, and if you are still thick headed to the fact that it is not a life, it is still a potential life. In abortion you just destroy it, there is no 5-year-old kid, no other living thing involved. By aborting you are killing one living thing there is no difficult choice. Its really just monstrous to kill a life in general. In the constitution, it states that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Killing an unborn baby is violating its right. If you do not think that unborn babies have constitutional rights here is a conclusion by HARVARD LAW SCHOOL --------> https://www.wnd.com/2017/06/harvard-law-journal-unborn-babies-have-constitutional-rights/
Indian Animations 6 years ago
You can not compare this to abortion, in abortion you are killing something, murdering something, so you can not sit here and tell me that the embryo does not matter if you were in a room and saw embryos you would grab them. That is the debate, not the fact that there are two different living things, there is one and you want to murder it that is the pro-choice side. The question is not of relevance to the situation, total BS.
Rosco Schmitt 6 years ago
Erroneous assumption that the question has anything to do with ethics or abortion. Neither A nor B has any moral bearing on pro life. Pro Life is from Conception to natural death. The whole cycle of life. So A. and head out, get back in if possible to save others. The embryo tank will exist far after the fire is put out and doesn't have any bearing in the question. So pro life does support the child after conception, birth, and into life; as most all actual women's health clinics do as well. Abortion has nothing to do with women's health, or child care. Arguing that a mother is going to let her baby wither and die after carrying it to term is a false concept. In that case, the community ends up raising the child, placing him/her for adoption, or other means of "living". It's a baby, where do you draw your line at the beginning of life? when is purposeful killing a baby, too late? At one month, six months, three years, 18th year? Ethical answer - anytime after conception
Frank Lance 6 years ago
My thing is that this situation is circumstancial. i say if it is in our society a newborn is worth more, however imagine that we are in the apocalypse and I am the last person on Earth and the only way to continue the human species is by getting the fertilized eggs. Assuming I still gave a s**t about my species and had an adequate way to nurture them, I would take the fertilized eggs.
Dee Martin 6 years ago
So a follow up to his question is where did that five year old child start from. I am not for abortions but if put in a situation to choose eggs over a child it's simple, choose the child. The child is already here and conception does not guarantee a child at the end but in the end every human being in existence came from an embryo.
Rachael Newport 6 years ago
Of course you would save the 5 year old child over fertlzed eggs How could anyone NOT. Yet there are people who I think would just like they are all about cutting any services to children already here while screaming about abortions. Never mind the fact that it has been shown that when women have education and full access to a varities of types of birth control, ab ortion rates drop dramatically, Never mind the fact that abortions happened before Roe V Wade, they just were not safe and legal ones. Being pro choice is NOT the same as being pro abortion, just like being anti aboortion is not the same as being pro life. Are there people in the pro life movement who genuinely believe it is wrong to do abortins except in the most extreme cases like rape or health of the mother, of course there are. However the LEADERS of the movement are anti abortions, anti birth control, and anti providing any help to those families if they carry to term and then have children who need help.
Jim Lyons 6 years ago
A false dichotomy and unrealistic, given that the child is with a parent and the doctors can just as readily retrieve both the child and the embryos, not to mention that the embryos are at no risk it they're in a freezer, assuming there is a backup generator.... THAT SAID.... The potential parents are responsible for the pregnancy; therefore they, not others, are responsible for the birth and raising of the child. If the fetus is a living human being, then society says its a crime to end that life. It's irrelevant whether the new life is wanted. It has nothing to do with trying to control women. Yes, a living child is more important than a thousand potential children. They are potential human life each with their own DNA, but I think that a fetus becomes a person, a life of it's own right, once it has it's own bloodstream in operation about the 6th week. That is plenty of time to decide to abort or not to abort.
Mike Everly 6 years ago
Not having answer C is having the world in black and white. Life is not black and white. Where is the fire extinguisher? How big is the room? Is there another person nearby?
Tiffany Gabriel 6 years ago
The classic Morton's Fork. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest. Responding to one of those is about as productive as trying to carry on a meaningful conversation with a chat bot, but I actually am sympathetic to some of the points raised in the first paragraph. A stray dog nearly gave birth in my yard last year. I didn't want a dog, let alone a litter, and I knew no one else around here would, so I did the only sensible thing. As each fetus neared the birth canal I turned it toward a breech position. When the head was still in, meaning it was still a fetus and not a puppy, I ran a pair of scissors into the back of the head. Problem solved. Now some may call me a monster, and to them I say if you're not willing to adopt every stray dog in the world you have no right to speak on the matter.
Tony Daly 6 years ago
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, The embroes would be destroyed in the fire, the 5yr old would be saved. Do not miss the trueth, All whi perish frim this temporary life are translated into eternity, either to life with the Father, and Jesus the Christ, or to eternal separation and judgement, no second chances, babies and the young, before true conciousness, are heaven bound, its only when someone makes the choice to go to hell instead of surendering to Jesus. Confess Jesus as lord, believe in your heart, confess ypur sin, accept Jesus into your heart to be your savior, and you will be saved. Denie him and h3 will denie you before the Father in heav3n. Just stop and grasp that reality for a moment. Imagine you standing before a loving God, our eternal Father and Jesue the Christ whomhas paid for you!
Doug Oyler 6 years ago
Embryos in a frozen state are not the same as a living child. They are not the same until they are in the womb of a woman. Once a woman becomes pregnant that embryo starts to grow it does not in a frozen state. Not the same at all. I do believe in birth control and do think the insurance companies should cover them but I also do not believe in abortions as a means of birth control. I don't believe in abortions at all except in certain conditions. The lasting effects on women that have had them is very real. Such a stupid argument this man has given.
Rex Wilkie 6 years ago
Here’s your answer Patrick. If it has a heart beat, it’s a human being. Your areguement is nonsense. The embtyo haven’t even been fertilized and a human life being hasn’t been created. The five year old is a living breathing human being with an operating central nervous system.
ιρένε γλοβερ 6 years ago
his choice of words is bad because life just means the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. and that is actually how people can say that a cluster of cells is alive as technically it is. people who have had miscarriages do grieve that loss also. what we think is a child can mean so many things to everyone personally. i am 100% pro-choice, think it's up to the people involved to deal with their pregnancy how they see fit, just don't like his argument and find it has weak points for sure.
Jim Gorman 6 years ago
This is a straw man argument that has no logical connection to yes/no on abortion. To be logically connected, you would need to have a situation where an abortion lets an already born child live while not having an abortion results in an already born child being killed. This straw man proves nothing!
Visiones Manzanas 6 years ago
I think, pro-lifers (anti-abortionist) should be required to raise the child they want to stop from being aborted and free the mother from the responsibility. If the anti-abortionist aren't willing to take up the responsibility for raising the child, they shouldn't have an opinion over someone else's body. Then we would see how strong their convictions are.
Ron-Kay LaDue 6 years ago
I have ponder this many years...very good point that exposes the blatant hypocrisy of modern--so called--pro-lifers. I have always seen the hypocrisy...and the conundrum. There is fault on all sides to share, of course, but what elevates the pro-lifers platform to the greater level of hypocrisy is the way of control of other peoples, s bodies, progeny, and choices. Everyone wants to be God!... I have come to believe that we do to know when when a child becomes a "being". Only God knows. And perhaps a "being" is different than a biological host capable of providing an Earth-habotable home for a "being". My belief is that God places a spirit in these biological houses--call it "the breath of life" or "life Force", or whatever--but who can possible know exactly at what point...is it at the point of our INTENTION?...His INTENTION?...the point of conception? Or at any single point in the cycle of biological life? OR EVEN BEFOR--as it is written that God knows us before conception
Brad Slusher 6 years ago
In answer to his question, the difference between the 1000 frozen human embryos and the 5 year old child is this: awareness. As for "value", you can look at it as potential value vs. actual value. One is abstract, the other real. It's far easier to value the real over the potential, therefor you will invariably chose the child over the frozen embryos. It's instinctual. This is why "women and children first' is integral to a civilized society. This is my honest answer.
Chris Flynn 6 years ago
My question is. What the f**k is a 5 year old child doing in a fertility clinic in the first place ?
Donna Lyons 6 years ago
Have you met the child, will he be missed? You bet he will. Will someone miss and mourn the embryos? Doubtful, they'll mourn the cash it cost to harvest and store them.
Charlie Belhumeur 6 years ago
I'm not exactly pro or anti abortion. I'm a guy. But I recognize sophistry when I see it. He's created an artificial theoretical conundrum with very specialized and highly unlikely circumstances. Also those 1000 embryos are not the same as 1000 living embryos in 1000 women's wombs. "Life" is temporarily suspended by tech for the 1000 embryos and their status as "living" is subject to debate. The question should be a choice between a child and a pregnant women.
Jeff Brunnelson 6 years ago
I think it misses the mark. A child breathes Oxygen, embryos do not. There is a chance the fire will get put out. The OP stated himself stated the container was enough to preserve the embryos indefinitely. Wouldn't that mean those containers are able to withstand high temps too? I mean steel vs. skin?
Omar Robledo 6 years ago
IMO that argument is not brilliant but stupid. How can you compare a frozen embryo with an implanted thriving one???
John Eichler 6 years ago
They don't answer 'Honestly' simply because there is no 'Honesty' in the question. That freezer might contain 1000 frozen unfertilized eggs plus 1000 units of whatever quantity of frozen sperm would be deemed needed to fertilize them. But it cannot contain 1000 viable human embryos. The act of freezing them would kill them. In which case they would no longer be viable.
John Eichler 6 years ago
They don't answer 'Honestly' simply because there is no 'Honesty' in the question. That freezer might contain 1000 frozen unfertilized eggs plus 1000 units of whatever quantity of frozen sperm would be deemed needed to fertilize them. But it cannot contain 1000 viable human embryos. The act of freezing them would kill them. In which case they would no longer be viable. Abortion seldom if ever has anything to do with Health. It has to do with Convenience.
Joe Conder 7 years ago
This argument is getting a lot of circulation lately. Here is the answer: it only works if against someone who takes an absolutist position that a fetus has *exactly* the same status as a born child. Most pro-lifers don't hold this position. I don't. I don't hold that a fetus is no different than a born child. Obviously, it is. All that I, and I would venture to say most pro-lifers, claim, is that a fetus is an individual human life, and as such should not be killed without a damned good reason. Which type of reason does NOT include "lifestyle". Now for the question no pro-choicer can ever answer honestly: what part of "human life" do you deny to the fetus? It's living, right? It's human, right (or do you maintain it is canine?)? I'll be waiting.
Chevin Stone 7 years ago
the scientific definition of LIFE: The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. (https://goo.gl/V3XDbV) An embryo can't do any of the above without the assistance of its host (the mother). Embryos in a lab have been put in stasis (frozen) until they can be given a host (mother) to provide for it until it is mature enough to complete the tasks listed above. This is why embryos/fetuses less than ~24 weeks old, even with the help of science in a neonatal lab, do not normally survive. They can't do what they need to be able to do TO survive (see list above). This is also why fetuses/babies born before full gestation (~40 weeks) end up in neonatal wards in hospitals, because they require ASSISTANCE in continuing to survive (see list above). PROBIRTHERS (cus you aren't prolifers) be damned.
Chevin Stone 7 years ago
current scientific definition of life: The current definition is that organisms maintain homeostasis, are composed of cells, undergo metabolism, can grow, adapt to their environment, respond to stimuli, and reproduce. An embryo can't do that... it exists either because the host (mother) is providing all of the above for it) or it is put in a stasis (frozen) until it CAN be put into a host that will provide all of the above). Only when it is able to do these things INDEPENDENTLY, is it ALIVE. which is why premature babies less than 24 weeks old TEND to not survive... even with the help of SCIENCE. a living organism is able to do the things above. period.
Teal Postula 7 years ago
spot on.. I will remember this .. ps. The issue is NEVER raised that the whole "fetus is child " argument is based upon the beliefs of a SPECIFIC RELIGION. My belief is that a living child is the symbiotic joining of a non corporeal soul with an animal body, and that when the joining does not work out for any reason , including abortion, the soul finds and joins with a different animal body in a different situation.. The U.S. is not ( yet) a Christian theocracy .. p.s how can the Christian belief system make such a big deal about the soul leaving the human animal body ( or as they often say " dropping the overcoat") at death, but deem it impossible at the fetus stage pre birth?
Teal Postula 7 years ago
spot on argument in logic..i will remember this. ps NEVER is the issue raised that the whole " embryo is a child's life" argument is based upon the beliefs of a SPECIFIC RELIGION.. In my belief a child is the symbyotic joining of a non corporeal soul with an animal body, and when that joining does not work out for any reason including abortion, the soul finds a different body, a different situation for its unfolding. I repeat. THE. U.S. is not ( yet) a Christian theocracy.
Frank Tisellano 7 years ago
How about this one? In the room, instead of a child there are two crying women. You spoke with them earlier in the day. One told you that she is 6 weeks pregnant, the other isn't. Do you save the pregnant woman or the other? You can only save one...you don't know either one of them. they are twins. Using his argument, you'd select one at random...99.9% of the people would pick the 1.5-month pregnant woman.
David Jackson 7 years ago
A famous radio host was always saying anti-abortion people love the fetus but hate the child. Unfortunately, that seems to be the case. They would rather have a poverty stricken, drug addicted mother be forced to carry her child full term, and then, care less about the child’s welfare than allow the woman to make her own decision. Remarkably, this same group of people who scream about too much government would have no problem with government interference in a woman’s body. It’s called hypocrisy.
Chris Ware 7 years ago
I already know what pro-lifers are saying, this scenario is stupid, because you are forcing to choose between two forms of life. This is comparable to being a raft with your husband and father and you can save only one, who would it be? You are forced to make a moral decision. We all hope to never have to make that choice because it is an ethical place we never want to be in. The question by Mr. Tomlinson honestly has no bearing on abortion rights in my opinion. As someone who is anti-abortion but pro-choice, abortion should be a medical decision left between a female of consenting age and her doctor. We can all battle at what point the fetus is viable or abortion's morality. The decision itself should be up to the public.
Phil Flores 7 years ago
Not a difficult answer you save the child because there's no way to save 1000 viable human Embryos. The liquid nitrogen tank at the most used for embryos normally holds at the most ten. A tank holding 1000 embryos would be the size of a truck. Needed to stay (-196 ° C) Patrick S. Tomlinson is nothing more than a stupid man with a stupid question. Where part of the question is an impossible task. In his picture all you see is an ignorant man trying to look intelligent.
Rose Bradford 7 years ago
I agree I grab the child instinct the brain recognizes the visible life first.take care of our visible children and leave the judging too God.
Celestia 7 years ago
wow....all the children who could've become something one day.....Everyone who believes abortion is a moral, thing to do should've been aborted...because how would it feel if you never gasped air ever or even existed in the outside world..Yeah, but of course it's all about everyone for themselves. There are people who are dying to have children...while they are woman having sex and aborting fetuses because they can't take care of children. If that is such a big deal give your born child to someone who wants a child. People act like if they can't take care of the baby...no one can. My mom told me, she almost aborted me, but she was glad she didn't because I became successful and my mother is very sick, now and I take care of her. No one could imagine themselves not existing... because the world, only care about themselves.
Stephen Daily 7 years ago
In one corner of the burning room there’s a 5 year old child, and in the other corner is a box with a label that says “6 year old child inside.” You can only save one. Which do you choose? It’s the same argument. If the 5 year old was an a**hole and the container had MY embryos inside, I’d save the embryos. Feelings are not facts, and Tomlinson is a brain-dead d—khead.
Brenda Curtiss 7 years ago
Wrong! There is another answer to this predicament. I would grab the jar of viable embryos and tell the "5" year old to follow me to safety.
John Cooley 7 years ago
Unless you can justify "inaction is also an action," you could simply close the door and leave both to die without incurring any liability. But I still stand by my previous comment. I am not anti-abortion, but I still think there is a big difference between a live embryo growing in a woman's womb and an embryo that is "viable" and requires major medical intervention to become anything else. Also, what if, instead of a container of embryos, you had, say, three babies that were "human vegetables," incapable of reaction to the outside world and doomed to stay that way indefinitely? I'd still rescue the child.
John Cooley 7 years ago
This scenario leaves out one important fact: The embryos are *not*, in fact, viable without serious medical intervention. They must be properly implanted or in a "host mother" (assuming a quantum leap in technology) in an artificial womb. Consider if there were No fire and no intervention either way -- what would happen? The child would probably wander out and be found by someone. The embryos would merely unfreeze and die.
Kathy Woosley-Schnelle 7 years ago
I can only speak for me for my answer---but it was brought up above so I have to ask first...."Is the container with the embryos completely labeled as such, and in such a way as someone in said circumstance would indeed notice it?.....If I could visibly see both, I would grab both--even in a fire the space of a typical exam type room 12X12 maybe would not be so big as to not be able to get both. I had an abortion not because I believe in them but because of a complicated situation, also involving my health. So all life is important to me. I'm the stupid person who has also jumped into a dog fight because I did not want either animal hurt. People who will rescue will likely rescue both, people who only value some lives will have other views, and some people would even leave the live child behind to save themselves. Oh, I ran back into a 3-story burning building once to save the kittens on the top floor, so maybe I'm a rare bird, but I know what I would do.
Stephanie Gibson 7 years ago
He’s not playing fair and he knows it. So let’s turn it around. The same situation, a building is on fire but you can only save your mother or your daughter, not both. Who do you choose?
Alfred Parodi 7 years ago
It is a stupid question. In the first place you would not have thousand embryos in one place. We are talking about an embryo in a woman's body which is a life. It is all about sex and not a woman's choice. To be able to have sex with no protection and not have any responsibilities regarding the human life in her body. It has nothing to do with choice but it is murder plain and simple. No one has a choice when it comes to murder.
Kitty Tompkins 7 years ago
Are they viable enbroyos? Whose do say that a pregnant woman's embryos are alive. Only God can judge this one! w
Joyce Ellis 7 years ago
I think it is like saying you open the door and in one corner you find one of your children screaming for help. In another corner of the room there is your infant twins sleeping in the crib. You can save only one.
Sally Dahl 7 years ago
A human embryo belongs in the human body, not frozen in a container sitting in the corner of a room. I don't think your analogy is genius I think it's idiotic.
tom winter 7 years ago
This seems to sum up the situation well https://over-thoreau.blogspot.co.uk/
Lee Tomlin 7 years ago
I would say "A" because that 1 child is conscious of being, while the 1000 embryos have not reached that stage yet. It would be a hard choice, but the 1 child would know fear and pain and understand that it was dying while the embryos are not developed enough to have that understanding. It doesn't mean that the embryos are any less viable human beings, just that they haven't reached consciousness yet, and will not suffer as the 1 child would.
Mary LeBlanc 7 years ago
Most if not all of the tube of embryos will go in the garbage; which is why pro life is ethically. Against this practice. Instead of spending so much on fertility why not spend money to help connect those who need a child with those who would kill their child. Win win. Especially for both the women involved. We need outside the box thinking. Not the culture of death we seem to be mired in currently. As for the hypothetical argument presented; sometimes the imminent need of the one outweighs the need of the many and there is also the concept of the innocent suffering for the guilty. ('Not the child but the fertility experts)
Dawn Clark 7 years ago
An embryo that is growing inside of a mother is a child- an embryo in a petri dish is not growing, it is waiting to be planted. Once that embryo is planted and begins growing, it is a child. The mother does has the right to do what she wants with HER body- but she does not have the right to do what she wants with ANOTHER human body, even if that human body is growing inside of her. Pro-abortionists forget that the embryo that is growing inside of the mother is NOT part of her body. It is a separate entity, and is NOT her, but its own physical being. She does not have the right to end the life of the human being growing inside of her, because it is not part of her body. If a woman wants to be free from an unwanted pregnancy, there are other options. 1. Abstain from sex 2. use birth control 3. Get a hysterectomy. Killing the person that came into being because of your raging hormones or bad choices is NOT an option. They are NOT part of your body.
Cj Sinocruz 7 years ago
This doesn't make any sense at all. Because in the end, you will still feel the same pain no matter what choice you make.
Shawn Earle 7 years ago
That's ignorant as hell no one cares what they do with their body it's the totally seperate body they are slaughtering that people care about. You know the innocent one that doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Shawn Earle 7 years ago
No one cares what they do with their bodies it's the totally seperate body growing inside that people care about. Ya know the innocent one that is not given a choice in the matter.
Matthew Stahlecker 7 years ago
The answer is that he should not be stuck a pussy in the first place, run to the origin of the fire and try like hell to stop the damn fire. Obviously if he were running from it he woulld be too big of a coward to stop in a room for anyone or anything in the first place. Funny thing about this example he lays out....he is already preaching the importance of an individuals body to give a s**t about anyone other than himself in the first point. If he were not a coward and willing to show virtue with his argument for killing unborn babies, he would not think once about giving his life for anyone. Poor person to be throwing moral judgement towards anyone in any example......
Gerardo Jerry Grado 7 years ago
I could not stop laughing at the idiocy masked as intelligence. To begin with a person who is either pro life or pro abortion...you grab the child and run. Do you really take the time to look around the building? And regarding the embryos... they're harvested for fertilization and implantation... conception has not occured yet. That would be tantamount to saying ejaculation is viable life.
Michael Lovett 7 years ago
From Ben Shapiro: What if the embryos belonged to me and my since deceased wife?
ToobThis1 7 years ago
But those 'frozen embryos' are not growing in the jars.. if they were, they would outgrow them.. if a baby is inside its mother's body - It is Developing and Growing... Not the same thing at all... And being inside its mother's body - That is supposed to be the safest place in the world for it to be, Supposed to be, I say.. but we all know it isn't - because women are told they should treat a pregnancy like a disease or a parasite.
Jeffrey Dean 7 years ago
his man's supposed "genius" question is a logical fallacy known as "improper comparison." He attempts to equate 1000 viable embryos frozen in a laboratory tank with viable embryos that are inside a mother's womb, attached to her and growing into human beings. The real problem with this man's argument in the form of a question is that it begs the question. What is meant by "conception?" Conception traditionally means when the woman "conceives" of the child. An embryo fertilized by artificial means but never attached to a woman is not "conception."
Jeffrey Dean 7 years ago
This man's supposed "genius" question is a logical fallacy known as "improper comparison." He attempts to equate 1000 viable embryos frozen in a laboratory tank with viable embryos that are inside a mother's womb, attached to her and growing into human beings.
Mary Snyder 7 years ago
Personally, I think it is a stupid question in order to antagonize and nothing else. From the sound of your question, I take it that you are for the people who believe in abortion. This is a very passionate issue and people on both sides believe strongly in their stance. I respect both of you because I know you both have very good reasons why you believe as you do. Carry on.
Alan Park 7 years ago
This is a stupid question posed by someone who thinks he has outsmarted us pro-lifers. Of course you save the Child. The difference here lies in the fact that you must make a choice. It does not compare to the fact that with abortion you choose to Kill a live baby. There is no immediate life or death choice as in the example. Late term abortions are extremely disturbing because they cut the spinal cord of a fully developed baby who may be about to be born. That's murder and should be punishable by death. A woman's right to choose what happens to her body really is not the question. She chose to have sex (unless she was raped which is a different conversation) and has to live with the consequences of that choice just like a robber or murderer has to live with the consequences of their acts.
Deborah Hammond 7 years ago
This argument is the closest to perfect I've yet heard. It SHOULD shut them up, but it won't. The people who are willing to argue the point of abortion clearly have not given the issue a fair amount
Lorna Doak 7 years ago
Well of course the only true answer is A in this scenario because it certainly wouldn't be fair to punish a child for being born, but in truth the embryos have more value because they can be used in stem cell research to save more than 1,000 people that already exist. They have no value as people because they're only as alive as bacteria, but they have value as viable stem cells.
Ryan McBride 7 years ago
Ahh, the "Trolley Problem", and its variations, as proposed by Philippa Foot in 1967 and Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1985. Moral philosophers the world over love this challenge: The greatest benefit versus the greater good. At the centre of the argument in its manifestation above, however, is NOT what the protagonist would do in the heat of the moment and is NOT based on a full understanding of when life begins and it NOT predicated on religious belief, but on how an individual (and a group, dare I say) values/sees the end of life. Or to put if more pointedly, it is a question of who and what has the authority to end life (born or unborn).
Sharron Hilton 7 years ago
Stop getting yourselves pregnant with an unwanted child in the first place. I'm against abortion for myself as I could never get one. I have 2 living and 1who was born at 6 months into my pregnanc, he lived a month and 3 days. Now how many women actually find out they are pregnant before at least 6 to 7 weeks in? If a woman finds she is preg. Before that time and wants to abort then go ahead it's your body, it's you who spread your legs and got pregnant not me. My issue is late term abortions. You know when the mother feels movement, knows it's gender, knows it has a beating heart, and lungs, liver, arms,legs, eyes, mouth, nose and ears. Those abortions need never happen.
Elizabeth Mayer 7 years ago
I guess not everyone thinks of abortion the same way. In my experience it wasnt an easy experience. But u do have those s****y people that abort without regard.
Kim Bledsoe 7 years ago
I find this very interesting. I would pick the child who is standing in front of me without a second thought!
Trudi Gilmore 7 years ago
I know some eggs are still around after menopause -do women die with unused eggs?
Dustin McNab 7 years ago
Can we at least agree a human being with a heartbeat and/or brain activity is human life worth protecting? Why is the debate focused on the mother's body when the other body inside her is the real issue? The baby is inside the mother's body, not just another part of the mother's body. Why do people use the "disadvantaged children" argument as justification for abortion? If life hardships justify aborting the fetus while it's in the mother's womb, why does it change after the birth? What if the father get's sick of the crying and totally abandons the mother 6 months after the birth? Life would get a lot harder for the mother then, so why can't she use 'disadvantaged child' and 'life hardships' to justify the abortion at that point?
Ismail Haq 7 years ago
It's nothing but a hypothetical situation but in real life you of course don't pit a embryo in a mother's womb to any child so it does really prove nothing because when abortion comes you only option is between your singular child whether he gets to see tomorrow or not
Gayle Putt 7 years ago
But how many of those embryos are still embryos when they are torn from the womb? There must be a line drawn somewhere. Aborting children who are near term is barbaric.
Gayle Putt 7 years ago
But how many abortions rip near term children from the womb? That is nothing but barbaric. Someone needs to draw a deep line in the sand.
Nika Go 7 years ago
Of course I would say A too! But what does that have to do with abortion?..... Honestly, its not that you abort a child to save another child....... If you can handle the responsibility to have sex you also have to handle the responsibility to give birth to the child that results from it.
Quinn Alexander 7 years ago
Anyone ever hear that 'Don't like guns don't buy one' argument? Ever apply the same principle to gay marriage and abortion and watch the same people lose their s**t?
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Hey, Pat, baby, here's a plot for your next sci-fi novel: the world is dying, you've built a spacecraft capable of reaching a habitable planet, you and a boy are the only living, breathing, human beings left on the planet, but there is a container, the same weight as the boy, that contains 1,000 embryos, and everything needed to bring them to life as you define it, which do you save?
ame rodriguez 7 years ago
I would answer A. Definitely. Next question. Same scenario but instead of seeing a child you only see the thousand embryos. Would you? A. Save the thousand embyros and save yourself or B. Just run and save yourself.
Don Pe 7 years ago
A decade? This answer took me 3 seconds. It is a question out of perspective but since he asked, the answer is "A". But in real life it is not about a boy versus a container. It is about the life of any pregnant women. And it's her life and her body - ergo it has to be her choice. Period.
George Hall 7 years ago
In that situation you're in a panic. Logically, you should save the 1,000. But since humans tend to cater to whatever thing is the loudest, so most would save the child. I'm pro life and logically, I would save the 1000, but in the situation, the 5 year old. Besides, life has different value at different points. I bet we'd all save the 5 year old over an 80 year old man
Gregory Rapier 7 years ago
An embryo outside the womb is not a child because it will not grow till it is in the womb. Abortion is the death of a growing child. Because you see it as a viable argument is not proof the prolife people are wrong but more proof that you think you have the right stand on this argument. So once that embryo is implanted in wall of a womb and starts to grow it is at that point a living being with all the rights and needs as any other being. You or anyone else have no idea as to what that child will grow into and no one should cut that life short. Let me ask you this. Your go into a bank with the intention to rob it. In doing this act you shoot a young woman and she dies. After it is determined she was pregnant and she didn’t even know it at that time. You would be charged with two murders under the law. So how is it murder in this case but not when done on purpose? It is your right to think whatever you want. That doesn’t mean you are correct in your belief. Abortion as a means of birth
Kim Lorton 7 years ago
I think his answer, is spot on. It is a choice , only a pregnant woman can make. And she should be the only one making it, and no one else, under anyone's influence. I refuse to let anyone, man or woman, make that choice for me. And, like he said, choose the embryos? You'd never be allowed around anyone's child! And I'll bet, especially a prolifer! Now, add on to the little scenario, what if it was your child, in the corner, or the 1000 embryos? That is even more definitive! So, pro lifers, your child... or the 1000 embryos? Which do you choose!
Sandy Halliburton 7 years ago
while this is an interesting question, the comments are beyond belief! after about a dozen totally ignorant retorts, i give up. you really can't fix stupid. and this problem has no solution since there is no way to compromise here. one side "wins" or the other side "wins". as for the "antichoice" crowd, at least i can say with absolute surety that no matter what you do, you will not stop abortions. i am never going to convince a "prolifer" that aborting a clot of cells is not murder. so i am going to stop trying. we just have to make sure enough of the "pro choice" crowd get their lazy asses out there to VOTE!
Loarne Ferguson 7 years ago
I would like to ask Patrick Tomlinson a question: if his mum and dad were trapped in a burning room and he only had time to save one of them, which one would he save? Would there be a correct answer?
Gabriel McBride 7 years ago
Well, I have seen more than one person answer his question honestly, so he is being deceptive in his original statement of no one answering honestly; he just ends up berating and belittling anyone who does answer as holding less value than the question itself, and he changes the scenario or adds to it while you are not allowed to play by his rules. His behavior invalidates the point he is trying to make, why not make the 1000 embryos into one pregnant woman who has a life of her own and the 5 year old child; then which would he save, the pregnant woman who is responsible for the child inside of her, or the 5 year old child; would he consider it to be a situation of 2 lives vs one, or would he choose the child and allow the pregnant woman to burn? This would be a more accurate representation towards the debate he is trying to make, would he ask the woman whether she planned to keep the baby before deciding; if she planned to abort the child would he still save her or leave her?
Spencer Edsall 7 years ago
You cannot use an extreme circumstance to justify a normal circumstance. In our lives I guarantee that this will never happen, thus we cannot use this to justify a woman’s right to kill an unborn child. If you take this stance you still have to say that abortion is murdder
Philip Brett 7 years ago
It's a false dichotomy. The embryo will develope into a human being over time within the mother. The ones in a tray are not in that enviornment. I'm in favor of a woman's right to choose but this is no debate ending argument.
Paul Joshua Eradio 7 years ago
Just gonna leave Ben Shapiro's answer here. Apparently Patrick blocked him on twitter after giving this response and destroying his argument. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3jrC0J46U
Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
Just read a listing of logical fallacies. I can pick out at least three. If anyone wants to compete, please let me know how many fallacies you found and what they are. Mine were affirming the consequence, excluded middle fallacy, and emotional appeals.
Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
Just to make it clear, this article is chalked full of logical fallacies and is an unadulterated piece of c**p.
Load More Replies... Timothy Hawks 7 years ago
This is freaking ridiculous. Ludicrous in fact. It is actually dripping with logical fallacies. His primary argument is actually an example of the logical fallacy affirming the consequence. Essentially, You care more about the three year old than about the embryos. You claim to care only about things that are alive. Embryos must not be alive. This is a preposterous argument lacking in any degree of scientific merit designed merely to strike you with a blind emotional appeal. If you actually are pro life and found this to be illuminating, I feel sorry for you. If you are pro choice and found this to be a reasonable argument, I feel equally sorry for you.
Lynette Rodgers 7 years ago
Lets all give birth to healthy babies that don't go through the embryo stage. Is it possible? Does a cake go through a wet stage before it is cooked and frosted? Is it cake in the bowl? Does it become cake in the oven? Can you EVER have cake without first going through the wet stage? Everything has a beginning and an end. Even the author of this stupid article. He was once an "Embryo". He could not have written this article if he had not been an embryo at one point in time.
Mark Gall 7 years ago
Superb question, and I applaud your scenario Patrick. Retired fom U.S. Federal law enforcement, I traveled for nearly 8 years in 21 third world countries in Central/South America and Asia, and have seen countless people in horrendous physical and mental conditions who then have children of their own who are destined to live in hell, as those countries provide no birth control and prohibit abortions. Nations have the tools to allow nearly all births to occur, but often fail in providing a reasonable life after birth. We send aid to third world countries that allows most of the children to be born, but they will often die of malnutrition/disease/violence as soon as the aid stops, and it will NOT continue forever. Yes, I’m a bit off topic, but people who insist on a birth from another person but refuse lifetime aid to them, if needed after birth, are truly despicable controlling asses.
JuggHead Jonez 7 years ago
then why do they make the woman wait weeks? until the fetus is big enough to cut up and or suction out of the womb? they have arms and legs and heart and brain
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
This Man Asked A Simple Question Online That Shut Down The Whole Anti-Abortion Argument... Untill he got #Trolled!
Why did Patrick S. Tomlinson have to un-pin his Viral Post? Because he Tried to say he was Trolling a #TrollMaster that had been seasoned by #4Chan from the age of 14... He was Trolled for 15 hours, and his "Flawless Argument Scenario" was Invalidated with a Single Basic and Widely understood Psychological concept... pareidolia!
https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552 Paradolia-...31-png.jpg
Michael Hartford 7 years ago
Actually this is a false analogy. If the eggs, fertilized or not, have not been implanted then they are not actually able to grow any more than those peanuts in the store. Once they are implanted and have anchored onto the uterus wall then they have actually achieved growth and the start of life. Just like a nut or a seed has the full potential of a plant but will not achieve it until it has been planted. Conversely why do pro-choicers mourn when a woman has a miscarriage? If it isn't a life then why would they mourn it?
Lisa Marie 7 years ago
I had two early miscarriages prior to having my son. While I was very sad about the miscarriages, I know that those losses were nothing compared to what people who have lost children go through. Embryos are not children YET. That is the point here.
Michal Figas 7 years ago
I got a spin-off question. //I'm rather against the "Life begins at conception", mind you.// What if you were to choose to rescue either the 5-yo, or (instead of the embryos) a pregnant woman's baby (let's ignore the explanation of why and how). I assume most people wouldn't be so sure of the answer this time. This is no check-mate kind of argument, unless you're ignorant enough to score every aspect of any issue from your own perspective only. It does, however, imply the superiority of the "born = alive; else = not alive" approach.
Danny Mahoney 7 years ago
The embryos are life, but the minute you take them out of the building which is on fire and don't have environment control for them immediately they'll die. Therefore the five year old is the only intelligent and responsible answer to the question. Discussion over.
Marilyn Matthews 7 years ago
You make the assumption that you can't save them both.. but you underestimate God... with His help you CAN rescue both.. too many people underestimate God and what He will enable one to do.. to live through.. to accomplish.. with His help... remember David? He didn't hesitate to take on the impossible.. and he succeeded with God's help... a man or woman using only his own strength might not be able to accomplish the 'impossible' .. but if God wants it done it WILL happen... so your argument is just short sighted and without faith.
Paul Kasprzak 7 years ago
It's not a valid "shut down" of pro life people. What if the fertilized eggs were yours and the five year old wasn't? What would you choose then? How about you have a five year old and viable embryos. You're the last person on Earth. Do you save the embryos that will save the human race, or save the five year old and doom humanity? Stupid question from a stupid man.
Derek Matchatis 7 years ago
Loves IT! The body belongs to the the owner. Stop your fukn religious s**t...and shut up.
Adam Brashear 7 years ago
I don't think this question that was asked is profound by any measure. All first responders are trained in resuscitating physical human being life. So as a human responder to any emergency incident in which lives had to be saved the human being is a natural and most moral natural response. Furthermore you can take his argument and place it any situation such as a vehicle full of embryos and a five year old passenger in a collision with a exploding oil tanker on a highway during rush hour traffic. Would that change the outcome as to what a passerby would do? Nope! A passerby would do exactly the same - save the human life or lives. Giving no thought to the cargo plainly identified as embryos on the side of the vehicle. However, one would give a different conclusion if the lives to be saved were on a different planet such as the moon or Mars. Where the definition of life is microscopic. And the only passersby are scientists, then a scientist would attempt to save "lives"
Reagan Colbert 7 years ago
What complete and utter BS. First of all, if people didn't harvest embryos like some kind of genetically modified product, that would never be a scenario at all. If we never had practices like this, it wouldn't be an option in the first place. And second, as a strong Pro-lifer, I am literally torn by this question. One life vs. 1k lives? I can't choose. Yes the five year old is the breathing, screaming life before you, but only because those 1k can't scream yet, can't tell you that they're about to die. They don't even know it, because they weren't given the chance at complete, mature development. Instead they're harvested like a crop. My gut says save the 1k embryos. Then again, you never know if those lives will be "harvested" or not, so you're taking a chance either way. Every "organism" should have the chance at life, at being saved.
Lilli Werstler 7 years ago
You can have any sort of trick questions ready to make your point. I think that you are either pro life, or you are ok with killing the unborn
Gene Laratonda 7 years ago
If you see your mama in one corner and 3 ugly children in the other corner, who do you choose? If you see your childhood bully in one corner and those are you're 10,000 vialble embryos who do you choose?
Teresa Kander 7 years ago
There IS an option C....grab the container of embryos, and tell the child to grab onto the back of your shirt and not let go...then everyone gets out safely.
Shannon Mizell 7 years ago
We were all embryos at one point. Look at us now. Nevertheless, frozen embryos have the potential to be a human at some point with a beating heart, lungs, brain, etc. I think this a similar analogy with the debatable conundrum that has been argued over the years......"Which came first? The chicken or the egg?" We eat eggs that are not fertilized. But, we also eat chickens too. Maybe we are treating children the same way.
Mike Henderson 7 years ago
I'll answer your question. A fertilized egg ( embryo ) is not a child. It's not viable. It becomes viable only when it attached to the mothers womb and can be nourished. Your argument is nonsense and without merit. conception is usually accepted as the onset of pregnancy that begins when the fertilized cell (blastocyst) implants itself in the lining of the womb of the mother
Mike Henderson 7 years ago
it's a bogus argument. I'll answer it for you. Conception means fertilization. Viable embryo's are the result of fertilization .Fertilization clinics keep eggs and sperm from donors. After fertilization they then implant after a suitable host is located. Now the viable aspect. To be viable and considered conceptual the embryo must be settle in the womb and be nourished by the mothers system. If it does not become excepted is not viable So your argument is nonsense. conception is usually accepted as the onset of pregnancy that begins when the fertilized cell (blastocyst) implants itself in the lining of the womb of the mother
Daniel Scarborough 7 years ago
The issue with the situation, is that the scenario, has nothing to do with whether or not abortion should or should not be allowed. If you admit that the viable embryos have "less value", then you have admitted that they have value, and have not proven that they are not "life". So you are still ("potentially") taking a life. My question in retort to his, supposedly, genious question is this; how weak do you have to be to not be able to carry two five year olds? If the container is the same weight as the child, and the child is not severely handicapped, the situation is simple to resolve. Piggy back the child and carry out the embryos at the same time. I happen to have a 6 year old, and if I had to carry three of him out of a burning building, I am certain that I could muster the strength to do it. IF I fail, then I will only be judged as evil, by the amoral liberals, who try to come up with any stupid scenario they can conceive to try to trip up moral people.
Dennis Pedigo 7 years ago
No matter how you slice it the embryos are not valid unless they inhabit a womb. Since we are talking about abortions don't we need a womb? Your scenario is stupid. Of. Of course you grab the kid.
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
Admit your Scenario is flawed… You been #Trolled for 15 hours dude! Paradolia was the kicker then! You failed! Just admit it!
https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552
In final Reply to:
https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672 burn-59f5c...ec-png.jpg
Ravi Kumar 7 years ago
Admit your Scenario is flawed… You been #Trolled for 15 hours dude! Paradolia was the kicker then! You failed! Just admit it! https://twitter.com/WitWGARA/status/924594597631639552 In final Reply to: https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672
Jerry Frankowiak 7 years ago
If the Embryos was in a woman and you save her ..do you save one or two ...think about that ...
Alex Raedish 7 years ago
No contest ... No-brainer ... 100% accurate. Could it be that the ant-abortionists/right to lifers had their brains aborted?
Clarence Page 7 years ago
It is not a simple question, rather, a complex setup, a maze designed to trap. Further, it has no bearing on reality.
Usman Mahmood 7 years ago
According to Islam life does not begin at conception but at 120 days after conception. According to science; that's the stage after which there is a rapid burst of neurological development. Aborting before 120 days is ok in my books, but not after. According to Islam that's the line. No one has to agree, but I feel that's really an acceptable middle ground between pro-lifers and pro abortion lobbies.
Usman Mahmood 7 years ago
Allow me to answer this man's question; I'll choose the live, screaming and kicking child of course. However despite the irrelevance of the hypothetical question allow me tackle the subject more seriously. According to Islam life does not begin at conception but at 120 days after conception. According to science; that's the stage after which there is a rapid burst of neurological development. Aborting before 120 days is ok in my books, but not after. According to Islam that's the line. No one has to agree, but I feel that's really an acceptable middle ground between pro-lifers and pro abortion lobbies.
Markel Fãith 7 years ago
Truthfully speaking this is sort of a trick question because you put an actual baby screaming for life versus potential babies or babies that haven't been born yet. Instinctively people will go for the baby crying. Why because it's crying it's right there in front of you so of course you're going to save the baby that's crying versus The Thousands that you can't see. In all honesty if it came down to it I will save the ones that I can actually save if I can say the Thousand embryos I will save them if I could save the baby I'll save him you see you don't. I mean that's like saying who would you save your mother is drowning on one side and your children are drowning on the other side of you which one would you save and if some people would try to save their children others would go and try to save their mother. The correct answer is you'll save whoever you can save in try if possible to go back for the remainders. Firefighter do it all the time and yes I do believe life begins at concep
Natasha Millard 7 years ago
I love Ben Shapiro's video response to this one. You can listen to it here (starts at 2:45 and ends at 15:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMyEu3hSjX0&t=999s
Glenn Taylor 7 years ago
What a ridiculous and disingenuous question. An embryo is not a fertilized egg so it's merely organic matter no more less so than muscle tissue or any other part of the body. It is not growing or evolving so therefore it is not new life. Wow, so much for the question shuts down pro-lifers every single time. Talk about a lame article with a big agenda.
Rusty Morris 7 years ago
There are at least 5 decision points, i.e. choices, before the vast majority of females face the option, i.e. choice, of abortion. As for Mr. Tomlinson's question,: Since the 5yo was able to is able to walk and/or run, I'd tell the 5yo which way to run and then I'd grab the embryos. If it means I die, I die.
Sylas Condon 7 years ago
Your mind is corrupt to think killing babys is ok no matter how big or what stage it is still a baby!!! God will hold you accountable!! People say freedom of choice,but don't care about the baby choice to freedom of life. I'm tired of people thinking the Catholic religion is the true Jesus saving gospal it is not. The Catholic sistem is paganism. Catholic worship status and the bible tells not to worship status...
Jerie Armentrout 7 years ago
Exactly on point. It is an individual womans own decision whether to have an abortion or have a child. No one else should be involved .....at all. Not even the provider of the sperm. He does not have to carry the child in his body and does not have to be responsible for the rest of his life for that child. It is not a matter for government, religion or any other person to decide. Just for the woman who is pregnant.
Robert Keller 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro ripped this guy a new awhile better than anybody could. Look it up.
Judy Zilinski 7 years ago
This is not a straightforward, black and white question as the writer alludes to. Let us change the scenario to be that there is a child and 5 elderly, seniors ( 100+) with dementia that you can get out. Who do you choose? Of course, we put a value to life in a crisis situation. First responders often face those challenges at some time in their career. Abortion is not a question if one is more valuable than another. I fail to see the point of this. It is a made up scenario, in a situation that could never happen and does not measure what it suggests it does. It seems if you do not answer in the manner this fellow wants you are a monster for making your choice.
Johnny Owens 7 years ago
I think Tomlinson is a liar, because I believe he has gotten an honest answer in a decade of asking. I will answer it, I will save the 5 year old. So Patrick, there you go, you can never use this scenario again, Johnny Owens would save the five year old.
Rallem Semaj 7 years ago
That is a specific scenario thought up by an evil mind. The question I would answer is save the child, not because the child is worth more than the thousand embryos, but because I know the child is alive, from my senses. With the embryos they are just a Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, where I cannot really know if they are alive, or dead, just from a label on the box saying they're alive.
Jim Flaming 7 years ago
If you save the embryos you risk not being able to keep them frozen and then you will lose them and the 5 year old. Anyways I don't think people are saying that embryos are equivalent to born children. Only that an embryo is alive and a human. Anyways I didn't know you could freeze an embryo. The analogy is not a very good one
Ken Groen 7 years ago
My right answer is you save the one child, I don't believe in artificial insemination therefore I wouldn't recognize embryos outside of a woman to be actual life. They would just represent a scientific experiment. I like it when people claim to know the answer to something that people have been arguing for years.
David Champeau 7 years ago
It is a ridiculous argument. Black and white/A and B choices are set up to favor the authors view. The real answer is C: Either. We make choices before we incarnate in this world and while we exist. Saving any life is the right answer. It has nothing to do with your stance on abortion.
Jerlana Knight 7 years ago
I would be far more inclined to respect and at least listen to the pro-abortions crowd if they weren't hysterical and sometimes violently emotional and threatening whenever someone makes an argument for responsibility, education and frank talk with the people who want abortions. I raise the idea of education and explaining to the people who want abortions about responsibility (inadequate, but a good start) and I am The Devil Incarnate. EVERY pro-abortion candidate I have EVER met CANNOT argue, CANNOT be reason, CANNOT be logical and occasionally cross the line into club-thumping, screaming, insane-asylum violence.
Jerlana Knight 7 years ago
This is twisting basic logic so hard that I would lose my temper if I wasn't giggling so hard. First off is the assumption (typical, boring and so unrevolutionary it belongs in the instruction manual of a buggy whip) that anti-abortion people are evil incarnate. Second off is that NO ABORTION EVER involves an 'abortion' that takes place OUTSIDE OF THE WOMB. Bringing it up is like proposing a theoretical where the person being discussed a) wants an abortion b)has been raped c)has cancer d) is in an abusive relationship c) is poor. It's the most self-serving, unintelligent. Pro abortion people want you to believe that an embryo being aborted from the womb IS THE SAME AS AN EMBRYO BEING ABORTED FROM IN IT. And pro-abortion people NEVER discuss the portion of abortions that occur because the person is too lazy, vain, stupid to get their tubes tied or a vasectomy or thinks birth control is uncool and somehow never connects that with pregnancy until it's too late and they're the victim.
Tony Wright 7 years ago
What some one else does with there body is their business. Simple. I can't see what's wrong with that rock solid logic. No need for hypothetical thought experiments. I honestly can't even begin to imagine the line of reasoning I'd have to employ to make what some one else does with their body seem like my business.
Hagen Walter 7 years ago
it's not a question of morality ... it's exactly about the thing that this bloke reckons he has the moral high ground on ... taking personal responsibility for your actions ... which is exactly what the elite psychopaths don't want you to do.
Gregory DuBois 7 years ago
The correct answer is a, save the crying child who would suffer more by such a death. But, this does not destroy the anti abortion effort because the question is actually logically parallel to if there were two living people in the room, one in each corner and you only have time to get one. You still have to decide. You must save one. That is a moral obligation. The tragedy is that you are not given the power to save them all. But by some criteria, you will make a pro life choice.
Wendy Morelli 7 years ago
Actually I don’t engage so much in that argument. My argument has to do with 1. Choice is not merely the right to control our bodies in the right to not bear children- it’s also the right to bear children and not have the government limit family size. If you give up the right to terminate a pregnancy you will also lose the right to have more children than the government thinks you should have. 2. Mothers are at least equally or more qualified than corporations governments or the military to preside over life and death. Yet so far this is currently who selects those who have the right to live or die. We decided that without the contribution of women these other people with that power do a lousy job.
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Or better still: You have been seeing 3 girlfriends Can't decide between them Think you love all 3 equally You are all discussing your future when 1 takes you aside to say she's carrying your baby Fire breaks out You can save either her OR both others Which would you choose?
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And another You have been seeing two girlfriends Can't decide bwtween them Think you love both equally You are all three discussing your future when a fire breaks out and you can only save one One has just told you she is pregnant with your child Which do you save
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
And another, what if you had separated from your partner because they are a really nasty, criminal, even, person, you wanted your baby embryo to be given the chance of life, but your ex partner wanted the embryo destroyed, a fire breaks out, your ex is overcome, if s/he dies you get to choose whether the embryo is implanted in a surrogate (or yourself if you are female), do you choose to save the ex partner, or the embryos?!
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
The oh so clever author's questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Firstly, there are many pro life activists and organisations that DO care for, and even adopt, babies that pro memememers want to kill (and, no, I'm not rabidly anti-abortion or dogmatically pro-life). One of the biggest is the Catholic Church (and, no, I'm not Catholic), that is one of the most successful adoption organisations, especially for disabled children. Secondly, what if the choice was between saving a woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and the baby?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out).
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
His questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Here's another question: What if the choice was between saving a drug addict, criminal, low life, woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and and a container of eggs? Rare eggs! Very rare eggs!! Either in shells, or frozen embryos as in his example?! AND THEY ARE THE LAST SURVIVING EXAMPLES OF THE SPECIES?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out). Or what if you're in a zoo breeding lab, and the same woman has been overcome by fumes from the fire, and in the other corner of
Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
Ooops, that last sentence should have been in the middle somewhere!
Load More Replies... Jeremy Bonington-Jagworth 7 years ago
His questions, and "answers", are balderdash! Firstly, there are many pro life activists and organisations that DO care for, and even adopt, babies that pro memememers want to kill (and, no, I'm not rabidly anti-abortion or dogmatically pro-life). One of the biggest is the Catholic Church (and, no, I'm not Catholic), that is one of the most successful adoption organisations, especially for disabled children. Secondly, what if the choice was between saving a woman that had used abortion annually, usually quite late term, purely as a means of contraception, because she had gone off the father, couldn't be bothered with the hassle of raising a child, maybe even to get at an estranged boyfriend she'd grown tired of, and the baby?! Which would the author save? (The woman has fainted, but is slight and light, and easily dragged out).
Ann Darnell 7 years ago
The headline makes it sound like someone has finally solved the puzzle with one profound question. However, the question is not all that powerful. For example, if there was a fire and you could only save the child in the room leaving her elderly grandmother behind which would you choose. The hope is that there will be time to save everyone but, due to the constraints of the question, there isn't. Time and the fire are the limiting factors--not whether or not the embryos are, in fact, living human beings.
Gordon Levett 7 years ago
One of my fellow colleges asked me one day, if I saw a black man and a dog drowning in a swimming pool, who would I safe. I said the black man of course. He became angry with my answer. I'd save a life first and foremost. The child over the embryos.
Chris Raimo 7 years ago
Wow. A cocky a*****e for sure. It’s a good point and I think most people, regardless of their stance would save the 5 year old. But I do t think that’s the argument coming from most sane people. Embryos are not the pain point. 15, 18, 20 week fetuses are. That’s who pro lifers refuse to acknowledge in this debate. So replace those 1000 embryos with 1000 women with 20 week old babies in them. What’s the right answer now?
Daniel Lacerda Marchon 7 years ago
What a piece of b******t, the argumento most common accetable is that life begins when the pregnancy starts, or when the embryo attaches to the uterus wall... Other way pro life would be protesting against embryos being kept in fridges. Also the pro choice does not debate about cells or embryos but about fetuses, wich are 6 to 8 weeks. But pro choicers extend the "freedom of abortion" up to 24 weeks or more, wich is indistingushble from infanticide.
Rebel Angel 7 years ago
Listen dude, 1000 lives are more important than one and that's a fact is that embryos are alive and if one of those embryos were yours, we wouldn't be having this discussion....deal with the fact that we were all embryos and if our parent didn't care about life more than you obviously do, you wouldn't be here to support murder
Chico Martins 7 years ago
I'm sorry, but it is a stupid question. Viable embryos does not mean that a life will grow form it. They'll probably end up in the garbage. The kid is alive. There's no other choice. Take the kid and get the f*ck away. The real question is: why the hell people still get pregnant, if they do not want kids?? It is simply stupid. IMHO they all shoukd get a ravaging case of crabs, or some ugly std, just to learn to wear protection, and also to stop being so cheap and buy some f*cking pills!!
Ruth Howlett 7 years ago
On a sign near Thamesville Ontario is a puppy and a fetus. The puppy says to the fetus, "You mean you don't have a human society to protect you."
Judy Thiry 7 years ago
I was adopted as an infant. My bio mother had one other alternative--- abortion. But does that make me any less glad to be alive? The fact that she didn't want me has no effect on my life other than she choose to give me to people who desperately wanted a child.
Sheila Foley 7 years ago
Let me state that I'm not anti-abortion. I don't embrace abortion but I never want to go back to the days prior to legal abortion. However, I don't think the argument proves that they don't believe the embryos are people. For example, if your child is in one corner and two children unknown to you are in another corner, and you can't save all three, who are you going to save? Your child or the two unknown-to-you children? Most will pick their own child, does that mean the other two children aren't seen as people? I don't think so. My problem with anti-abortionists is are they foster parents? Have they adopted an unwanted child? If they have not, then they have no business being part of the discussion. As everyone knows, parent or not, giving birth is the simplest part of raising a child. Someone HAS to take care of these children, and take care of them WELL.
Elizabeth Casey 7 years ago
That's not a bad argument. A human embryo in a petri dish is not totally worthless, but only the hopeful parents associated with each particular one ought to place a great deal of value on it. It's blatantly not a person yet. I don't see a case against abortion. It's all utterly absurd pretending to care whether or not someone else goes through with a pregnancy, and that's not something anybody should give the slightest flip about. Mind your own business. An embryo/fetus does not know or care at all whether or not its development continues or completes. The fact that it's biologically human is immaterial and unimportant. The "potential" doesn't matter; only the actual. If your parents had aborted "you," you wouldn't have known and it wouldn't matter. (Just be born at another time, hopefully in a better position!) You wouldn't have been yourself yet--just the beginnings of what would become "you," not even conscious of your own existence. (cont.)
Elizabeth Casey 7 years ago
And to assume that any given "proto-child" would, if it could understand and be fully informed ahead of time, choose to be born, is asinine. No one asks to be born. If abortion is even being considered, there's a good chance that the situation is not a very kid-friendly one, and quality of life is key. The very last thing this world needs is more humans born to parents that are unable or unwilling to provide a good quality of life for their offspring. Far better to simply end a pregnancy than to allow for suffering. Pro-choice doesn't support the dismemberment of fully-developed infants that can feel pain. It's not pro-abortion; it doesn't advocate this as a birth control method. In a perfect world, nobody would ever need it, but this world will never attain that level of perfection (and doesn't need to.) Safe, legal abortions should always be available when required. Attempting to minimize them is commendable.
Load More Replies... Blue Visor 7 years ago
Cassey LaPointe and Brandy Baran. The only people with the correct answer. No one has the right to make your decisions for you, regardless of stance and or belief.
Tim Fitzgerald 7 years ago
there's a difference between, embryos in a test tube then one in the womb..
Paul Muscarella 7 years ago
Yes grab the child and GTFO They need to stop telling woman what to do with there body's its Her choice .
Dennis Ginther 7 years ago
Jesus tells us not to be our brothers keeper. When a baby is attached and inside the mother? It is the mother. A separate Soul is not created until the umbilical cord is cut. The beginning of a new individual. Sorry it can be no other way.
Eva Rea 7 years ago
I was on the pill. I missed one, I got pregnant. I knew the exact moment I conceived but I got rid of it anyway at 9 weeks. I had no way of looking after it and I did not want to give it away. I developed clinical depression over the next 10 years and even though I had another child in better circumstances, I still could not forgive myself for what I had done to the first "child", to me, not embryo. In answer to your question, yes of course I would only grab the child in the burning room. Other than that I would beg you to shut up because you are a man, and you will never know what it is like to be pregnant. No doubt you are one of those boyfriends who, if their girlfriend should accidentally get pregnant, would say before you had heard her speak "It's not convenient for us to have a child now, if you do, I won't back you! Like my first husband said to me when I told him. I divorced him soon after. You men stay out of this! It is the women's decision and hers only.
Mamat Parish 7 years ago
Abortion has become the common birth control method. I think that is wrong. It's NOT freedom, but bondage! Abortion does not come without consequences. Some die, some get sick, some hurt for years because they aborted and have guilt. Some get their insides screwed up and pay for it when they are older, and yes, some get by with seemingly no issues. Abortion is so easy to do, and the cost is minimal compared to other surgeries. Still, why do you think you can force me to pay for something I don't believe in. If you believe in it, pay for it yourself! Don't FORCE me. That's not right. I think if one had to actually pay for the full surgery, they would think twice about the roll in the bed with a guy who doesn't even love them. Granted there are many reasons why women abort, but the number of abortions in this country alone should give one room to pause.
Doris Rogo 7 years ago
What he posted is a moral dilemma, similar to the trolley or the train ones. If you don't know it, it sounds sth like: There is a train that has no breaks and is heading straight towards 5 workers that are on the line. You see it, but have no possibility of warning them so that they can get out of there. However, you have access to a lever that can put the train on another line. On that line there is one worker, alone. What do you do? A. You let the train go on the line it is already on, killing the 5 workes. B. You pull the lever and divert the train towards the one worker, killing him. No C variant or other options. What this results in is a moral discussion about the value of human life. I sincerely believe that life begins at conception and if you read any article on how that embryo and later fetus and baby develop, it's impossible to say otherwise. Life is a continuum, you can't split it into categories. If it is not alive, what is it? It's definitely not dead.
