Question for the Anti-Abortion Crowd

Nov 2005
9,576
4,200
California
Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now of the "Life begins at Conception" crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly.
It's a simple scenario with two outcomes. No one ever wants to pick one, because the correct answer destroys their argument. And there IS a correct answer, which is why the pro-life crowd hates the question.

Here it is.
You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important.
The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. He's in one corner of the room.
In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos".

The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one.

Do you:
a) save the child, OR
b) save the thousand embryos?
There is no "C". "C" means you all die.

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

They will never answer honestly, because we all instinctively understand the right answer is "A".
A human child is worth more than a thousand embryos.
Or ten thousand.
Or a million.
Because they are not the same. Not morally. Not ethically. Not biologically.

The question absolutely evicerates their arguments, and their refusal to answer confirms that they know it to be true.

No one, anywhere, actually believes an embryo is eequivalent 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.

Don't let them.
Use this question to call them out.
Reveal them for what they are.
Demand they answer your question, and when they don't, slap that big ol' Scarlet P of the Patriarchy on them.
The end.
Source: https://twitter.com/stealthygeek

I personally see this as genius.
I have long thought that the embryo implantation process is the point that exposes the vast majority of anti-abortionists as frauds. While they are happy to yell at women who walk into an abortion clinic or obvious attempts to shut down abortion clinics, there is not one iota of condemnation or legal attempt I have seen to shut down in vitro fertilization clinics.

And make no mistake. In vitro fertilization clinics habitually destroy MOST of the embryos they create. One study demonstrates just 7% of embryos created for in vitro fertilization lead to pregnancy.

There are some rare groups that do speak with open condemnation.
But they are not the norm. And the anti-abortion crowd that often claims "life begins at abortion" is typically silent on the subject...
<_<
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Nov 2017
2,161
1,005
.
I suppose you could consider me to be "pro life". I'll answer the question & I don't think I buy your claim that no one will answer it. I would save the 5 year old girl. You probably don't know my argument, because you probably haven't heard it yet.
 
Nov 2017
2,161
1,005
.
love it.

another topic the life-begins-at-conception crowd try to avoid is ectopic pregnancies.
I wouldn't avoid it, because I'm not willing to avoid any topic.

Regarding when life begins, though, we have to understand that the beginning of life doesn't start with any human being; life began almost 4 billion years ago, and all organisms that are alive today are merely a continuation of it.

What we have at conception is the beginning of a new, distinct, life form with its own DNA "identity". It's a living organism and it doesn't temporarily go dead until some point before birth (in organisms that give birth) and come back to life again; if it did go dead, then it would decompose, stop growing, and not come back to life again.

I don't get it; what is it that the naysayers of so-called life-begins-at-conception think is occurring?
 
Jul 2014
15,669
9,765
massachusetts
50 years from now, couples wanting children will go to a clinic, the clinic will take eggs and sperm and generate a hundred embryos, and genetically test each one, it will cheap.

The parents will select the one they want implanted.
It's a choice to produce a new life, and they'll have some say in the DNA they provide for their child.

But it's a process that produces one child, one life, not a hundred.
An embryo is a precursor to a human being, it's not a human being, that requires a willing womb. Just like today.
 
Dec 2013
33,811
19,364
Beware of watermelons
50 years from now, couples wanting children will go to a clinic, the clinic will take eggs and sperm and generate a hundred embryos, and genetically test each one, it will cheap.

The parents will select the one they want implanted.
It's a choice to produce a new life, and they'll have some say in the DNA they provide for their child.

But it's a process that produces one child, one life, not a hundred.
An embryo is a precursor to a human being, it's not a human being, that requires a willing womb. Just like today.
A few hundred years ago you could buy a human being, take it home and cut off it's head. No problem.

I am not sure if this line of logic is best for your argument.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Mar 2008
9,638
4,893
australia
I wouldn't avoid it, because I'm not willing to avoid any topic.
thank you

Regarding when life begins, though, we have to understand that the beginning of life doesn't start with any human being; life began almost 4 billion years ago, and all organisms that are alive today are merely a continuation of it.
true, but we both know this is a technicality, and a dodge.

What we have at conception is the beginning of a new, distinct, life form with its own DNA "identity". It's a living organism and it doesn't temporarily go dead until some point before birth (in organisms that give birth) and come back to life again; if it did go dead, then it would decompose, stop growing, and not come back to life again.
true it is alive. it is living tissue. its DNA is very similar to the rest of the species but the details are unique. nobody has ever suggested it goes dead and comes back to life again, i really dont know where you got that from.

I don't get it; what is it that the naysayers of so-called life-begins-at-conception think is occurring?
i am disappointed, while you claimed you would try, you never actually did address the issue.

let me put it this way:

Q: when is it ok to murder a baby in order to save the life of the babys mother?
A: when the baby is an ectopic pregnancy.

do you agree?
 
Nov 2017
2,161
1,005
.
thank you
No problemo. B)

Regarding when life begins, though, we have to understand that the beginning of life doesn't start with any human being; life began almost 4 billion years ago, and all organisms that are alive today are merely a continuation of it.
true, but we both know this is a technicality, and a dodge.
Dodge of what? Saying it's a technicality is like someone describing part of a law as a loophole; any part of any law can be called a loophole by someone who's dissatisfied with the law.

true it is alive. it is living tissue. its DNA is very similar to the rest of the species but the details are unique. nobody has ever suggested it goes dead and comes back to life again, i really dont know where you got that from.
I get that from people who ask when does life begin as though there's some sort of starting point a few days or weeks or whatever after conception; I'm the one who doesn't know where they're getting that from and trying to make some sense out of it.

With the exception of that which commenced almost 4 billion years ago, life doesn't begin again or re-begin, it "splits" or "branches" (for the lack of knowing better words of describing it) into new generations at conception. If people want, they can say "when does new life begin", at least that would be a little more clear - that's essentially my point.

i am disappointed, while you claimed you would try, you never actually did address the issue.

let me put it this way:

Q: when is it ok to murder a baby in order to save the life of the babys mother?
A: when the baby is an ectopic pregnancy.

do you agree?
No I essentially don't agree. I don't refer to it as murder, though, because of the legal definition; I prefer just calling it manslaugher or slaughter, so I'll be using that word in place of "murder" to express my position.

Why does it (the baby, fetus, empryo, zygote, or whatever you want to call it before it's born) necessarily have to be slaughtered? Why can't it be a procedure that repositions the zygote or embryo (I'm not sure what stages have what impact, but I would imagine they play a role), if it can be done? Even if that's not a feasible option, why can't it simply be removed without having to tear or cut it up? Why can't it be removed as one undamaged piece to die peacefully?

I suppose there are legal reasons for why it's executed before it's removed from the mother, but that can be fixed by simply writing or rewriting the laws so they won't encompass certain situations that aren't intended by the purpose, point, or spirit of the law in question.

What if we develop the means to transfer these pre-birth stage "babies" to surrogate mothers (or "surrogate fathers" - I can already see the TV show or movie scripts/plots for this one)? Suppose one day we invent a synthetic womb and we can trasfer these pre-birth stage "babies" to them, in the situations where they can't be repositioned or transferred to the appropriate position in the mother's uterus?

The point is I don't get the reason for ever slaughtering or "murdering" them, per se. If it has to come to it, just let them die "naturally".
 
Last edited: