Poll of the Day > Just a quick test. Only A or B answer.

(+) Yeah! (+)

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 behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help.

They're 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 of the other, bot 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.
---

*grabs popcorn* can't wait to see some peoples arguments on this.
---

Well, the kid has had like five years of having enjoyed life; I wouldn't want to take that away from him. But those embryos aren't really cognizant of being alive yet.

Obviously gotta go with the kid.
---

C
---

Save the crying kid

Because no where in the story its implied you can't create a 1000 more viable human embryos. This thing has already taken birth, can feel and sense his or her environment.
---

lol.

Pretty sure that container would be too large and heavy to lift, whereas a 5 y/o you can just walk out.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

There is no "C". "C" means you all die.

Oh, I thought C would be choosing to save a really nice coffee maker.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

There is no "C". "C" means you all die.

Does not compute.

And I'm choosing G anyway.

EclairReturns posted...

Well, the kid has had like five years of having enjoyed life

I agree, gotta give these embryos at least 5 years of life as well, sorry kiddo
---

If we're in a "children of men" situation, the embryos, if we're in the real world, the child.
---

This scenario is meant to be asked to people who are pro-life. Here, I'll just type out what he put.

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 behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help.

They're 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 of the other, bot 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 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.

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.

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.
---

oh so thats the question I keep seeing articles on my facebook newsfeed about.
---

Oh, so this was just a topic to fuel your political agenda.
---

Just because the conscious child is more worth saving, doesn't mean the embryos aren't valuable on their own.

Remove the child from the situation, and replace the thousand with just one embryo. One you can clearly see is healthy, and developing properly, and is causing no issues to anyone. Do you save the embryo or let it burn just because you don't wanna be bothered right now?

Just because I think life begins at conception, and that a fetus is a young from of a child, doesn't mean that I wouldn't value a fully functioning conscious child over one, abortion only deal with the life of the embryo, because once it pops out, pro choicers do a 180 about it.
---

EclairReturns posted...

Oh, so this was just a topic to fuel your political agenda.

Who can help it if the entire Republican party is just a heaping pile of nonsense?

Half the time we mock nonsense it instantly becomes political.

C, let's all die.
---

Yellow posted...

EclairReturns posted...

Oh, so this was just a topic to fuel your political agenda.

Who can help it if the entire Republican party is just a heaping pile of nonsense?

Half the time we mock nonsense it instantly becomes political.

i'd say both sides are a heaping pile of nonsense. both sides are pretty bad at claiming they believe in free speech but the moment you disagree with them. the extremes of both sides are pretty bad
---

KogaSteelfang posted...

Just because the conscious child is more worth saving, doesn't mean the embryos aren't valuable on their own.

Remove the child from the situation, and replace the thousand with just one embryo. One you can clearly see is healthy, and developing properly, and is causing no issues to anyone. Do you save the embryo or let it burn just because you don't wanna be bothered right now?

Just because I think life begins at conception, and that a fetus is a young from of a child, doesn't mean that I wouldn't value a fully functioning conscious child over one, abortion only deal with the life of the embryo, because once it pops out, pro choicers do a 180 about it.

So before you tried to change the situation to fit your needs, which option did you pick?

And to answer your question, "Do you save the embryo or let it burn just because you don't wanna be bothered right now?"

You would have never went into that room because embryos don't cry and you're proving his point by trying to shift the situation around to justify letting a crying 5 year-old die. Unless you voted that you would save the child.
---

Probably D.

Too much of a coward to help the kid.. probably a nearby parent I dont want to tangle with
---

I didn't vote at all, but I would save the kid. This is just designed to pull on the emotions of people you know are already emotional about situations like this. While also mocking those making the choice, as if one option discredits the other, when they realistically have nothing to do with each other.
---

KogaSteelfang posted...

I didn't vote at all, but I would save the kid. This is just designed to pull on the emotions of people you know are already emotional about situations like this. While also mocking those making the choice, as if one option discredits the other, when they realistically have nothing to do with each other.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

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

---

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.
---

uh

the kid, because the vat of a thousand embyros is going to weigh a fucking ton
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

KogaSteelfang posted...