Trevor Feldt 7 years ago
Nifty question. B, 1000 over 1. Let me ask you....... If Martin Luther King's mother, Jesus's mother or Mother Teresa's mother were in line for legal abortions would you hand them a coat hanger? We can all ask stupid questions.
Janice Janes 7 years ago
I suppose you could change the situation. You walk into a room and there is a 5 year old and a brain surgeon. The brain surgeon is of much higher value than the five year old so it would make sense to save the surgeon. My personal view is half and half. Abortion up to 20 weeks. Anyone who can't decide whether they want a child after 5 months is a moron. Taking a pregnancy past 5 months then deciding to kill it, is barbaric. Sonograms prove at 5 months the fetus is no longer a glob of cells. Rape? Most women know they've been raped immediately, so waiting past 5 months to get an abortion is inexcusable. Surely it must have occurred to some of you that people who abuse their children had the option to abort and chose not to.
Kerry Seiwert 7 years ago
I have never thought that a fetus is a human being, but it is a life. Change the scenario to a mother and a child? Or an old person or w baby? Who do you save? It is a Sophie's choice, and really, an unfair question. Most people would save the more innocent of the two, and that is generally the child. However, that doesn't mean that you don't believe the other choice is important or valid. It is just different. That doesn't make me anti-abortion or pro-life. I do believe that life begins at conception (whenever that is), but that life is not necessarily a human yet.
patrick percy 7 years ago
this is so stupid of a question and it does not mean anything for or against abortion!!!!! The answer is A, you save the child that is born, but that does not mean that the 1000 embryos are worthless or not already living organisms, it simply means that the life of the child is already viable and a choice needed to be made... if the embryos were the last on earth then you let the child burn and choose the 1000 embryos.. and the reason most people do not answer him is bcs he is a fool.. this neither helps nor hurts the argument
patrick percy 7 years ago
this is so stupid of a question and it does not mean anything for or against abortion!!!!! The answer is A, you save the child that is born, but that does not mean that the 1000 embryos are worthless or not already living organisms, it simply means that the life of the child is already viable and a choice needed to be made... if the embryos were the last on earth then you let the child burn to death and choose the 1000 embryos.. this guy is a fool,, and the reason most people do not answer him is bcs he is a fool.. And this argument neither attacks nor defends pro choice or pro life..
Elizabeth DeMairo 7 years ago
Brilliant question! Of course I would grab the child and not risk either of our lives to take the embryos. I would not choose an abortion for myself, but I would never presume to tell someone else what to do. I am totally in favor of birth control and any organization which gives women the resources to control what happens to their own bodies. No "pro-lifer" will ever give a direct answer on this.
Richard Mahn 7 years ago
The person has to become a murderer in the scenario...I don't think the person would be considered a murderer. It also has to make killing the 5 year-old a choice of my own body, and a woman's heath convenience. "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. "Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. "And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." -1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (emphasis mine)
Richard Mahn 7 years ago
Abortion makes multiple people murderers. Even this scenario doesn't leave someone a murderer. We are addressing hardness of heart, being a murderer, and eternal damnation when it comes to abortion...none which are addressed in either scenario. To a pro-abortionist, taking the life of another human, whether in the womb or not, is "one's own body" (it's not her own body! She didn't have her own heart, brain or body mashed up, but someone else's!) and "woman's health". Murderers is what we have become for "self" and "convenience". Saving people from a fire is nothing of the same. Eternity is at stake here...yet we thinking abortion is just about the baby...nope, it makes us the murders!!! "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." - 1 Cor 6:9-10
Alan Bordelon 7 years ago
A child within a woman's womb is not a part of her body, it is a living being occupying the inside of her body. It is a life she is responsible for, exactly like the person who, when hearing the cry of the young boy in the fertility clinic, is now responsible for saving his life. If the person hadn't heard the young boy's cries, he wouldn't be responsible. But, once he becomes aware of the boy's plight, now he is. Just so, a woman who chooses to engage in the act of procreation is responsible for the life she is given to care for as a result of an act she engaged in.
Kevin Logan 7 years ago
A, is the logical answer, but the pro lifers will c**p on about everything and take no responsibility for the aftermath. I seem to recall a case a while ago about a female who got raped by a sexual predator and became pregnant. plus she found out she now had an STD. Then the poor female got ambushed outside of a female clinic and was unable to enter plus several people were taking photos of anybody who just happen to stop anywhere near their front door. Owing to the stress of the confrontation and her pregnancy she attempted to take her own life. and the pro lifers called her selfish for her actions.
Liesl Howes 7 years ago
http://www.dailywire.com/news/22380/walsh-heres-reason-why-pro-aborts-rely-worst-case-matt-walsh#
Mark Kessinger 7 years ago
Most of the pro-life movement has never really been concerned about embryos or fetuses; if they were, then they would be solidly in favor of expanding access to birth control and sex education for young people. But of course, most prolifers are resolutely opposed to these as well. And while I don't doubt that a desire to control women's bodies is part of what is going on, I don't think even that really gets to the heart of it. You see, what really just galls these folks is when they see someone violating a rule that they believe has been divinely instituted, but then "getting away with it." When someone breaks one of God's rules, then by God, they want to see some divine wrath reined down on that person! And it infuriates them to no end when the hoped for fire and brimstone fail to materialize. You see, they are really angry at their Sky Daddy for not being the authoritarian jerk they want him to be, but they don't dare say that. (cont'd)
Walt Smith 7 years ago
You give yourself WAY too much credit and seriously over simplify "pro-lifers" into a straw man that anyone can take down. Believe it or not "pro-lifers" are more nuanced than the one dimentional blind man you paint. Granted that some say that life begins at conception but I don't and no one I've talked with does. Personally, I believe that life began eons ago and that this mortal body began at conception. I don't know when the spirit enters the body. For all I know it is different for everyone. I believe that life is precious and that late term abortion gets very near murder - closer than I want to get. I believe there are circumstances that justify abortion. I also see abortion being used too freely as a matter of convenience - or rather inconvenience. And yes it is impossible to come up with legal definitions and boundaries that will sit well with most people. Either position is not well served by bashing the other and claiming victory.
John Bretner 7 years ago
I think the Question that You Posed as to Whether You would Grab a Child or the Embryos.... is Irrelevant..... it's a Psycological Ploy of Dodging the Real issues (Instead of Answering the Questions, Turning the Table around and Asking a Question to Detract attention from the Original Issue).... And is more a demonstration of ignorance than any real Intellect..... Science Agrees and Many Mother will Without a Doubt have to Agree that Life Begins in the Womb Long Before the Actual Birth..... This is Proven Beyond a Doubt.... By the Observance of Twins in the Womb... That Personalities start to Develop Long Before they are even Born...... The Fact is... Abortion is Murder (Premeditated Therefore not Manslaughter) and the Worst Kind of Murder.... Slaughtering the Most Vulnerable......Those Who Ignore this Fact.... Are IGNORANT and Running away from taking Responsibility for their Actions..... (With the exception of Rape) That is a different scenerio all together.....
Ross Hammond 7 years ago
There is no wrong answer. Same question put in a different way. Say there are two people i n wheel chairs and can save only one.Which do you save...Right it doesn't matter, either is saving life...numbers are a red herring
Cameron Gilbert 7 years ago
I wouldn't have a problem with abortion if people didn't get them for the wrong reasons. Sure, there are valid times to undergo an abortion, for personal health reasons. But in some, if not most, cases and statistics that I've seen, women are getting abortions more out of convenience than health. It needs to not be a convenience to terminate a pregnancy, but it does need to be a right that women have to do with their body what they want. There needs to be a "fire in the room" in order to actually validate the loss of those embryo's.
David Ratch 7 years ago
Interesting perspective, but very misleading. No matter which side of the fence of this issue you're on, A is the correct answer, but for a different reason. During an emergency, where there are multiple casualties, or potential casualties, triage rules dictate that you attempt to save the life of the patient with a pulse, first.
Festus Adibe 7 years ago
All he has done is present a variant of "The Trolley Problem" and then insist that all those who choose a different answer from him must be morally deficient in some way. I would modify it to a little bit like this so it more closely resembles his argument. You have been captured by a villain. He has a gun to your head and two buttons in front of you and you must press one. If you press the blue button, a thousand people you don't know and haven't met will die at random in faraway countries. If you press the red button, you get to watch a child that you know and care about get tortured to death. If you don't press either button, the terrorist will kill you and still press both buttons. Which one will you press? P/s: If you don't press the same button as Patrick you are an amoral monster who should never be found anywhere around children and also a liar.
Jessie Davidson 7 years ago
I think anyone who wants butt into others lives, tell them what they "should do", should by law, keep their mouth shut until their own life is perfect! Everyone is born to be different & have the right to live it differently without having to fight others their entire life for that right. We wouldn't have people "looking for love in all the wrong places", depressed, suicidal, addicted to xy&z because they wouldn't have bullies telling them what is acceptable & what isn't, they would be allowed to be themselves, no one would be trying to "DEPRESS THEM". I was pregnant at 18, I thought about an abortion, it would be the only acceptable thing to my family, yet I didn't. I decided everyone is living their life as they want, I am going to stand up, be brave & do as I knew in my heart what I wanted. Yes, my immediate family disowned me & were mean. So I went to live w/my grand/great-grandparents.They loved it. They've seen S**T HAPPENS, everyone keeps their damn mouth shut & make good of it
JD Myers 7 years ago
A question I ask. , if you are so against abortion, how many times did you offer financial aid to the woman? How many babies did you volunteer to take in and raise as your own? My wife and I had the chance to adopt a newborn if only we would pay all expenses, hospital and legal, I borrowed money and paid al expenses. We brought our 4day old son home December 26, . And then we raised his son too. So, if you are so against abortion, offer to pay all expenses, adopt the child, raise it as your own, save a baby. Or shut up.
Jim Copi 7 years ago
At conception the egg and sperm nuclei merge to complete the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain the genes directing the development of a baby, who is the embodiment called " a miracle of life"!! The embryo is a human being with unrealized potential. Why would anyone want to destroy such a wonderful gift?
Claire Perry Artwork 7 years ago
Well * I * believe life most certainly begins at conception ! If not...when the bloody hell DOES it begin? It is the beginning of a biological human-being. It is a fertilized egg that has all the DNA to make it a human...not a cow...not a chicken, etc. HOWEVER, I still believe in a woman's right to choose. It is her body and her decision. Most of all ...it is NONE of anybodies business that she is pregnant ! That is her business...not yours and not mine, unless she chooses to include us.
Luis Diaz 7 years ago
You will never win an argument that way and I'm probably on his side. It's silly to create that scenario to try to change someone's mind about something or see it in your terms. It's a fantasy situation. In real life there is a lot of factors that can come into play. For starters most people are not heroes. Most people would probably only think of themselves in that situation and live with it. If they do survive they wouldn't think twice about all the embryos that were destroyed and think only of the dead kid and how horrible it must have been to burn alive. Next morning they go to church or Starbucks and forget about yesterday's events. Welcome to the real world.
Gail Baber 7 years ago
If the child were your own, prolifers, I’ll bet the greater good would ‘burn’ without a thought.
Christine Agin 7 years ago
Moral judgments don't define humanity. If my child is in there with your child; I am going to rescue my child. It doesn't make your child not human life. This is a stupid argument and I say that as someone who believes life begins at a heart beat not at conception.
Lorna Reid 7 years ago
Patrick, your exaggerated hypothesis has nothing to do with anything, but to tell the world how ignorant you are. I am not even going to comment because you THINK you know everything and why through pearls before a swine??
Sonya Edberg 7 years ago
How about choosing between a baby, or a woman who is hugely 6-months pregnant
Pintér János 7 years ago
Replace the "human" word with "unicorn" (or whatever nonexistent, irrepeatable lifeform), then ask again: only one newborn, or the 1000 embryos?
Deborah Hamilton 7 years ago
1000 viable embryos or a five-year old child..... of course I would choose the child. The key words here are "viable embryo" and "5 yr old child." Who knows if any of the 1000 embryos will actually implant themselves into uteruses...and continue developing into babies. The child, though, is already past being a viable embryo and is therefore a sure-thing.
Šimon Špaček 7 years ago
Honest answer? For beginning lets say that I would care about him/her and wouldn't just run. I do not know how I would act in this situation, I never faced something like that... but lets get back to my answer. As Patrick wrote himself "the smoke is rising" and I wouldn't care about reading some damned labels. Anything dangerous (explosive) should be clearly marked, so I do not have to worry about it, I would just grab the child, took it outside and demand a cold beer from his/her parents.
Ann Maunder 7 years ago
We have seen videos from face transplants to people having brain surgery while awake on television. Why then has the procedure of abortions not been shown from the time of conception to a person at the 24 week stage? Why do we not get an in depth report in a program showing what happens to the babies born alive ? So many important areas not covered nor researched on this subject.
Brian Haller 7 years ago
Have two adopted children. I believe the point being made is invalid.
Tom Cooke 7 years ago
Very dishonest in his question comparing frozen embryos, in a container, to an embryo produced by nature's natural process. Frozen embryos are a product of man's hands and until placed in a female body is not a natural process. We all must make tough choices in life's emergencies. In that same exercise whom would you choose if it were between your 5 year old child and your mother who is an invalid? Because you choose to same "A" in his example only means this is a living breathing child and you must make the better choice. It has nothing to do with the beginning of life because you are trying to compare the beginning of life with a life of 5 years old. Life process started in the frozen embryos but was halted by man's hand: so is it really life since it was stopped? If you want to discuss the beginning of life at least be consistent and honest with your argument.
Arthur Reber 7 years ago
The so-called "pro-life" folks are not and never have been pro-life or pro-children. If they were they'd be supporting birth control, women's health issues, parental leave programs, Head Start, pre-school programs, etc. etc. etc. The anti-abortion movement is an anti-women's movement, in particular anti-women's sex movement. If a woman has sex for pleasure, without wishing to become pregnant, she has, in their minds, sinned. The punishment for that sin shall be to carry to term an unwanted child. That's it. Simple as can be.
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
So you are lumping everyone who identifies as pro-life in one collective category that universally defines them all as the same person type? Shows your low intellect and narrow-mindedness, Arthur. My mom is self proclaimed pro-life. She donates money to a couple programs that assist unwed, young mothers. She is pro birth control. She volunteers at health clinics for the poor. She makes contributions to a local orphanage. She loves people, and gives up time and money to help people who need it, even worthless bigoted sacks of s**t like yourself.
Load More Replies... John Rod 7 years ago
Now imagine a woman reading this in a clinic. This doesnt help or solve anything just disregarding the taking of a life. There are many outcomes in life but they're are also humane things to do. The child is livng and breathing those embryos feel no pain so the humane thing to do in that situation is of course the child. But this is about abortion where they're women contemplating what's in their stomach and not someone else's child or scenario. I get hes trying to steer away what is wrong but it's taking a life and its probably the hardest decision woman has to make in her life. No an embryo is not a child but its very much alive and people should think like this when talking about this situation. Im a vegetarian and I get s**t like this comparing human life to animals all the time trying to make one more valuble then the other its a life nd im sure that what most ppl that are against it are tryna to state. Its a decision that can mess with someones metal state and a women's reproduct
Giselle Richards 7 years ago
Yes! "A" is the answer. For all I know the "embryo machine" is just an ice machine. The child is crying, is alive, and needs our help. SAVE THE CHILD!
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
This is part 2 of the other part below: assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in, assuming that all the equipment designed to keep the pre-born children alive was somewhat portable. And even if not, I might still take a chance and take the "container" with me. This is my answer. I do not feel trapped by it, but I do feel that Mr. Tomlinson should hear/read my answer.
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
It has NOTHING to do with equality. Here's my answer to Mr. Tomlinson's question about a rather lame and less-than-believable answer. I accept the challenge without hesitation. If I am alone and able to save ONLY the five-year-old or the embryos, then, of course, the answer is A, but NOT because of a lack of equality. It is a matter of the fact that pre-born babies do not feel pain until the 8th or 9th week of gestation. The five-year-old would certainly feel pain, panic, confusion and any other number of physical and emotional traumas, the pre-born infants would not. But the point then still remains that 1000 human babies have still died, and I can still stand before God knowing that I did all I was able to do, but I would still do more. I would tell the fire & rescue team about the babies. I would pray for the safety of those babies and, if I saw an opportunity, assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in . . . pt 2
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
I'm still in the process of reading and have yet to get to "the question," but I already have objections because I get upset whet other people's ideas are purposely misrepresented, and that is that "people feel entitled to tell others what to do with their bodies, without having much interest in dealing with the aftermath." First, it has nothing to do with what women do with their bodies. The living baby in the womb is not part of the woman's body, and, by definition, cannot by part of a woman's body. Second, it is a bald-face lie that people who are, INDEED, pro-LIFE do not care with the aftermath." Pro-life organizations are all over the U. S. and Canada who are dedicated to helping women or couples help raise a child, and I am sick and tired about pro-deathers/pro-murderers lying about that. Third, How does this jerk face know that people have not answered the question honestly? Does he carry around a poly-graph machine? Does he, himself, measure heart rates? Does he think he's God?
A.j. Mittendorf 7 years ago
It has NOTHING to do with equality. Here's my answer to Mr. Tomlinson's question about a rather lame and less-than-believable answer. I accept the challenge without hesitation. If I am alone and able to save ONLY the five-year-old or the embryos, then, of course, the answer is A, but NOT because of a lack of equality. It is a matter of the fact that pre-born babies do not feel pain until the 8th or 9th week of gestation. The five-year-old would certainly feel pain, panic, confusion and any other number of physical and emotional traumas, the pre-born infants would not. But the point then still remains that 1000 human babies have still died, and I can still stand before God knowing that I did all I was able to do, but I would still do more. I would tell the fire & rescue team about the babies. I would pray for the safety of those babies and, if I saw an opportunity, assuming that the authorities had not yet arrived when the boy was safe, I would be willing to try to go back in, assuming
Cathy Mitchell 7 years ago
Don't believe the author is truly interested in a respectful debate - just starting a forum for pro-life/Christian bashing. Based on comments so far, several took his bait. :-( Question to him, "if abortion is just about a woman's right to choose, is there a point in the pregnancy where you oppose abortion, or is it OK to abort right up until the day the "fetus" is born? Does Dr. Gosling having to kill the "products of his abortions" bother you?
Jeff Walker 7 years ago
I'm strongly pro-choice and despise these tactics. The ONLY thing Tomlinson wil accomplish with this inanity is to harden both sides. Abortion is legal and will continue to be legal for the foreseeable future. Stop just trying to win idiotic soundbytes arguments and p**s people off.
Sharon O'neal 7 years ago
the only thing i can say is: the child who is crying is a child who is scared and can feel pain. if you have to choose then the child crying would be the only choice as the embyo's cannot feel pain and do not know what is happening at this stage of their life. they are still people and it is a shame to leave them , but God would say take the child who feels the pain and let him have those who can't . it is a painful question but it is not murder. in this you have no choice , but when you do have a choice you do not kill the embryo just because you don't want it. there is a difference between sacrifice and murder. it is hard to leave the embryo but you must take the child who feels the pain and suffering! there is no good ans to this question.But God knows why you have done what you did , he will not hold you responsible for the embryo you had to leave behind. if there were two children crying who would you save? the one closest to you and cry for the one you had to leave behind.
