Here's a thought experiment. You rush into a burning building to try to save anyone stuck inside. Once inside you realize there are 10 fertilized eggs at one corner of the building, and a 2 year old girl at the far end. You only have time to save the 2 year old, or the fertilized eggs.
Which do you save? Now ask yourself if a fertilized egg is the moral equivalent of a 2 year old.
I disagree with your disagreement. It's a fertility clinic and the fertilized eggs would be implanted in someone if they survived.
I've always found this (and to be honest MOST thought experiments to be at best dishonest.) There are a number of reasons why the 10 fertilzed eggs aren't an option, even if somehow they were going to survive being in my pocket, they aren't currently in a woman and were likely doomed to be destroyed eventually anyway.
well, to be honest, a fertilized egg in a woman's womb most likely won't survive either.
but, would you save a 2 year old, or 10 fertilized eggs? No one has answered!
You save the child. She is the living breathing human being. The eggs still need to be implanted into the body of a host and then a number of things can still happen that make them non-viable.
your fingernails must be getting worn well down by now lol.of course i would save the child or bozo's pregnant woman as i would hardly be looking for human eggs .
Oh it goes without saying, the two year old child. But it's kind of a trick question.
Your plane is crashing in the middle of a desert. Do you grab the gallon of water or the M16? If you're not an idiot you grab the water, even if that desert is Afghanistan or Iraq you still stand a better chance of lasting eight days without the gun than you do without the water. Has nothing to do with me not wanting to have the gun. In this case I think absolutely nothing of a petri-dish or test tube or what not. The only reconizable way that it's human is by its DNA and it turns out that I can't see DNA I don't wouldn't recognize something the size of a period. I think invitro is a wonderful thing and (freaks like Octomom aside) I'm thrilled that we have a way to help women who cannot get pregnant naturally have children. Though personally I feel that we should push harder for adoptions. Something to me feels fundamentally wrong about a society where we're doing triple over time to create additional children when we have so many that are without families.
If I was working at a stem cell lab or a fertility clinic or something and knew that test tubes FC #106 through FH #119 carried human embryos and the room next door had Teresa, Janet the secretary's daughter in the playroom, and the building went up in flames, I would without a doubt go and save Teresa, because being an atheist, we eat babies and toasted babies are just so god damn delicious. I wouldn't want her to be burnt. Burnt babies are the worst.
Hmmm. Good question, but I really do not see what it has to do with anything. You answer my question first. Who is more likely to wind up in hell ... Hitler for overseeing the killing of thousands of people or you for agreeing with the ongoing killing of millions of humans each year? Sorry. That is a trick question, too. You are both going to wind up in hell and YOU are the one going to be burned.
Well there's your answer right there. Alien does believe that IUD and in vitro is murder.
Did you know that there was an inscription on the Nazi belt buckles? Know what it said?
"Gott mit uns" "God is with us."
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." — Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator." — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 46
"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." — Adolf Hitler, ibid. p. 65
Nazis were not atheists. They were Christian. You can't blame the Holocaust on atheists. That's on your side of the camp. Catholics colluded with the Nazis during WWII.
So have fun in heaven with Adolf and General Butt Naked, a Liberian warlord who did eat babies and is responsible for at least 20'000 deaths, who converted to Christianity later and was forgiven of his sins and is now a preacher and President of the End Time Train Evangelistic Ministries Inc.
Interesting the way you look at this and how you take it for granted. What if no-one could ever get pregnant again and those 10 fertilized eggs were the last known in the world? We've been flushing the unborn for so long we have desensitized ourselves into believing human life is only important when it fits into the catagory of convenience.
If we are going to abort babies why not just harvest everything we can off of them before we flush them? Why not pay woman to hold onto their babies then right before they pop out then make them brain dead and harvest organs and tissue? Why waste them, even Grape alluded to a great idea, use them for food, don't we have homeless people, right? :)
"We've been flushing the unborn for so long we have desensitized ourselves into believing human life is only important when it fits into the catagory of convenience."
This is a load of shit. No one says or believes this. What we believe is that a fertilized egg is not the moral equivalent of a 2 year old.
Either you don't understand this simple point, or you are intentionally misrepresenting my side of this debate. We all agree that a 7 month old fetus should be protected in many ways. What we disagree about is whether a fertilized egg that has no feelings, no self awareness, feels no pain, etc, etc deserves to be treated like something that does.
I think we all know the answer to this, they are not the same. You failed to answer, would you save the 10 fertilized eggs or the 2 year old? Answer this will let us know if you truly believe that they are morally equivalent.
First of all it is a stupid paradox but one we also have to deal with on rare occasions. If it comes down to pregnant lady with twins, either twins live or mother dies or mother lives and twins die. Whatever choice is made human life is still lost.
I would obviously choose the 2 year old in your scenerio but that doesn't mean human life wasn't lost.
The people at prolifephysicians make an interesting point. They say Biology dictates there are 5 characteristics of living things:
1st-highly organized 2nd-ability to acquire energy 3rd-ability to respond to their environment 4th-ability to reproduce 5th-ability to adapt
Obviously a fertilized egg is not the moral equivalent of a two year old but that doesn't give us the right to destroy it. A 7 month old baby is not the moral equivalent of a two year old either.
And stop trying to squeeze by my questions. Why if in your mind is it ok to destroy fertilized eggs is it not ok to use aborted babies for scientific study or advancement?
An interesting idea...however maybe it should be, A pregnant woman in one corner of the building and a 2 year old in the other which do you save.
A fertilised egg separate from a human body is also very different to one inside it's mothers womb.
I see where your going....I agree in principle but disagree with the premise here.