I didn't vote at all, but I would save the kid. This is just designed to pull on the emotions of people you know are already emotional about situations like this. While also mocking those making the choice, as if one option discredits the other, when they realistically have nothing to do with each other.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

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

Choosing to save the child, who is conscious of the situation, is feeling fear, and crying for help does not invalidate the belief that the embryos are alive and valuable themselves.
---

Kids suck so the embryos
---

KogaSteelfang posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

KogaSteelfang posted...

I didn't vote at all, but I would save the kid. This is just designed to pull on the emotions of people you know are already emotional about situations like this. While also mocking those making the choice, as if one option discredits the other, when they realistically have nothing to do with each other.

AllstarSniper32 posted...

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

Choosing to save the child, who is conscious of the situation, is feeling fear, and crying for help does not invalidate the belief that the embryos are alive and valuable themselves.

pro abortion here. and I kind of have to agree, not that I find they have any value worth saving in a scenario like this. just the fact its unfair to say one thing doesn't matter at all when the other is clearly going to take priority to almost anyone.

it would almost be like asking a person if they had to choose between saving their childs life or their pets life which would they choose. though thats a rougher decision imo.(still would go with the kid, but it would break my heart so much more than this supposed scenario)
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

KogaSteelfang posted...

Choosing to save the child, who is conscious of the situation, is feeling fear, and crying for help does not invalidate the belief that the embryos are alive and valuable themselves.

pro abortion here. and I kind of have to agree, not that I find they have any value worth saving in a scenario like this. just the fact its unfair to say one thing doesn't matter at all when the other is clearly going to take priority to almost anyone.

it would almost be like asking a person if they had to choose between saving their childs life or their pets life which would they choose. though thats a rougher decision imo.(still would go with the kid, but it would break my heart so much more than this supposed scenario)

The thing is this, if a person is trying to say "life starts at conception." then the embryos would be 1000 lives to that person. At least it should if they actually believe that.

The only thing that's unfair here is that a normal person might not know exactly what an embryo is. I know I didn't, I had to look up what it meant. But this person uses the term while talking to people who are knowledgeable on the matter and know what embryos are.

Embryo - an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus).

So if life begins at conception, then that's 1000 lives in the box or whatever is containing them. Right?

So that being the case, that would be saving 1000 lives instead of just 1 right?
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

So if life begins at conception, then that's 1000 lives in the box or whatever is containing them. Right?

So that being the case, that would be saving 1000 lives instead of just 1 right?

Are you saying they're not alive? In any sense of the word? In this scenario, there's one that is fully developed, fully functional, likely has 2 parents that have sunk a major portion of their life into, is conscious, in distress, and asking for help. Compared to many dying blissfully unaware of ever having existed, the kid trumps the embryos. That does not mean they're not alive, or that they're disposable, just that one is the less horrendous option.
---

KogaSteelfang posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

So if life begins at conception, then that's 1000 lives in the box or whatever is containing them. Right?

So that being the case, that would be saving 1000 lives instead of just 1 right?

Are you saying they're not alive? In any sense of the word? In this scenario, there's one that is fully developed, fully functional, likely has 2 parents that have sunk a major portion of their life into, is conscious, in distress, and asking for help. Compared to many dying blissfully unaware of ever having existed, the kid trumps the embryos. That does not mean they're not alive, or that they're disposable, just that one is the less horrendous option.

The good those embryos will do for humankind is worth it alone over one screaming child. Kill the kid, save the embryos.
---

To go further with a more realistic approach, if the fetus was endangering the mother's life, then it's no contest, her life trump's it's life. All this scenario does is force people to admit that developed life is more valuable than underdeveloped life, which is obvious to everyone. Then it juxtaposes that answer to say that it's ok to actively kill those embryo's, even if they weren't in danger at all. Which is way more dishonest than what it's accusing pro lifers of being.

I'm going to sleep, I probably won't even check back in later. I've said my peace, have fun most likely mocking this post after I'm gone.
---

Hey I was just reading about this question earlier from the best subreddit r/savedyouaclick

Obviously you gotta save the embryos if they'll develop since it would be like saving 1,000 lives
---

KogaSteelfang posted...