Scott Taylor 7 years ago
Absolutely spot on and brilliant. I will definitely use this question if I ever run into an idiot. You handled the Trolls well. Not that they get what you're saying. They don't get logic or metaphor, only appeal to emotion. Zero critical thinking skills. The perfect slaves.
Tim Douglass 7 years ago
This scenario is called the "trolley question" and is a common type of ethics/morality question that *does not have a correct answer*! This is also why self-driving cars are so hard to design.
Ingrid Ericsen 7 years ago
Okay lets reverse it. A women who is 6mths pregnant gave birth prematurely. Her child, now in her twenties is about to graduate from medical school. On the same day that this doctor was born, another woman terminated her 6mth pregnancy, justifying her act by claiming it wasn't a real "life" because it hadn't yet been born. Seems we can call it a life when convenient and a collection of non viable cells when it isn't. Life begins at conception. Living cells make up the sperm as well as the egg. The only difference is in the stage of development that the newly created LIFE is in. So much for this moron thinking he can stump anyone with his question!
Sherin Cunningham 7 years ago
The boy of course as there are more women with eggs to donate...and men to donate the sperm...
Roger Kvistad 7 years ago
He missed the mark by a mile. An embryo is in the womb of a mother and this idea of a thousand embryos in a jar is preposterous. It's toying with things that God never intended it to be. There wouldn't be an issue of abortion if the morals weren't out of control. Sex was meant to be in the confines of marriage and if done so would eliminate the whole issue.
Justin Matthews 7 years ago
This gave me pause and I enjoyed thinking about it, thank you for the post. It does show how we instinctively identify a child as far more important than an embryo. People are wrong when they say it shuts down the debate however. The debate is about whether it is acceptable to destroy embryos and has nothing to do with children. When you walk into a clinic they do not ask you if you want to destroy an embryo or a child, it is all about the embryo. What pro-life people are saying is that it is wrong. I am pro-choice but I do not believe your question does anything to end the debate though it does force pro-life proponents to agree that an embryo is not the same as a child. Maybe this question can help scale down the rhetoric and make the discussion more honest.
Alverne Dickson 7 years ago
I don't viable embryos are yet babies! Wouldn't think twice about grabbing the little girl.
Pete Specht 7 years ago
Blah blah blah , blah blah. Quit your stalling and avoiding the question! Should you choose the Child or The 1000 Embros? Don’t think, choose! There is no try, there is only do!
Robert Moore 7 years ago
His scenario only points out one of the weaknesses of the anti-choice crowd. Nothing except religious modern mumbo jumbo claims life begins at conception. The Catholic Church once taught that life began at first breath. Now, for mostly political reasons, it has joined the embryo-as-person team. In fact, the reason male masturbation was always taught to be sin is basically that each sperm cell is half of a person although until the twentieth century, the concept was that the person was in the sperm and the ovum was just a receptacle for the person in the sperm.
Conrad Lashley 7 years ago
Why are so many of these so-called pro-lifers also pro-war, and investment in education, healthcare, etc? Their faith convinces them they are speaking for the non-existent god. Delusional at best, but their greater crime is wilful ignorance.
Stephanie Milovski 7 years ago
Rape is the second reason and I truly can't believe he forgot about that.
Barbara Kelly 7 years ago
My concern is that this topic has become political issue, buried under moral rhetoric. Once the government can outlaw abortion, it can also impose it - witness China's one-child-per-couple laws. Reproduction is - or should be - personal
Rhoda Pelliccia 7 years ago
What a stupid argument. The same story you are in a burning building and hear crying. You throw open the door and you are in a recreation room with a child crying in a corner and 15 old people sitting at tables but crippled and cannot walk. You can save only one. Do you leave the child and save one old person or do you save the child and leave the 15 old people to die? You know the answer. Does that mean that old people are not important because they already lived their lives? A good argument for medical insurance companies for at what age should we stop surgeries needed or other medical services. What do you say to this. Is an old person not worth anything because they lived their life?
George Greene Jr. 7 years ago
The answer is simple! you tell the kid to come with you AND grab the container! DUH!!!
Polly Perkins 7 years ago
I am pro choice and agree that this evidences that a child has more value than an embryo but I don't think that shuts down the pro life argument at all because they could just say "yes, but we aren't asking them to choose between a live kid and an embryo we are asking them to choose an embryo over a nothing, an embryo has more value than a nothing." - I disagree with them but also find this metaphorical argument unhelpful.
Jason McArdle 7 years ago
The important thing to remember here is that this is a hypothetical situation. It's not real. It's made up. Let's try this, you walk into the room and it's a 5 year old child and your mother. Which one do you save? Does your response prove that one is not a human life? Probably most people are silenced by his question because of the stupidity of it. At best, his hypothetical question could possibly, maybe give insight to a person's moral character. But it does nothing to prove whether an embryo/fetus is a human life. It is life. It is alive. It grows. It will never become a cow, dog, pig, or dolphin. It will only ever grow to be a human because it is human. It is human and it is alive. You can invent all the hypothetical arguments you want about what i would or wouldn't do in a preposterous situation but it doesn't change the facts. Also, Christians do adopt. I personally know 7 families...Christian families that have adopted. Half of them have adopted and/or fostered multiple children
Brandy Dor 7 years ago
It's a Sophie s choice question there is no right answer if you leave the 5 yr old your a monster if you leave the embryos then people think your proving their point
Peter McCall 7 years ago
save the child , easy, millions more can be made at the drop of a condom so preservation of eggs/sperm not needed. people who practice safe sex should be protected as the failure was not thier fault, and the choise to keep or remove shold remain with the mother. in the case of promiscuous sex and treating it like a lottery then sterilisation is required. simple
Timothy O'Donnell 7 years ago
I would put out the fire. There is only one correct answer and that is A). The 5 year old would definitely die of smoke inhalation, whereas, the "embryos" that are in a sealed container would not. Therefore, 1001 lives saved.
Karolina M 7 years ago
This question is evil... It's a lose lose situation either way you go. How bad you feel afterwards, will depend on what you believe in though. Whether you believe that spirits of both embrios and the child would be suffering equally or not. It's not all just physical. But then the impulse to save the child is obviously stronger because you can hear, see and communicate with him/her. So it hits your conscience stronger too. The decision made on the spot in that scenario would be mostly affected by it. Tbh, either way I would feel like I failed.. that I could not help all!
Branislava Simić 7 years ago
Personally dont care if women get abortions, it is their body...it is fine... Personally also think that young girls shouldnt get them for health reasons... However, the argument this guy posted is dumb. It doesnt change the fact that abortion is unnatural and that causes great damage to body, especially to young girls. Of course the person would chose a 5 year old child because that child has family, friends, has some experience, is screaming and asking for help etc... Actually my aunt had a really complicated delivery and doctors chose to save her life and not the life of the baby that was ready to come to world. It is just a common sense. The comparison he made is basically irrelevant but glad that he had 5 minutes of fame.
Brendan Gerrard 7 years ago
Has anyone prolife or not ever claimed that a five year old is better or worse than an embryo? The question is when does life begin. Conception seems to be the sensible choice. This is a straw man scenario.
Jennifer Bourget 7 years ago
A LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEING. JUST WEEKS OLD IN THE WOMB. IT STARTS AT CONCEPTION. 8d79b30d23...39ed99.jpg
Tea 7 years ago
OK, let's imagine that your, your best friend's, your wife's/husband's mother, or just simply mother of someone close to you made an abortion instead of giving birth. Imagine a woman, young and inexperienced, killing a child, (who is a living thing and who didn't choose HER as a mother and didn't want to somehow appear in her belly). Killing another human fearing poverty, fearing social standards, fearing that you won't have freedom anymore after you become a parent. OK, health problems bla bla bla. But other parents do this because they are cowards. Because they are selfish. Or maybe because they are *#*#;&%s who go here and there, do so and so, get pregnant. Its not child fault. The problem is, people don't want to change something within them, face their fears, share love and carry out their duties. They rather go and shout: Hey! Its my choice. Everyone has to sacrifice something for better. Sacrifice their time, money, some health. What's a point of living then?
Zake Melie 7 years ago
That's the most idiotic thing I've heard. Completely out of topic. The teal question should be would you save a child or a pregnant women with embryo inside her because we are talking about abortion i.e an actual women with embryo inside her. What would your answer be then?
Jennifer Bourget 7 years ago
LIFE BEGINS AT THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. PERIOD. WHAT HAPPENS FROM THAT MOMENT ON IS IN GOD'S HANDS. AND IF YOU WERE A WOMAN AWAITING TO BE IMPLANTED WITH ONE OF 1000 EMBRYOS , THOSE EMBRYOS ARE ALSO AS IMPORTANT AS ANY CHILD. BUT IN THIS UNFORSEEN CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH WOULD IN MOST WORLDS NEVER HAPPEN...OUR INSTINCT TELLS US TO GRAB THAT CHILD WITHOUT FURTHER THOUGHT. SO HIS WHOLE QUESTION AND SCENARIO IS WITHOUT FACT. BUT LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. THAT BABY...YES BABY IS FORMING FROM MINUTE 1. THIS IS WHY PREGNANCY TESTS CAN TELL YOU YOU ARE PREGNANT SO QUICKLY. BECAUSE TISSUE AND HEART BEAT HAVE ALREADY STARTED FORMING. THIS IS THE OLDEST ARGUMENT OF ALL TIME.
Joel Schama 7 years ago
Tomlinson plagiarized this thought experiment which has been around for more than 12 years, and is perfectly willing to take the credit for it. And he wants to talk about morals? That's a laugh. He should adopt some of his own. Moreover, Bored Panda should research before posting. :(
Brandon Rodriguez 7 years ago
People who demand a fixed, fully one-sided answer to questions YES or NO, HOT or COLD, are stupid and are not after the truth, but are only after winning an argument. You cannot always pin every situation to the very end of the spectrum. There is always an in-between. This is why we use the word "reservations". Also, the question contains non-existing, mythical elements that readers cannot fully connect with. A vial with 1000 embryos? What the hell is that? Let's change the question to choosing between a child and a mother carrying a fetus inside her.
Chanthong Yang 7 years ago
These are the stupidest questions to asked. You have to be dumb to asked this type of questions. These are the force the scenario type of question where the scenario doesn't even play out in real life, and doesn't even offer a alternative to the person answering. Basically the questioners is forcing the questions and placing the obvious, thinking that by picking A your basically devaluing B. A person with a brain would say C, what kind of moronic person are you to asked a force the scenario type question and expecting a person answering to not force the alternative answer, who make up the rules that one should play by the rules?
Kyle Smith 7 years ago
I do love that the guy was called out for blocking people that answered. If they are blocked, how do we know that they are actually being a******s and that you aren't just being petty and blocking those that don't fall in line with The Narrative™? This is one of the reasons why it requires something extreme to block people from my accounts. I only have my ex and some of her close friends blocked.
Kyle Smith 7 years ago
The child, as the test tube babies require specific conditions to survive and removing them from cryostasis without being properly thawed will kill them anyway.
Daleen van Dyk 7 years ago
Life begins at conception. Eggs alone and sperm alone is not life. Eggs that are fertile by sperm are life.
Esther Meyers 7 years ago
I AM anti-abortion, except in certain circumstances, but I agree that there is a huge difference between an already born child and one or 1000 who aren't yet born. Obviously the born child must be saved. But it doesn't mean that one should purposely kill a child that is growing, either. There is also a big difference between an embryo and a fetus. Having waited 7 years to adopt our son, I know that there are MANY people out there who would have loved to adopt many of those aborted babies. And there is no way you can convince me that late-stage abortions, where the fetus COULD have survived outside the mother's womb, isn't criminal.
Sue Kaufman 7 years ago
Life is passed along from human to human, from tree to tree, from fish and squirrel to fish and squirrel, in every form of reproductive biological life. There may once have been a beginning, but until all life is wiped from the Earth, life will continue to be passed on, already in existence. Mr Tomlinsons' question is beside the point. The odds of such a moral dilemma actually happening in real life are exceedingly small. A long, rambling argument is a poor argument. Life enters all nature's wombs as two entities already living, recombining to make another life, and so on and so on. it surprises me that no one adds this fact to the argument. I am pro-life and pro-choice. My beliefs are my own; your choices are your own. The law allowing abortion is all that stands between us and a billion person American population in a world that has already run off the population cliff.
Shannon Flood 7 years ago
Pro abortion activists have used this argument, or ones similar for a long time. Whoever this schmuck is, I doubt he is the first person to ask this question that "no one has ever answered honestly". (If you read it, someone DOES answer honestly .... and he calls them "an amoral monster that should never be allowed around children". His other tweets also try to TELL you that "no one believes life begins at conception" .... guess what ... WRONG! I do, and so do millions of other people. See, this same type of "no win scenario" question can be used in others ways. How about if you are in a burning building, and there is a white child, and a black child .... you can save only one. There is no option C. Do you save the white child, or the black child? You better not save the white child, or the black one ... because whichever one you don't save, will have died because of their race ... so that make you a racist.
Ron Lewellen 7 years ago
In the Hebrew Bible under Mosaic law, if two men are fighting and one of them accidentally strikes a pregnant woman then the punishment to be rendered is tooth for tooth, eye for eye, life for life. If the woman loses her child due to being struck then no life is to be taken but a fine is to be paid.
Theresa Yarbrough 7 years ago
I'm pro-life. I would save the life. My grandmother was a Christian, she told me that when my mother was in labor the doctor told them things weren't going well. He then asked, "If we have to make a choice, do we save the mother or the child?" She told the doctor, we already know and love Evelyn, please save her life if you can."
Carl Montefusco 7 years ago
Embryos are not a child in their mothers womb..Frozen Embryos are not a child in their mothers womb .The real question is would you save a women who was killing her unborn child or the pregnant woman who was having her child.If you save the pregnant woman you save 2 lives..the other woman you save only one life ..the only life she thinks is important.So do you save the selfish woman or the mother carrying her child...this answer tells more about you ,who you choose tells who you are.And how much your political agenda means to you and how many mothers you would kill along with how many children to further your agenda..Adoption is a option and many people do adopt.And yes birth control and self control is better than abortion...a word that was used to describe a very ugly and vile thing not all that long ago...!
Vicki Poulton Rosengren 7 years ago
I think back to the time when there wasn’t a safe place to have an abortion. Many women died from blood poison from back street doctors. Dirty instruments. Dirty back room. When a young lady gets pregnant and is terrified to tell her parents she’s going to try to get rid of it come hell or high water. We need to have safe, clean legal environment for people who are desperate. Just think about that for a minute. I personally get ticked when I see all men making decisions as to what women can or can’t do with their body. Pro lifers think about what I just said. I don’t like abortion either but when a woman wants to stop a pregnancy and they don’t have a clinic to go to it’ll be back to the olden days. NOT GOOD
Henny O'Connor-Vellinga 7 years ago
I am both pro life AND pro choice. Personally I would never have an abortion......pro life. I don’t believe in forcing someone to feel/believe the same way. If you want an abortion and can be ok with that, I can accept that and be ok with that.
David Schmidt 7 years ago
You know why no one would ever answer that question? Because it's a false choice fallacy, predicated on a ridiculous hypothetical. If you had a 3-year-old child and a 1-year-old, and you could only save one, does that mean that you're choosing between your belief in the rights of infants or toddlers? Of course not.
Schuyler Pierson 7 years ago
The question is loaded. It assumes that the women getting abortions are making a choice between whether to save a human being or an embryo which is simply not the case. The decision on whether to get an abortion is a decision on whether to kill a living thing or not to kill it. Do you want an honest answer to a dishonest question? Sure. I would save the five year old child, because on one point, our dishonest questioner is correct: the five year old child has more value than the embryos. But abortion isn't about saving life. It is about destroying life. A more honest question would be: you're in a room with a woman who made poor decisions and now faces the prospect of becoming a parent, and a viable embryo. The woman does not want to be a parent. She wants to continue partying and making bad decisions, but in order for her to do so, you must actively kill the viable embryo. Do you: A) kill the embryo or B) allow the woman to live with the consequences of her decisions?
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
A frozen person doesn't have a beating heart...an embryo in a mother does
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
Also, the embryo in a mother is viable without having to do anything but let it be. A frozen embryo must be implanted to be viable.
Load More Replies... Chris Johnson 7 years ago
That's one of those questions that can't be answered until you are in the moment, The question tells you that you can't do both, But who knows if you can or can't. It's a trick question by the way it is worded. Why couldn't you tell the child to run to you, while you are running to the container. No one can yes what could happen, unless you are there at that moment. Please don't ask me a question and then tell me want I can and can't do. How ever it would turn out has Nothing to do with being able to save Millions of life's over a what if question.
Kim Mitchell 7 years ago
Missed the mark because an embryo in a mother is viable and one in a container has to have a "host" so to speak to be viable.
Antonios Georgantas 7 years ago
This is an easy argument. The child has infinitely more value. This point does not even need proof. Its not even an argument. It is not a point that flavors abortion either. Simply when the fetus is equated to an alive individual with memories responsibilities loved ones, etc,to make an anti-abortion argument, its not a valid. Anti-abortion should use other arguments.
Daniel Tanner 7 years ago
It is a trick question that serves no purpose whatsoever. Same question phrased differently: If you were a fireman was in a burning building and found two "full grown" adults that need saving but you could only save one what would you do? Point in fact, it is an impossible situation with a horrible outcome whichever way you look at it. He doesn't prove anything by asking it.
Sheremy Page 7 years ago
im pro life but my answer would be (A) DUH...and no it doesnt shut down the argument because choosing to end a life because you were too stupid to prevent it in the first place if you didnt want it and only having time to save one life are two totally different things...when a mothers life is at risk and the only way to save her is to abort the baby then yes i would agree with abortion in that instance...he is an idiot if he thinks he has solved anything...and birth control can be gotten for free at most health clinics around here, im not sure about everywhere, but there is always the condom and abstinence ;)
Valefar 7 years ago
There is no genius here. This is a false dichotomy, a form of illogical reasoning. Tomlinson did not create a genius argument, he deceptively put forth a well-known form of logical fallacy to falsely claim victory in a debate of his own creation. There is no right answer in a false dichotomy, only the laughter of it's creator when he sees he duped you. BoredPanda can do better than give a megaphone to this troll.
David Blomberg 7 years ago
I am pro-choice but false choices. It ignores the issue of pain and assumes we have a moral duty to save all lives. I would save the screaming child to prevent pain, which an embryo cannot feel (even if you consider it a human instead of a potential human).
Jeff Bjorck 7 years ago
I would save the child. The fact that we can now store human embryos as "viable" is a red herring. Such embryos have no chance of life unless artificially implanted in a womb, and then they still must successfully attach and begin to grow. If I saw (a) a 5-year-old and (b) a six month fetus wriggling in its own blood, I would still grab the child because the odds of her/him surviving are far greater. That does not make the premature infant "not alive" or "not human." If I saw a healthy 5-year-old screaming and another 5-year-old unconscious and bleeding badly, I would again save the healthy child, but that does not make the other wounded child "not human" or "not alive." This author's asinine argument uses "Sophie's Choice" to set up an impossible scenario, which proves nothing other than the truth that every medic on the battle field knows: "Give your efforts to the one MOST LIKELY to survive." This does not determine humanity.
Cassandra S 7 years ago
Ben Shapiro always answers pro-abortion arguments with facts. Ben answered him brilliantly. But he blocked him.
