LogFAQs > #889100937

I'd like to point out that that final bit of '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.' should reveal that this person is a bit of a loon. Your choice has absolutely nothing to do with the question of if a society is male-dominated or what-not. It's a question on the value of life. However, it further misses one insane point.

This is a situation in which the conclusion doesn't follow the argument. Roughly akin to pointing out how the smurfs lived in harmony without nuclear power as a justification for nuclear disarmament. Here's why. When it comes down to the pro-life/abortion debate, especially within this argument, the issue isn't one of the value of a human life. After all, it could be easily changed to, say, choosing between saving ten children at the beginning of their life and fifty elderly people near the end. Arguments can be made both ways (and I'm not going to get into which one I feel is right) but then claiming a person hates old people/children or doesn't see human lives as having the same value or so-forth is utterly meaningless. People in panicked or desperate states will not pick the 'honest' answer, they'll pick the one that their panicked mind comes up with first. For example, if you were *really* in this situation, I'm going to wager that, assuming option C was artificially blocked off, everyone would pick A. Why? Because the child is there, crying, and in need of help while your mind probably can't even process the term '1000 viable human embryo's'. After all, your bum's on fire and you're trying to get out of the building ASAP.

But, more to the point, this isn't representative of the actual debate, plain and simple. The question of if a woman has a right to an abortion, the various conditions and circumstances where it would or would not be acceptable, and so-forth, is completely detached from this situation and has reduced a vast multitude of questions, judgements, logic, and so-forth down to a simple 'yes/no' question, disguised itself, then walled off other options. For example, a pro-lifer might realistically try and save both even if it meant that they might die. After all, is 1,001 human lives worth more than 1? They could see the 1000 embryo's as being completely artificial in the context of the question and opt for the child. They could suspect it's a trick question and answer dishonestly. There are an insane number of possibilities, answers, reasoning's, and so-forth. As such I answer C. Die and die flipping off this horrible question designed to shove a political agenda.
---

I am the gentle hand who heals, the happy smile who shields, and the foot that will kick your ***! - White Mage