I'm going to sleep, I probably won't even check back in later. I've said my peace, have fun most likely mocking this post after I'm gone.

Why would you ever get into any sort of conversation if you're going to say something then just say "I've said my peace and I won't check back."? But I'll still respond, even if you decide to not come back.

KogaSteelfang posted...

Are you saying they're not alive? In any sense of the word? In this scenario, there's one that is fully developed, fully functional, likely has 2 parents that have sunk a major portion of their life into, is conscious, in distress, and asking for help. Compared to many dying blissfully unaware of ever having existed, the kid trumps the embryos. That does not mean they're not alive, or that they're disposable, just that one is the less horrendous option.

If you read my post, you'd see that I'm asking, I'm not stating that they're not alive. You came to that conclusion all on your own.

But that being the case, and you believe those are in fact 1000 lives, and you say you would save the child instead. That means you would sacrifice 1000 lives to save that one kid. This is your own beliefs giving that meaning. Since you believe the embryos are alive.

KogaSteelfang posted...

To go further with a more realistic approach, if the fetus was endangering the mother's life, then it's no contest, her life trump's it's life.

So in this case, you're still showing that the life that's not actually born yet is less worth saving than the one that's already born. How does one life trump another?

All you've said is proving that what he said,

AllstarSniper32 posted...

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.

is true. You even went back and made it so it was 1 life trumping another life. A life that you state you believe is a life.

-Komaiko54- posted...

Obviously you gotta save the embryos if they'll develop since it would be like saving 1,000 lives

I mean, that would be the thought process if someone believes the embryos are alive right?
---

Obviously I save the child
---

Simple, really. The henhouse is on fire. Save the chicken or the eggs?
---

Mead posted...

Obviously I save the child

No the obvious answer is the embryos. The stem cells alone are priceless.
---

Zangulus posted...

I save the child.

Deal with it.

So you are for murdering a thousand innocent lives?
---

Embryos are replaceable, the kid isn't. So the kid.
---

Dikitain posted...

Embryos are replaceable, the kid isn't. So the kid.

The stem cells from the embryos are much more valuable than a whiney kid.
---

My_Unit posted...

Dikitain posted...

Embryos are replaceable, the kid isn't. So the kid.

The stem cells from the embryos are much more valuable than a whiney kid.

Everyone has stem cells within them that can be used in their place, no one has that exact kid.
---

Zangulus posted...

My_Unit posted...

Dikitain posted...

Embryos are replaceable, the kid isn't. So the kid.

The stem cells from the embryos are much more valuable than a whiney kid.

Calls not saving embryos murder.

Chooses the more fiscally valuable item.

Yeah, your priorities are pretty fucked.

Stem cells are better for humanity than another hungry mouth to feed.
---

Obviously the child and no this doesn't btfo anti-abortionists.

The guy that made up this 'argument' is dumb as fuck.
---

Are you people ****ing serious? And I thought I was bad as a pats fan yall are sick.

There I said it
---

EclairReturns posted...

Oh, so this was just a topic to fuel your political agenda.

As scary as that phrasing is, a political agenda is not necessarily a bad thing.

KogaSteelfang posted...

Just because I think life begins at conception, and that a fetus is a young from of a child

Almost all pro-choice people are well aware of this. Very few believe a fetus is just an inanimate rock or something that pops alive once it comes out of a woman. The belief is that the rights of what's essentially a parasite, even one that can become an independent human, does not trump the rights of the mother.

helIy posted...

the kid, because the vat of a thousand embyros is going to weigh a fucking ton

No it isn't. Embryos are very, very light.
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

This scenario is meant to be asked to people who are pro-life. Here, I'll just type out what he put.

I knew this would be politically motivated after simply reading the first part of it. I'm not a pro life guy but I think the idea behind being anti abortion is that you aren't actively letting a child suffer to death in a fire in exchange

But yeah obviously you save the kid

But you could also see this on the flip side... most people still would probably want to save the embryos if the kid wasn't there

There is literally no comparison here. You save the child.

I would save the child. Even if it was a situation were I was told that saving the child in the fire would kill 1000 people somewhere in the world. Standing there, with the kid screaming and the flames building, I would still save the them.

I think most people would. Just how were wired.