Robert Harrison 7 years ago
The answer to this question is that you save the child because it has already survived childbirth. There is never any guarantee an embryo will survive birth, let alone the effects of a fire. The real question against anti-abortionists is if abortions were illegal, would you want your 14 yo daughter to seek an abortion from a back-alley butcher? It's a simple as that.
Daniel Blumentritt 7 years ago
Interestingly, quite a lot of people quite a variety of honest answers. The idea that it's NEVER been answered honestly is bogus - he only accept as "honest" answers he agrees with.
Daniel Blumentritt 7 years ago
Interestingly, TONS of people gave honest answers. He just blocked them.
Reagan Britt 7 years ago
This does nothing to the argument. It is a bad and flawed hypothetical.
Peter Hingle 7 years ago
This Patrick guy comes across as a jerk but let's change the choice to a healthy five year old and a crippled five year old with Downs Syndrome. When we devalue human life in any form we devalue it in all forms. We make value choices all the time. It doesn't mean the embryos have no value just not the value of a 5 year old. For the record many pro lifers adopt children.
endelbendel 7 years ago
This is the trolley problem in philosophy, which is unsolveable. The most coherent solution, utilitarianism - greatest good for the greatest number, does not do justice to individual value. My answer is to get my a*s out of there without carrying anybody bc of my bad shoulders.
Carl Edgren 7 years ago
Found this "pro-lifer's" response http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/18/no-saving-child-instead-embryos-burning-building-not-negate-pro-life-position/
Rachael Klein 7 years ago
Why do these pro- choicers automatically assume that because someone is Pro-life, they have not adopted or fostered children? That they do not agree with giving help to those who actually NEED it, not just want it so they can be lazy? That they don't volunteer THEIR spare time to help people in need? That we are all against birth control? That when they see a child in need they don't pull money straight from their almost empty pockets and buy that child what it needs? These are all myths and they need to stop. Every time you morons start an argument, you sounds no better than racist who use stereotypes to explain it away.
Christie Walker 7 years ago
I always ask if they believe in prenatal care. If you believe in god's plan you don't need a doctor or vitamins etc. If you choose to intervene with medical care by human you do not trust gods plan.
Annette Moody 7 years ago
A seed is life. A sperm is life and alive, therefore what is alive and living is valid, and it follows an embryo is already viable.
Jerry Nenarella 7 years ago
You grab the kid and go! Shut the hell up and let the women decide for themselves!
Leanne Pippin 7 years ago
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read! It is just pedantic nonsense! The answer to this question is NOT going to define life or the value of one over the other. It's a ridiculous set up scenario. Here is another one, pick the place, but instead of the embryos make it between a small child or your grandmother, or one of your parents, or even your own child. You have to pick one to save, the chances of you leaving your own child to save someone else's is extremely unlikely. The child left behind his just as important. So someone chooses the 5 year old to save, that doesn't make the embryos any less important. While they are life they are currently in a frozen condition, which is a WHOLE other debate, therefore the logical choice would be the 5 year old child. Here's another scenario, You are in a burning building with your terminal child who only has a few months to live and another child who is perfectly healthy and has his/her whole life ahead of them, who would you save
jaw386 7 years ago
Direct quote: “This question absolutely eviscerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true. No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is equivalent to a child. That person does not exist. They are lying to you. They are lying to you to try and evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false-equivalency. No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children. Those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women.” There are two problems with this argument: 1) The criticism of the people who believe life begins at conception as being emotional and trying to control people, (ie. Women) is the very basis of the question given in the first place. The question puts the person in a situation that is firstly, an extremely rare situation and then asks for a response that is controlled by the individual asking the question. The question is looking for a emotional response based
jaw386 7 years ago
on the tightly controlled situation, and then pronouncing that the “obvious” answer to this question once and for all debunks the idea that life begins at conception. 2) I can also make up any number of situations that would call for a certain response, that if not given would raise scepticism of the person’s reasoning for answering in that way. a) There are two women trapped in a partially collapsed building. One is 70 years old and one is 7 years old. The building is one fire and will very shortly collapse completely. There is not enough time for you to rescue both, but you do have time to get out with one of the individuals. Which person do you save and why? b) There are two vehicles traveling the same direction along on a two-lane highway right next to a river. In car A is a father and his 12-year-old daughter, while in car B is a 30-year-old man driving home to his wife and kids. As both cars are right beside each other, a large truck, travel in the opposite direction hit the t
Daniel Valone 7 years ago
'Pro-lifers' stopped the use of fertilized egg cells for stem cell research - calling it murder. Yet every day fertility clinics flush fertilized egg cells down the drain when the 'parents' no longer need or want them.
Elaine Gavigan 7 years ago
Disagree. I do believe embryos are children and that life starts at conception. Ask most parents and they will tell you the same thing. Ask any woman who has had a miscarriage. I don't think such a delicate subject should boil down to the question you propose. I am pretty sure most people would pick the child obviously in this situation. As I did.
Juan Manuel Dominguez 7 years ago
1/Of course in that scneario you save the child. But now let me ask you something. If there is no fire, you enter in the room and see... 2/a kid/person with a Baseball bat swinging around those "viable human embryos", would you stop him? 3/ option A) you ecourage him and he destroys the enbryons Opt B) you stop him and some or all of those embryons live. 4/ as in your case, there is no option "C". Please give your honest answer. One day later, I am still waiting for his honest answer....
Ron Scala Sr. 7 years ago
Abortions were very common up till the 1950's also that's when the USA added god to the pledge of allegiance and it's been all down hill ever since
James Shields 7 years ago
i honestly thought a even thought it makes me sound like a terrible person mainly because i do believe that life starts at conception
Chris Miller 7 years ago
How exactly does one safely remove 1000 (-190 degree) embryos? - where would you place them after removing them? No matter what you do the fire would be catastrophic...
Diana Strahl 7 years ago
Life begins when the children leave home and the dog dies. But, seriously, if women want to control their own bodies, then why don't they? Use effective BC or keep your damn legs closed. THAT"S the no-brainer!
Michael Corral 7 years ago
Wow this is a weak argument. An embryo is not a fetus. And yes, science says, even at the zygote stage, it's human. And if not, what species is it?
Barry Nolan 7 years ago
I like his question. I immediately picked answer a. I would do it every time if I was faced with the same situation.
Andrew Mutz 7 years ago
I would try to save them both but in order of importance starting with me.. after that if it was my child I would go with child, if it was my wife's viable eggs and a strangers baby I would go with the eggs. The important question is why did someone leave a baby alone in a burning building?
Patricia Ross 7 years ago
In that situation I would grab the 5 year old because he is at a point in his development that he has fear and will feel pain. So in my opinion, his need is greater. That doesn't mean that I don't think that embryos are not alive. They take in nutrients and grow and develop. If you know of something else other than living things that do that, please let me know. I don't think this answer make me a liar. I do think the guy who wrote this is very intolerant of anyone's opinion that doesn't match his.
Dan Beulen 7 years ago
you have to know they are there first..most couldnt recognize a container of embryos..and why where you there...dont judge by what ifs...if most knew.they would save them all...eggs are not growing humans tho and children are not born in jars anymore
Patrick Freeman 7 years ago
This is an extension of the "Trolley Problem". A ethical thought experiment. It was first introduced by Phillippa Foot in 1967. It goes like this. You are on a trolley that it out of control. The track ahead of yeah has a switch that can divert the out of control trolley down a different track. To do nothing would run over five construction workers that are working on the track ahead. To throw the switch diverts the trolly but runs over a random person. So... do you kill one to save five? There are lots of different interpretations and ways to make it harder. The one person you kill has the cure for cancer... so you choose to save hime and kill the five. Lets say one of the five is the single parent to twins that were just born and their mother died during child birth. And on and on. The point of the thought exercise is there is no right or wrong answer. So this guy hijacked a very old ethical dilemma experiment and demands you accept the conditions of his premise as the
Glen Steen 7 years ago
I wouldn't want my wife/girlfriend to have an abortion. However, I am Pro-Life and fully support Planned Parenthood and all their activities for healthy pregnancies, birth control etc and for abortion as required. Abortion-1...90-png.jpg
Monika Soffronow 7 years ago
The absolutely horrible truth is that when abortion is not a legal alternative, women have abortions anyway. They, and only they can judge if they want the pregnancy or not, and only they can decide if the risk of severe complications or indeed even DEATH from an unsafe abortion is worth it. Those opposed to legal and readily available abortions are the real moral owners of murder - by denying women the right to safely decide over their own bodies.
Pat Orsban 7 years ago
A, of course. The embryos have not been fertilized. I do support a woman"s authority (notice I do not say right, no one has the right to kill another, but many have the authority to do so). to kill her unborn child. I am just not some whiny liberal who has to call the unborn child a fetus, to feel better about murdering unborn children. Perhaps, if the whiny liberals actually said what they do, they might do it less.
Patricia Speelman 7 years ago
I think the argument is spot on! Next time I get into a discussion about pro life vs pro choice, I will ask the pro lifer that very question. Thanks.
Anthony Hunt 7 years ago
If you were in a burning building with two briefcases, one with 2 million dollars and one with 1 million dollars and you can only save one: How much is the briefcase that you left behind worth?
Joe Lucier 7 years ago
Hello. Thanks for your thought provoking question. Here is your question. A person goes into a burning building and only one can only take be removed from the room and building. The choices are, you, the asker of this original question, or a pregnant woman. Which do you choose? I challenge you to ask all the others you have asked your question. And it could just be two people since people may be angry at you, a man, and a pregnant woman. For you personally, what would you choose?
Jesse Egbert 7 years ago
Saying this hypothetical "shuts down" the anti-abortion argument is a little exaggerated, and I'm saying that generously. I would first like to say that to make a hypothetical so strict makes it unrealistic. There is never a case in reality where there does not exist some hope. It could be possible to save both and one who earnestly believes (hoping myself to be one) that there are 1001 children or persons in that room that need saving would try to save them all. An attempt should be made. Regardless, if even in our ignorance or our own weakness that we might fail to recognize or even qualify the lives of both options, the reality remains the same. Regardless of our choice, if we choose to save the child in option A, there are still victims of the fire (the other persons in option B). Regardless of which we choose, if only able to choose one, it does not nullify the fact that human life was lost.
Tom Benvie 7 years ago
Same scenario-instead of the embryos, there are two old people and one child. Who do you save? Most people would select the child. Same scenario. Ten middle aged people or one child. Most people would select the child. Same scenario. A newborn and a three year old. Interesting, but I bet the three year old wins out. Because our nurturing mind tells us, not our analytical one. I'm Pro Life, and adoptive father of four.
Livi Liv 7 years ago
If this question is aiming to show that people don't care about unborn babies, it's probably true for many of us. In my opinion, there is a massive lack of awareness about happens during fetal development. All I know is what I learnt about sex, once a sperm fertilizes and egg, a baby begins to grow. Any thing that stops that growth or even ends that growth is a death. If a woman loses her baby while in the womb, even early in pregnancy, it is considered a miscarriage. This is a death. So why would abortion be any different?
Livi Liv 7 years ago
A baby won't grow unless an embryo is implanted in a uterus, so fertilization is not the same as conception anyway. Further more; At what point do you believe human life begins to matter? Do you know for certain at what point a baby is considered human? Is it once their limbs and brain and body begin to look more like the rest of us?
Morgiana 7 years ago
Not implying anything about the right choice, but that question was flawed. Frozen embryos aren't "alive". They are store to either be used one day or be thrown away. Same goes for people that freeze themselves to be "revived" in the future when we are more technologically advanced. If it were 1000 of those frozen people I would still save that one 5 yr old who is "alive".
Black Dahlia 7 years ago
One should be required to get a license to have a child. There should be a very minimal fitness and knowledge test that must be passed in order to get this license. If one fails, they are offered the choice of contraceptive implants or ineligibility for public assistance. Actually, there should be one government-funded free service for unlicensed pregnancies: abortion. Our country would be a much better place in the space of just one generation.
Leonardo Della Pietra 7 years ago
The question is illegal: how could you expect anyone to argue to such a question ON TWITTER?!?! One should be given enough characters to give a complete answer. Even if for choosing between A and B you only need 1 character. Then: if I'm pro-life (whatever that means) and I'm fighting to make abortion illegal then I'm fighting to live in a world where those embryos are not existent. You cannot create a situation that goes against my principles and then ask me to take stance just to show that my choice is highlighting the limits of my reasoning. You have already put me over the limits. It's logically equivalent, for example, to a mother in a Nazi camp which can save only one child out of two and has to decide which one gets killed: it's not a way of demonstrating which one she lover the most. Mr. Tomlinson should cool down. There are other ways of talking seriously about abortion. And no one has an answer which is valid for everyone. Personally I think I'm against-abortion pro-choice.
Linda Sheppard 7 years ago
There is no for or against and should never be argued.It is purely a decision the adult/adults have to make. It is their private matter they are the people who have to be happy with the decision for the rest of their life. Arguing over this is as stupid as arguing over whether an individual should have sex or not , pro sex? anti sex? Maybe bring out a law that allows sex only after a couple have passed a test that they are capable of caring for a child. Ridiculous? Yes. You can join groups, protest all you like, but how dare anyone try and put their views on to an individual . When children get head lice, do the anti abortion group leave the nits (embyos) in the hair. I hope so. I am on the side of individual choice. I would of course save the 5 year old child first even if there were a room of 1000 kittens. It is simply a matter of individual choice.
gary hutchison 7 years ago
why are all replies about abortion?, it was a very simple question, A or B ? save a child or a canister of embryos . me i`d pick C, forget them both and get the f**k out.
Michelle Dodson 7 years ago
I just want to point out that there is a big difference between "pro life" and "pro choice". I am pro choice, which doesn't mean I am "pro abortion". I simply mean a womans' choice is NONE OF MY F*****G BUSINESS. And it isn't any of yours either.
Petrino Brown 7 years ago
I firmly believe babies are all evil and should all be aborted immediately and sex should be banned entirely and all men should be castrated.
Jon Jansen 7 years ago
1. My family and I are democrats 2. We are prolife. We have adopted children (2) so the argument of “we don’t see it” is like when someone says they don’t see that is like when a white man tells a black man police brutality doesn’t exist because he’s never seen it. 3. A scenario like this does “win” the argument for abortion. The morality of an issue is not determined by an exaggerated experiment. Come on now. You sound like the Donald. Makes one point in your own mind then refuses to hear other points of clew
Emma Jay 7 years ago
I think this scenario misses the mark of pro - abortion perse. Pro - abortion pertains to couples,,, a mother...a family as they are confronted with any decision. The individual if in the scenario...should not be criticised who they save or for that matter judged for their choice. In the bible, a child should be born in love. Not in a dish. pro-abortion is in line with this setting. We can not judge anyone in this setting...if man makes their own rules with playing god by putting all these embryos in a dish and expects God to be challenged for his people to prove their belief for their amusement will be on his own head. Choosing in faith to follow god' s way is the test. Freely following god's counsel. ones choice.
James Cates 7 years ago
This hypothetical question is also lying to you, trying to evoke an emotional response, a paternal response, using false equivalency. I can rip the question into tiny little pieces, given the ludicracy of the question itself, but that is neither here nor there in terms of importance. The fact of the matter is, that although the embryos have indeed the spark of life capability in them, they are not alive per se. Why? Because they are frozen so that the growth process is effectively dead. It is not until they are placed in a suitable environment for growth that their "life" will continue. The phrase "life begins at conception" is assuming the egg is fertilized by the sperm in the environment of the female body that allows the life to continue. A frozen embryo is not the same.
Celia Citerio 7 years ago
A - of course , but I don't agree with abortion as a form of anticonceptional metod ! there are plenty of them these days! thanks Patrick to try to open peoples eyes!!!!!
Fkgk Dmvkfk 7 years ago
I would easily pick A. F**k the embryos there not alive yet but that kid is. Honestly.
Ania Tamas 7 years ago
I don´t agree with abortions but still , each individual should choose what they want . Is the woman pregnant because she raped ? Is the baby healthy ? Could I take care of a very sick baby ( who knows what problems the child might have in the future) ? Is my life in danger because of the pregnancy ? etc etc And I know many say that the baby might be adopted but not forget that there are so many babies out there without a family . And what if the baby will be fine but the family will abuse him ? There are so many questions . We need to educate people about birth controls .
Roger Hawcroft 7 years ago
The question is typical of those put to philosophy 101 students. It *is* about values and illustrates that nothing is black and white and most of our value statements are not thought out. In differing contexts some will decide one way and some the other - most will react without rational decision but simply out of conditioning, ideology, or imposed notions of value. I don't believe that there is. a right or wrong answer, though I tend to believe that most would opt for rescuing the child in this situation. In reality, I think what the question does is illustrate that "belief" is an errant concept and cannot be relied upon to solve dilemnas.
Marc DeGiovanni 7 years ago
I agree to your premise, and agree to the same verdict you do, but your question and hypothesis are not correlative. Exchange embryos in this hypothetical 'one-or-the-other' situation with a sick elderly man on his death bed, and the same number of people will answer "A.) save the child" This does not mean the elderly man on his death bed is not alive. I won't get in to a definition of life, as I personally believe more liberties should be given to parents for making decisions based on their pro-creations. Your scenario is causing people to chose what is more viable to them. Instead of embryo, exchange it with a "born at six months premature baby" in an ICU enclosure or the 5 year old, and despite being a gut wrenching decision, virtually any sane person would pick the more viable option of the 5 year old to save. Again, that does not mean the 6-month born premature baby is any less "alive" than the 5 year old. It means we are making a decision based on viability.
Valerie Aaronson 7 years ago
I love his point. I'm pro-choice and I had an abortion. This will sound very strange, but I did it out of love for the embryo. It would've been born terribly sick and would have suffered tremendously, and I couldn't let that happen. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one, but stay out of other people's business. Anything else is misogyny, even if done by women.
Laurence Hazlewood 7 years ago
Here is MY question. If all Life is sacred and only God-given how come this God Creator allows 30% of all KNOWN pregnancies to end in spontaneous abortion (aka -miscarriage) and nobody KNOWS how many UNKNOWN pregnancies spontaneously abort before gestation can be identified? Where IS this sacred life that so many Pro-lifers who are also coincidentally pro-gun ownership and pro-cutting public health measures and who coincidentally deny the right to life for Black People, the children of the poor, refugee children, the victims of mass-shootings and police brutality, where IS Life Sacred to them? It would appear it is only sacred up to the moment when it impinges on THEIR welfare, THEIR lifestyle or THEIR Wealth. Do tell WHERE this callous and impotent God resides that allows the deaths of these unborn infants or what the response should be to all those Christian Right wingers who drink alcohol, smoke tobacco or shoot drugs whilst pregnant or in proximity to their unborn foetuses.
Weeping Willowz (WeepingWillowz) 7 years ago
Anti-abortion is actually really stupid. Think about it like this, a teen of 13-14 has been raped and impregnated. But, they have found out that they’re pregnant. People who think abortion is WRONG are basically saying that a person so young has to deal with the pain of childbirth, being called a s**t or a whore for having a child so young and (in some religions) being forced to MARRY the rapist. (Btw, I’m NOT being racist or anti religion, I just know that in some religions it’s tradition to marry the one that you bore the child to)
Weeping Willowz (WeepingWillowz) 7 years ago
Also, a study has shown that embryos are not classified as living, human or a child/baby. They are not a proper life form until they have developed further.
Load More Replies... Abe Aboud 7 years ago
So, if there was a fire and the author of this monstrosity and a 5 year old girl were trapped in a building, and I could only save one, which would it be? Of course, if I save the girl, I am automatically admitting that the author is not a living human being. In life, we often have to make hard choices, sometimes at the expense of another life. A mother dying of cancer decided to avoid chemo so she can give birth to her girl, and the girl is alive and well now. She was not a life worth saving and her late mother was somehow a liar? Rubbish!
Bobbie Hammond 7 years ago
I do not believe in abortion, with that said, I believe a woman should have the right to make that decision on her own. I know other women that have had abortions that regret having done so many years later. There are some that have no regret at all. I believe before a woman has an abortion she should talk to at least 3 other women that have already had abortions and make an informative decision. Do not trade one problem for another.
Chris Owens 7 years ago
well...if he is in a clinic, then it has fire suppression per NFPA code for public buildings....so his scenario wouldnt happen and why is there a child in the fertility clinic why is the child that shouldnt be there , in a room with frozen embryos this guy does what all liberals do, take the most extreme situation to try and justify their ideaology and then when someone answers logically as I have, they call you names
Charles Gill Sfo 7 years ago
I love beating up on pro-lifers myself, because they're dishonest. Then again, I read an interesting article by a rabbi in the Jerusalem post. His argument goes like this: The writer of Deuteronomy, who lived two hundred years before Aristotle, was clearly Aristotilian. Deuteronomy 30 gives one of the 613 commandments, "Bocher chaim." "Choose life." He asks, "What does this commandment mean in its context?" In essence, he argues that all life is becoming what it is. All life is life in potentiality. For the mother that means treated with dignity and respect, as made in God's image. Any attack on her is really an attack on God's image within her. The same for the husband. We must help him reach his fullest potentiality and that means a living wage and respect in the work place. It reaches out to the animals. Jewish and Muslim law states that if an animal suffers when it dies, it becomes non-kosher. Animals have rights too. God put us on the planet to guard it and to keep it.
Charles Gill Sfo 7 years ago
We as Christians have a moral obligation to promote the plethora of gun problem in this country and the global warming problem. When we as Christians say the Our Father we ask that he lead us not into temptation, and the story above is such a temptation. We must choose and we are only given two negative choices. It's true, when the pro-lifers argue for pro-life, it is a sick joke. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the fetus isn't a life. It's potential life & on that basis alone we must help it fulfil its potentiality. Every cop on the beat and every soldier in the field faces a similar question. The guy in front of me holds a gun. Either I kill him, or he kills me. Choose life. Best to make sure war never comes in the first place. That means ending poverty, making sure our children are never tempted to put themselves into that position. That's the Christian position. Choosing life means bringing the fullness of life's potentiality, this instant to every person we meet.
Load More Replies... Chris Manns 7 years ago
Why is there a 5 year old left alone in a Fertility clinic ? Why is the Clinic still operating without a working sprinkler system ?
Samantha Street 7 years ago
That’s all fine and dandy and a big thumbs up to the smarty pants who cooked this up. However, I am 1000% Pro life and no one with their quick wit could make me change my mind. Clearly, the child is living and breathing so you would save him. That doesn’t mean that those embryos “died “. They are not inside of a woman’s body attached to an umbilical cord, sustaining LIFE. Also, my pro life argument goes back a little farther. There are so many forms of protection and birth control out there, there is little to no excuse to have an abortion. As far as the “what if it’s rape or incest” argument goes: less than 1% of the thousands of abortions they occur each year are due to those two reasons. The number one reason is simply birth control. STOP HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX. That simple! 🤔
Frances Escoto 7 years ago
For one thing embryos are not babies until the embryo is fertilized by a sperm. Once the sperm penetrates the embryo (at conception) that is when the embryo becomes a BABY. So an embryo in a tube is not a baby. It is an unfertilized embryo. When women ovulates that embryo sits in the uterus until it gets fertilized by a sperm. If it does not get fertilized by a sperm it leaves the woman's body by menstrual period. SO THOSE TUBE THAT HAVE EMBRYOS IN THEM ARE NOT BABIES. NOT UNTIL IT IS FERTILIZED BY A SPERM!!!
Daniel Pearson 7 years ago
I REALLY QUESTION THIS GUYS THOUGHTS AND WILL CALL HIM OUT TO RELABEL HIS QUESTION AND USE THE WORD BABY INSTEAD OF EMBRYO IN HIS QUESTION AND SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN RESPONSES HE GETS.
Camel Olah 7 years ago
i am merely going to say that life seems to start when the sperm penetrates the egg...20 years ago they put a camera in a woman and filmed the entire pregnancy and it was seen that there was an electrical spark at that exact moment i think it might be a soul arriving in this world so ya it sucks maybe you live or maybe you will die so i dont know any answer its a c**p shoot in a way....
Maureen Robertson 7 years ago
I think it is a clever question but manipulative. The same question could have been asked where the choice was a five year old child and an old woman, or a child and the doctor. The choice does not have to mean that one is deciding between living and non living. The answer reveals only the value system of the person answering, not whether or not life is present. Some people might choose the James T Kirk approach and simply rephrase the question a la Kobayashi Maru and IMO this is legitimate. For example, why not yell for help or grab a fire extinguisher etc etc. FWIIW I would choose the child who would feel the pain of the fire.
Kenley Morrison 7 years ago
the bible is actually pro-abortion. If a husband suspects a woman is pregnant with another man's child - there is a process where God is supposed to actually facilitate the abortion. That does not mean that abortion is good or right. It just means that there are higher priorities that essentially mean that those who are against abortion are not defending any sacred ground at all.
Joseph Beaudet 7 years ago
Both. Well if you can carry "1,000 embryos just sitting in the corner". You get down low and calm the child down, tell him or her to look you in the eyes and be strong and make sure him or her stays in front of you holding onto your shirt while you carry the embryos. After getting out the build hopefully people are standing by to get the embryos to a proper place in time with the right temperature and maybe some will be saved.
Kathy Coleman 7 years ago
Until it is viable outside of the womb, it's a parasite. I feel for the pregnant woman who has to carry the parasite until it is a viable child, and believe it is HER DECISION to carry it. No one else can tell her what to do with that child/parasite/embryo/whatever you want to call it. I would be more inclined to feel for the "pro-life" contingent if they actually cared about the CHILDREN who they are forcing into a horrible, loveless life.
Justin Lawson 7 years ago
It’s important to remember that supporting freedom of choice is not the same supporting, or even approving of abortion. I’m not a fan of tattoos, so I’ve made the choice not to get any, but I don’t judge anyone for choosing to get them and I’m not going to lobby to make tattoos illegal. More relevant to the topic, I believe smoking is terrible and lethal, so I choose not to smoke, but, again... I pass no judgment and I’m not going to go on a mission ban smoking or the manufacture/distribution of tobacco products. Every person should have the right to choose what we do to and with our own bodies. Our country was founded and built on that principle. Supporting freedom does not have to mean supporting what one does with that freedom. What if the government decided to pass a law requiring women to have an abortion if she had already had a child or any number of children? The moment we start allowing our freedoms to be compromised, this is the slope we start sliding down.
Rebecca Coomes 7 years ago
Perfect answer here. https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/science/ethical-issues/fire-in-the-clinic.html
David Wall 7 years ago
This poses a comparable question on how might we value life. Likewise the reason we’re in this rather b/w scenario isn’t the point. Here it is. A 95 YO man is on life support. There is also a 20 week old foetus supported in an artificial womb. The power goes out and there’s only one power generator left with enough power to support one. Choices: A) Save 20 week old foetus connecting generator to it’s life support B) Save 95 YO man with generator C) Do nothing and both expire
Dan Forster 7 years ago
ahh...America the land where your civil liberties begin at conception and end at birth.
Marc LaClear 7 years ago
Also, if you're not willing to help a specific child does that give you no right to say it is wrong to kill said child?
Marc LaClear 7 years ago
You're in a burning building, you can save 2 children (who are not your own) from one room, or you can save 1 child (your own) from another. What do you choose?
Little Miss Divinity 7 years ago
we would instinctively grab the kid in a moment of panic because, honestly, a screaming child is more tangible than a thousand silent embryos. Honestly though, this has nothing to do with abortion. I can't comprehend the though process of someone willing to kill their child so they don't have to have an inconvenience. Really, just wait until you are married for love, it is an insult to yourself and your partner in reality. It's nasty how people sleep with whoever they want whenever they want for entertainment. that is only a small part of it, what it really is is a bonding experience to be shared only as a husband and wife and a means to reproduce. it just happens to be fun. I'm not against birth control either, I'm against sex before marriage. And yes, i understand people make mistakes but that's what adoption is for. and yes, many christians adopt kids like that, the "christians" you guys hone in on don't truly have God's live in them. they are not real christians so please stop us.
Rhiannon Mueller 7 years ago
LOL - what an idiot question - trying to throw someone off with an event that will never happn. But just in case you're wondering - those embryos must be kept at -196C. And they're kept in a giant vat. They can't be away from a power source and I can't lift the vat. In the outlandish event that I have enough time to procure a battery and hook it up to the vat and get a lift to lift the vat and get it out of the building - I sure has hell have enough time to put the kid into the lift and get our asses out of there.
Cindy Wayson 7 years ago
Its called taking of your own responsiblity. #1) It is not the taxpayers responsibility to take care of people's birth control #2) like i taught my own children, the only 100% effective birth control is abstinence any time after that you are taking the chance of pregnancy and you simply don't have sex if you are not willing to except that responsibility. #3) in those cases of rape you could always find someone to adopt a newborn.. NO WHERE DOES IT STATE THAT OUR COUNTRY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PEOPLE 'S HEALTH CARE OR BIRTH CONTROL nor does it say that you are entitled to sex. That being said in my opinion the child/children would be the obvious choice to me simply because without a viable mother you couldn't nurture the growth of a baby and it simply could grow to term.
Donald Rackley 7 years ago
Shuts down nothing. Ridiculous hypothetical. Same fire. Five year old child versus 80 year old man. Who do you save? Does that mean the other has no value? Perhaps, but only to a libtard.
Sioux Cline 7 years ago
I have one question for this man. Have YOU ever had an abortion? If not than you don't know the feeling of that life inside of you, even though it's only 9 weeks old, wanting to survive. I am not against abortion. But to say that NO ONE thinks abortion is killing a being you are wrong. There is more to a human being than a bunch of cells. There is a soul. Abortion should never be taken lightly. It is a very serious thing for a mother to terminate the potential life of her child. And most women who endure an abortion hate it.
Brandon Hockaday 7 years ago
So why are there embryos just chillin in the place anyways? Oh yeah, because abortion is legal.
Rebekah Thurston 7 years ago
The same reason why I would grab a five year old child before a bunch of old people that doesnt mean the old people aren't alive. Once I got the child out, I would go back in for the embryos.
Katinka Min 7 years ago
There really are people out there who'd save embryos over a child in a fire?? (Or at least claim they would) Wow. The question is really good, though. I'll keep it in mind should I ever run into this discussion. Fortunately, I live in a country where an abortion is not easy to obtain and only allowed in the first trimester, but at least there are no maniacs outside clinics going batshit crazy over other people's choices and it's not a public discussion.
Aysel Jafarova 7 years ago
That is a ridiculous comparison, embryo has only one cells fused of mother father Dna, nothing else than this, and can't be considered as an individual or human being. Abortions are done after the age of 12 weeks or so, where the body is recognisable by doctors to be aborted, by which time almost all the organs are formed and hearth started to beat. That is a starting point of being a human being. So yes abortion means killing an Individual, innocent individual.
Johnaka Doe 7 years ago
Well I say I am pro contraception many at the same time if you have issues both female and male, yes it's your body, but it's my tax money funding your choices and contraceptions sooooooooooooooooooo adulting is tough, but you are responsible for your choices first and formost.
Benjamin Gilmore 7 years ago
I think that this is a question that misses the point of abortion. Yes a live baby has more worth than an embryo....but you're not choosing have an abortion or kill a baby....your choosing ...kill the embryo or don't.
Brianna Taylor 7 years ago
Just to humor this idiot k ill answer the question. The average human being eould obviously choose to save the child that is right in front of them and interacting with them. For me i would pick the child because if you want a real messed up answer id much rather let the embryos die because it would be easier than killing the child and hearing the screams, to literally torture any being is cruel. An embryo wouldnt be developed which means it wouldnt feel it. The way people think these days sickens me. Yes people have sex for pleasure but the original reason for sex is obviously two create life. So any two people that are going to interact in sexual activity knowing full well the risks, one of them being pregnancy, then that is automatically your responsibility. Whether or not embryos are babies, if something is or has the potential to become a living being you don't kill it. That would be insane. And it's very unlikely that we would ever have to choose between a child or thousand embry
Barbara Howe 7 years ago
The answer to the question is that you should save the 5 year old child. Not because that child is more valuable than the embryos but because at the level of life they are at, the embryos do not feel the same level of fear and pain that the older child does. But it doesn't mean they are not important also. Sometimes decisions are situational. And then we just have to do the best we can and so you can't always compare apples and oranges.
Mark Littleton Sr 7 years ago
Kind of a foolish scenario to satisfy ones agenda anyway. Non the less...We should all be willing to sacrifice our own lives for the lives of others. After throwing the 5 yr old on my back I grab the embryos and do all I can to save us all. If it is in Gods plan for us to survive or die that's up to him. Am I copping out here?
Eric Veach 7 years ago
I think I can save all of them...might die...whatevs. Why can't the five year old run, or follow you if you say to? How big is the room...maybe I can't save any of them. Stupid question. Unless I knew they were in there to begin with, I doubt I'd even notice a jar in a corner. Why is there a five year old hiding, unsupervised in a corner? Not exactly Sophie's Choice. This dude must mostly talk to idiots.
Full Name 7 years ago
This guy is an idiot. I hate this type of stupidity so much. It's an emotional argument pretending to be a logical one blasting emotional responses. This is such disingenuous garbage I can't handle it. He lost me at "No one believes life begins at conception". *palmface*. So they're ALL lying? It's vast conspiracy to control women's bodies? Hey buddy, this fake-a*s feminism won't get you laid so f**k right off. FYI, I'm pro choice, but I'm even more pro-objectivity and this guys seems to lack it in spades. Not everyone who feels differently from you is lying and has an agenda. I have no patience for idiots like this guy.
Full Name 7 years ago
He would've been smart to quit while he was ahead. The "what would you grab?" thing is an interesting point that would give anybody some pause, and I thought I saw where he was going with it....but then he veered off and crashed into a tree with his argument.
Load More Replies... Seamus Kidd 7 years ago
its not as bright or brilliant as he thinks in his condescending and pretentious manner. the embryos have potential , they are not of use in the tube and might even fail to be productive how does that equate to the actual time of conception which is at the core of the debate.
Barbara Burke 7 years ago
His question is stupid because unless the embryos is inside a womans body, it will never grow. An abortion takes it out so it can't grow. It is a baby inside the mother, when taken out it is whatever science decides to do with it.
Trebor Erebut 7 years ago
This type of question can only be asked by a naive person. In a recent movie about an earthquake in China, a woman has two children but in a dilemma no one should ever face, she can only save one leaving the other to die. No choice is ever right here. A choice being made here does not mean one can choose to kill a child. D U M B !!!
Jenna 7 years ago
Actually all that was done was the simple bait and switch tactic. Instead of keeping abortion/infanticide as the center of the debate the man tossed in a streruous hypothetical in order to avoid facing abortion/infanticide's grim reality. Going by his thinking human life retains value depending on the stage of life he/she is within...as well as it's condition. It's a very dangerous view to have
Louis Gittings 7 years ago
while i know it's not a perfect position, as a man who could potentially lose a child to a woman's choice to abort, reasoning we're not gonna strap her down, put her legs up in stirrups for nine months, and ensure the fetus gets essential pre-natal nourishment through iv's, i have no choice but to adopt a PRO-LIFE, AFTER BIRTH stance.
Nigel Oswyn 7 years ago
Its not a realistic scenario, therefore its not an argument. Where are there 1000 embryos in petri dishes waiting to be rescued? It makes no sense and would never be a valid situation.
Sick Boy 7 years ago
The guy came up with a good riddle but completely misinterpreted the responses of anti-abortion people. Their refusal to answer the riddle comes not from some secret acceptance that the eggs and fetuses are not living entities - because they are - but from the refusal to accept that the value of a life can be scaled and put into perspective after all.
Athena Brown 7 years ago
Here you go: https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m40s -- answered from beginning to end.
Red Rum 7 years ago
IF you DON'T murder the baby at any stage of development , about 9 months after the moment of conception - a baby is born. That's How you "shut down" an Idiot. Thanks for the picture Patrick S. Tomlinson and for pointing to where the real problem LIES. Difficult to repent if you cant admit to murder. No need to be in the book of life when you pen the book of death. God will deal with you, on that day you will believe.. I promise.
Athena Brown 7 years ago
Here you go: https://youtu.be/zMyEu3hSjX0?t=2m40s -- totally answered from beginning to end.
Nathan Haws 7 years ago
This is why his argument totally fails. http://www.dailywire.com/news/22360/pro-abortion-fanatic-presented-thought-experiment-ben-shapiro
Dave Sergison 7 years ago
The issue about abortion is not simply about pro life or the right of a person to have control over their own body. There are failed arguments for both sides. My own view is really quite cynical about the nature of human beings. To argue that the point of conception is the beginning of life is nonsensical as that seed of life cannot possibly survive without the support and nurture of the women’s body. And yet to argue that a woman has a right to choose over her own body is also nonsensical when she has put herself in a position to become the carrier of a potential life , surely there is then a duty to nurture that life . There are obviously medical and physiological exceptions to that statement. But ,if we allow the very seed of life to be destroyed at inception simply because of a right to choose to destroy the result of a previous right to choose how big a step is it for us to allow people , physically ill or aged to be destroyed because they need help to survive ?
Janice Carmack 7 years ago
I know for a fact that an embryo is not a child and nothing like a child of any age. I lost an embryo when I was only 4 weeks pregnant many years ago. I saw that embryo and what it looked like at that time was a piece of meat fat, it had NO human form. So I will answer honestly and say that I would definitely save the child and never think twice about those embryos. They can be made again but that 5 year old child cannot. Embryos are a life form when they are created, but they are NOT children!
Carlo Mazzurra 7 years ago
No, he made a Kobyashi Maru where the only outcome is his opinion. And when it started to fall apart, he retconned conditions to only have his outcome. But it still falls apart. "I" can carry 2 5-year olds. So, I got the kid in one arm, the embryos in my other arm. Also, he never said the kid was disabled. Throw the kid out the door: "RUN!" grab the soon to be hard boiled eggs. Denying a third option makes the entire argument moot, an unsolvable moral dilemma, with only his "I will block you" solution available. He's really full of s**t.
Adrijana Radosevic 7 years ago
I'm gonna be honest. I'd get put. I don't give a f**k about babies, or embryos.
Adrijana Radosevic 7 years ago
and besides, let's all cut the bollocks here. If men were the ones birthing, you could get abortion at the ATM machine. Yes, we'll keep killing the s**t you seed in us and there's nothing you can DO about it. If I can't kill it while it's inside me, I'll kill it when I bring it home. Couple of years in jail is well worth avoiding bringing up something I consider a useless piece of s**t to this world. ok? ok.
Load More Replies... Michael Olsen 7 years ago
I agree. A simpler question to use also is... if the woman has the baby, but can not afford to keep it or it is unwanted or a child of rape, will the pro life person adopt the child and love it as their own for the rest of it's life?
Zsuzsanna Budapest 7 years ago
means nothing. Destroying their "argument" is meaningless to them. Its all about hurting sexually active females. Its all about them getting none. Male rage against the females who supposed to put out on their demand. Cursed abortion freaks.
Keith Smith 7 years ago
The answer is A, of course, one certainty over 1000 possibilities, but if we stop one woman from being a murderer, I'm still saving that five year old, a few years from now.
Keith Smith 7 years ago
The answer is A, of course, one certainty over 1000 possibilities. Yet, by stopping a woman from murder, I'm saving a five year old, albeit a few years early.
Diana Gilbert 7 years ago
At the age of 18 years old, I found out I was pregnant at 2 months. I never ever thought of an abortion; I carried the fertilized egg to full completion and gave birth to a beautiful baby girl. I would never have considered abortion. Carrie-Ann...cc0853.jpg
Paul Blakeman 7 years ago
And she will always be grateful you made that choice.
Load More Replies... Michael Tucker 7 years ago
OK - so Life does NOT beigin at "conception. Here's a question YOU can't answer. Just when DOES life begin. And please don't play the hypocrite and claim something stupid like 'when the water breaks', or some other nonsensical moment around actual birth, because babies have been remove from a mother as early as 16 and 1/2 weeks AND LIVED! The simple fact is abortion is killing a human. The question of whether or not you have a right as a woman to do so, is an entirely different debate. The question of when the life being carried becomes viable, is a different question. But to claim the what the mother is carrying 9 months is not a child, is insane - and WHY "Pro-Choice" people look like total idiots when they attempt to hedge all around the subject. Again: The simple fact is, "abortion', is killing a human.
Aaron Rieke 7 years ago
how can a grown person not carry a (2) 5 year olds out of a building? I have had to do that since both of my kids turned 5. These Kobayshi Maru tests are intended to make people choose one or the other. I would choose to try to save both. The chances that I am the only person left in this clinic with some lost child is remarkably small. So the test supposedly has no outcome possible for everyone to live. Ask Kirk how that works out.
Dane Soloey 7 years ago
There is no right answer, true. But this is not a "shattering" argument because this is not an argument at all but an entrapment that only serves to prove a single point.
Enrique Morales 7 years ago
The scenario is a no win situation. "I don't believe in no win scenarios". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-H1lz3OJ4
Rhona Laroche 7 years ago
I believe in common sense an embryo has potential to grow into a viable person but not until after it's first breath therefore life begins at birth not conseption easily understood buy those with common sense
L. Timbs 7 years ago
These two different examples are like comparing apples to oranges. The embryos are unattached so you will feel unattached to them as well. If a pregnant woman is killed, the culprit is charged with a double murder. Therefore this is ignorant and the guy doesn't know what he's comparing.If you don't want a child, be intelligent enough to buy birth control pills. Planned Parenthood will give them to u for free. It's not the tax payers responsibility to take that on. A pregnancy may be an inconvenience for some but remember someone else dreams of having a baby that can't have them. One day you'll be older and wish you had a son or daughter to love you and care for you. Good thing you weren't just a blob of flesh to your mother or you wouldn't be here.
Hawke Hill 7 years ago
So maybe we should also ask the opposite side of his "simple" question.....if a woman or girl was at an abortion clinic and a fire broke out and you had to rush in and could only save one ...being the woman who is aborting or the "doctor" who is performing the abortion who would you help ....morals do play a part and as much as we all think of ourselves as being above other species we actually act lower when it comes to actually living that morally instilled part of us! If anything threatens our children we stand like madmen to defend but had our parents "chose" not to have us you would NOT be here to write your views on this so think about it and the saying..."life is precious should hold alot of wieght!
J Robert Lysaght 7 years ago
This is a nonsense. His question only illustrates why we have laws. If someone harmed my son, if you let me decide, the penalty is a death sentence for the attacker, his family, and anyone who he ever loved. Laws are made outside of the heat of the moment, using common sense, precisely because a human being will save the crying child over the embryos. Not because, standing in a burning room, he made had a rational debate with himself and DECIDED the embryos weren't alive, but because the embryos, simply put, weren't crying out to him in terror, a terrible criterion for value. ask the same question again. burning clinic, and instead of embryos, two children, but one is my child. According to the author, my child should have legal priority over this other child. Does that make sense? This is rhetoric, and contributes nothing
UncleMatt Johnstone 7 years ago
They have relegated their arguement to the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" question.
Laurie Rodriguez 7 years ago
Here's an alternative question... Instead of a child with 1000 embryos, how about a 25-year old woman vs. 1 embryo. Because that is what we're talking about here in the abortion debate, whether one embryo is worth more than the life and well-being of a woman. I agree that the child vs. embryo's comparison calls out the hypocrisy, but the woman vs. an embryo comparison truly calls out the patriarchy... and you might get more misogynistic idiots willing to stand up and declare just how little they think of a woman's life.
Albert Pablico 7 years ago
Let's test the analogy: If there's a fire in a hospital building and in 1 big room there are 100 elderly cancer patients, in extreme pain because of their sickness, who only have a few days to live, and 1 healthy 2 year old boy. Now there is a way to help the 100 patients to escape the fire but only if the 2 year old will be left behind because of his uncontrollable tantrum and panic. But if you will try to take the 2 year old to safety first, you will have no way of helping the 100 elderly patients. Who will you save? Those who answer that they will save the child, does that mean that the 100 dying elderly are less important than the 1 child? Of course not! But under the prevailing circumstances, as in this scenario, if we can only choose 1 of 2 answers, any answer chosen doesn't make the other option as less important.
Jim Deferio 7 years ago
Lets say there is an eighty year old and a five year old in the burning building and I can only help one out. I choose the five year old. Figure out why! Also, women must take responsibility for the outcomes of having sex! Because a child may be a financial burden does not lesson the value of the child so that you can murder it.
Melody Keefe 7 years ago
I'd save the child. If not, we'll get to the point where women are held liable for miscarriages. We are not brood pods for men's whims. We are living, breathing, individuals able to judge our ability to RAISE a child, not just carry it to term.
Derick Gross 7 years ago
It is usually baby girls that get aborted. What a weird take on this. In China now there is far less woman for this generation of men to marry because as soon as a couple realized they would have a girl they had an abortion. A woman that was never born probably has no rights.
Don Ronk 7 years ago
Number 1. The embryos are human beings, Number the 5 year old Is present in the world. 3. The embryos have to be implanted in a womb with no guarantee they will survive. 4. He is using an old Star Trek/ Star Fleet scenario of the Kobiashi Maru. If you are pro life you lose if you are pro abortion you lose. This was a no win scenario. See it for what it really is a trap by an elitist intellectual with a one world order view.
Stephanie Vick 7 years ago
This is the most intelligent argument I've ever seen. The responses are just as smart. I have nothing to add that has already been said.
Paul Prince 7 years ago
What is the real cost evaluation? The potential of one child or the potential of 1000? Einstein affirmed that our greatest potential resource is offspring, the collective not her yet, for they hold the future in their unborn hands. It seems like this guy {excuse me for the gender identification presumption} is approaching the subject with a calm collected head, then when disagreement onsets the outlashes at people and verbal assault on them begins. But this opinion is from just the brief skimming of the posts I did. Which brings me to the conclusion that you can choose a stance and not be condescending, rude or vulgar about it; although choosing not to, only derails from your opinion and instigates other irrelevant debates more often than not. But that is just my two gil on the subject.
Lee DeForest 7 years ago
Let me alter the scenario. Suppose behind that door screaming for help is a 1 year-old child in diapers and a 90 year-old woman in a chair with an oxygen tank & nasal tube. You can only carry one to safety... which do you choose? Just because you choose the child does not mean the old lady is not a human worthy of life.
Blake Carpenter 7 years ago
I can't read the f*****g article because every time I try to scroll down the page the f*****g ad in the top left keeps forcing a scroll to top.
Joe Furse 7 years ago
Is nobody going to point out that this "astute" (*cough) question has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion? Of course, the obvious answer to the question is A, but since when is preventing an abortion (or 1000 of them, for the sake of argument) the same as letting a 5 year old burn to death? This is more related to the ethical considerations of medical triage, not abortion. If an EMT comes upon the scene of an accident involving a school bus and a van from an assisted living center, and s/he chooses to save the life of an elderly nursing home patient over the life of a school child, s/he is not making some kind of moral pronouncement about the relative value of those two lives. The vast majority of abortion cases don't even pit the life of the mother against the life of the child, and even in that overused scenario it's logically fallacious to argue from an extremely exceptional (or in most cases contrived and hypothetical) case to the general question of abortion.
Rick Casey 7 years ago
if a child is crying for help in a burning building and there's no one to hear it, is it still alive?
Albert Pablico 7 years ago
People who thinks that sex outside of marriage is normal and for fun, will also think that a fetus is just a mistake that prevents them from having more fun.
Roderick Brentnall 7 years ago
Against abortions but elects Trump. Must be a Murican thing. abortion2-...c609c1.jpg
Wale Ogunrinola 7 years ago
Assuming there is a ten year old beautiful girl sleeping in one corner as option C, the dynamics of choice is complicated.
Peter Heckert 7 years ago
Reductio ad absurdum, false dichotomy, ad hominem. You want an honest answer? Ask an honest question. If this is your “Gotcha!” argument, you’re grasping at straws, and demonstrating the pro-death’s own death throes.
Janice Repass 7 years ago
To your point, I would, of course, grab the child. But, those embryos are as yet unable to cry for help. Doesn't mean they are not yet people. And, what about the couples counting on those embryos, already thinking of them as their children? Which would they choose? It's a conundrum, not as easily solved as anyone would hope. Nothing grows unless it is alive, and the fetus grows from the moment of conception, right? Doesn't that indicate life then?
Randy Salazar 7 years ago
embryos are life, the reason it is difficult to rationalize the more obvious choice of choosing the child is that we are a feeling creature. a crying child affects our feeling more than a thousand silent embryos. our feeling and affection often prevails over our logic. you talk about someone using emotional response as a way to evoke a false equivalency. weeeeh, how about you, were you not using the same method in your question. if i follow your logic then you practically cheated the people who listen to your question... evoking a response that most people cannot deny and force them think that embryos are not life... i have a question and think about it: would you be happier and grateful to your mother if she aborted you then? would you then say it is ok i am not alive anyway...or would you go to your mother now and say thank you very much for keeping me alive....
Tammy Hubatsek 7 years ago
Wow Mr Tomlinson!!! Are you that stupid on purpose? Put your kids in two corners. One of them has two broken legs and can't walk, the other is an equally helpless infant...choose.
Nick Huff 7 years ago
God Bless You Patrick@stealthygeek. The answer would be A because the embryos should be INSIDE their mothers. God did not intend them to be frozen and OUTSIDE their mothers. We as a society (mothers and fathers) are responsible for our embryos. We are all saved in a fire because of Christ.
Christopher Cherrone 7 years ago
Stupid argument. If you cant see that you must be pro-abortion. It makes no sense to even discuss this. Its invalid.
Julia Mitchell 7 years ago
That's like asking me if both of my own children were burning in a fire and I could only save one, which would I choose... Not a fair question.
Nick Huff 7 years ago
God Bless You Patrick @ stealthygeek. Since the embryos should be in the mother the only choice would be A because the frozen embryos are not in the mother. Embryos should only be inside their mothers. Our society (mothers and fathers) are responsible for allowing these embryos to be where God did not intend them to be.
Rob Watson 7 years ago
your cherry picked scenario is utter c**p. If your house was on fire and you could only save one of your five children, does that mean the four dead children had less value? NO. It ONLY MEANS YOU WERE FORCED TO MAKE A S****Y CHOICE. The woman's body is not on fire and she does not have to chose which children to save. Abortion is throwing those children from safety into the fire. It is NOT the same as choosing which ones to save and your argument is completely invalid. No reasonable person would choose to save embryos at the cost of killing a living child but that does not make your argument valid. Proving that a living child is more valuable than an embryo does not support any pro abortion argument. Speaking of responsibility, how about the responsibility to NOT create life if you are not ready to support it yourself. No laws needed, just humanity caring for its offspring that it created instead of throwing it in a dumpster.
Markovac Nadia 7 years ago
....."but,the bigger control is with embryos!" ,said one of the controller.
Miguel Angel 7 years ago
The right answer: YOU SAVE THE ALREADY BORN BABY, BECAUSE YOU EAR HIM CRY. Your instinct is activated and you do not even think about it. Not even thinking, because the embryos are not suffering the situation. This is why women who are going to have an abortion do not show them images or videos of abortions. A woman instinctively will always tend to save a child, even if he is not her child. If women who want to abort watch how an unborn baby flees the surgeon's weapon to end his life, and how it is broken up into pieces to be absorbed by a vacuum cleaner that are then sold to a company, in that case , women would not abort by instinct, just as she would save the crying child in the room
Christin Richard 7 years ago
This is an argument that will never end,because ,no one will ever change their mind, pro life will always stay prolife, and abortionists will stay abortionists.
Lorrie Hersey 7 years ago
The scenario is erroneous. The child is able to be saved. The embryos would not be recognized by the average person and is in an unnatural setting, being in a laboratory storage vault. The normal embryo is in a mother's womb, protected by the mother. You just can't justify murder just because some children aren't well cared for.
Anthony J Williams 7 years ago
funny scenario would never happen, maybe that's why you can't get a true answer...
Bill Cowell 7 years ago
There is always a "C." Liberal's are just too lazy or self-important to see it. Also, choosing "A" is the logical and correct choice, but that doesn't diminish the value of the embryo's, it is simply a practical choice. The chance of rescuing the five year old is much higher than trying to rescue the embryo's. Who's to say you can't do both? Life is not black and white, but life is. Life, in all its forms is precious, and making choices is what life is all about.
A.O 7 years ago
He has a point, but if you compare this fire to an abortion, a fire is completely out of ones own hands and unfortunately abortion is. The embryos and the child are all lives but its obvious I would save the child, however on my conscience I would know at the end of the day i did what i could to save a life from the unexpected tragedy I had no responsibility for, not end one.
Renee Curro 7 years ago
A human is viable when there is brain activity and considered non-viable when brain activity ceases. With this truth, approximately 6 weeks would be the cutoff for an abortion and death of anything further than 6 weeks. That would be in keeping with the standard for an already born individual and determining end of life decisions.
Linda Gonzalez 7 years ago
The question is based on a sophism! You can't say a borned child is an embrio or an embrio is not a child. Is like trying to rescue two or three children. Everyone would try to rescue the most, but if you can do it one at a time. You will start with the one that needs you the most!
Olivier Lambert 7 years ago
choices depend philosophy, others could answer they choice, the both of them.. there is no choice in the statement, if the single answer already exists? exemple : we release the child who will help us carry the rest.
Alex Devanny 7 years ago
I am personally against abortion ; that being said , you grab the child and run to the closest exit ! now lets go a wee bit deeper into this abortion question ; The truth is hard for most but is quite simple , as a man , its not my business ! Yes there are some men out there that will argue , what about my rights as a potential Father ? Answer ; if you are so far apart on this What are you together in the first place for ? MOVE ON ! find someone that shares your deep desire for children !
John Stevens 7 years ago
Tomlinson needs to do his due diligence. Or, he could just ask some wise people: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/
Dorothy Blair 7 years ago
A. 5 yr old child is alive but the embryos might be more in number but they have no heartbeat. My doctor never heard any heartbeat with any of my children til I was 3 months along.
Les Neilson 7 years ago
the moral decision to save a life, is so different from the decision to end a life, you gave me but a moment to make a decision and I did and I wanted to save them all, but those who chose to end a life have the ability to take a lot more time to make their decision. All those embyos were there to give life not take it
Matt Tucker 7 years ago
Choosing who to save between two isn’t the same as choosing to deliberately kill one. This argument to me doesn’t apply to the situation of abortion. If you had to choose between saving a 4 year old and a 90 year old man, who would you save. Almost everyone would still say save the kid, including probably the old man. Does that mean it’s ok to go murder old people?
James Stenger 7 years ago
Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was. Please note also that the Bible does not say that a woman conceives a piece of tissue. Instead, it states: “An able-bodied man has been conceived!” (Job 3:3) This too indicates that according to the Bible, a child exists as a person from the time of his conception. Yes, that is when human life begins.
James Stenger 7 years ago
If you want an honest answer, then why not go to the one who created life. All of these comments; none of them mention the Bible. Since Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones going door to door trying to convince people that that the Bible is God's Word, here is an excerpt from one of the 2009 Awake magazine on this subject. This isn't what Jehovah's Witnesses say; this is what Jesus own father, Jehovah says. Significantly, the Bible describes a human life as existing in the womb. The psalmist David wrote concerning God: “Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing.” (Psalm 139:16) David does not simply say “an embryo” but “the embryo of ME,” thus accurately revealing that David’s life began when he was conceived, long before his birth. Under inspiration by God, David also revealed that at conception the development of his body parts was according to a plan, or detailed ‘written’ instructions, which made him the person he was.
Tonja Mason 7 years ago
I have asked a similar question myself. If you are a true Christian then somehow someway we are all related. God only created Adam and Eve from which we had to of somewhere down the kine come from. Or: if it is Science you believe in we all came from Apes. Your choice, Had you rather be related to everyone somehow or know you evolved from an Ape?
Denise Brumm 7 years ago
If you use the same scenario in a fire and there was theroetically one person awake, alert in the fire you could save or 12 unconscious comatose people you could save, who would you save. I would save the person who was awake because I could not stand to see them suffer. You are going to have to make a decision, right or wrong. By not saving the embryos from a fire you are not actively killing them like you would be in an abortion. This guy is just not as clever as he thinks he is. Just another excuse to kill an inconvenient child. Women's health? The woman whose health is in question was given a chance at life and was not aborted by her mother so she has a chance for perfect health and no one is trying to control her. She has perfect control over herself.
Deb Burton 7 years ago
Embryos are in the woman, they are not the woman. Fact... You sure are setting up a specific answer - those embryos are not in a place to grow, thay are not going to be all viable... Let's say they are and I know this, and I know there are all those women and men who want them - who am I going to cause more grief to? The five year old's folks - because that child is a known person. Therefore save the five year old - her btw will otherwise die a horrible, painful death. Embryos won't know. You just aren't adding enough heart into your scenario. 1 in 8 couples fail to concieve a child... I in 5 babies are aborted. Do the math... It is time to stop unprotected sex - for whatever reason it happens... For those that fail, carry the baby to term and have an open adoption set up. Take responsibility for your actions and don't murder an innocent teeny tiny baby... Please! ❤
Cat Anya 7 years ago
If this scenario was in any way shape or form close to the scenario facing a women with an unwanted pregnancy, I'd say it is a valid argument. It is not. Yes. Now if the scenario was you are allowed to save an embryo but you have to raise the child while having a lower quality of life for you and the child OR leave the embryo and ensure a better life for yourself-that's closer to reality. free birth control for all people.
Pedro 7 years ago
Well, this question sets in an almost impossible scenario. If an hospital is on fire, who would you save, a five year old girl with a broken leg or a 91 old man who is been 5 years in a coma with little chances of recovering? That doesn't mean the old man is not a human being. The real question is: if you are outside the clinic and firefighters had managed to put outside both the kid and the box of embrios. Would you throw the embrios back to the fire?
Related on Bored Panda
494
1.5K