Current Events > Abortion Question: Which of these would you save from a fire?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Assume the test tube fetuses are properly encapsulated will be able to survive should you rescue them.

Which do you save?
---

Neither because babies creep me out and fetuses remind me of classic silent hill enemies.
---

The sad reality is that the test tube babies are likely worth a hell of a lot more money, each, than the actual baby.

Were the test tube fetuses created through in vitro fertilisation ? If so, the one naturally born healthy baby
---

gunplagirl posted...

Neither because babies creep me out and fetuses remind me of classic silent hill enemies.

I hate babies too but I'd still save one from a fire if it was up solely to me >.>
---

1 healthy baby, mostly because of the emotional aspect of it.
---

Bird in the hand worth more than two in the bush.

checkmate atheists!

Neither. The world is overpopulated.
---

The premise of this question is that the 1000 fetuses don't count as lives worth protecting since just about everybody would save the child, right?

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, according to the logic of this question, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, according to the logic of this question, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

Yes. A family dog is more valuable than a stranger.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP

An actual developed life.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP

An actual developed life.

Right. Just like the adult stranger in my example.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP

An actual developed life.

Right. Just like the adult stranger in my example.

Family members always take precedent before strangers. A pet dog is a family member.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP

An actual developed life.

Right. Just like the adult stranger in my example.

Family members always take precedent before strangers. A pet dog is a family member.

Ok, what if one of the 1000 fetuses was yours? You would save your family member before the stranger's baby, then?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

You know the dog. Who the hell is that guy?

I dunno, who the hell is the baby in the OP

An actual developed life.

Right. Just like the adult stranger in my example.

Family members always take precedent before strangers. A pet dog is a family member.

Ok, what if one of the 1000 fetuses was yours? You would save your family member before the stranger's baby, then?

No, because I don't consider a fetus a family member as I have no emotional attachment to one.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

No, because I don't consider a fetus a family member as I have no emotional attachment to one.

Lol right, parents generally have no love or attachment towards the life growing inside the mother until the moment it's born. You're right.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The premise of this question is that the 1000 fetuses don't count as lives worth protecting since just about everybody would save the child, right?

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, according to the logic of this question, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

It would mean that people think *their* dog is more valuable than most strangers. But that wouldn't apply to *all* dogs because if a person had to save a stranger dog vs a stranger person, they'd likely save the person.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

No, because I don't consider a fetus a family member as I have no emotional attachment to one.

Lol right, parents generally have no love or attachment towards the life growing inside the mother until the moment it's born. You're right.

You asked me if one of the fetuses were mine not about parents in general.
---

JlM posted...

Neither. The world is overpopulated.

No it's not.

Probably neither. Have no reason to risk my life running into a burning building to save some random cells.
---

That_Happened posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

The premise of this question is that the 1000 fetuses don't count as lives worth protecting since just about everybody would save the child, right?

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, according to the logic of this question, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

It would mean that people think *their* dog is more valuable than most strangers. But that wouldn't apply to *all* dogs because if a person had to save a stranger dog vs a stranger person, they'd likely save the person.

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?

This is a different question than

Mal_Fet posted...

Ok, what if one of the 1000 fetuses was yours? You would save your family member before the stranger's baby, then?

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?

This is a different question than

Mal_Fet posted...

Ok, what if one of the 1000 fetuses was yours? You would save your family member before the stranger's baby, then?

The premise of the original question is that someone who would rather save a baby rather than the fetuses must therefore not consider fetuses to be life worth protecting. That's why this is an "abortion" question.

Exactly who's the fetuses belong to its immaterial. The claim made was that most people would rather save their dog instead of an adult stranger because the dog is their family, not because dogs are more valuable than human beings.

So using that logic, most people would rather save a fetus if it were theirs rather than the baby. And going by the premise of the original question, that means unborn kids are valuable and with protecting, right?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?

depends--is that test tube fetus literally the only way the person could ever have a child?
---

A dog is also a living thing. A fetus is not. Also there's a huge disconnect between a test tube fetus being stored in a lab(like the topic scenario) and a mother nurturing a fetus inside her. Most people while probably having some kind of connection to a fetus inside the mother, but probably won't think twice about the same fetus if it was in a test tube. At this point the test tube fetus might as well be a stranger.

I would much rather save a living baby than a test tube fetus.
---

Darkman124 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?

depends--is that test tube fetus literally the only way the person could ever have a child?

Can't you just go to the pet store and buy another dog?

Let's say no, for the sake of argument.
---

Tmaster148 posted...

A dog is also a living thing. A fetus is not.

A fetus is also a living thing.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

That_Happened posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

The premise of this question is that the 1000 fetuses don't count as lives worth protecting since just about everybody would save the child, right?

So since we know most people would rather save their dog from a fire than an adult stranger, according to the logic of this question, does that mean doggos are inherently more valuable than people?

It would mean that people think *their* dog is more valuable than most strangers. But that wouldn't apply to *all* dogs because if a person had to save a stranger dog vs a stranger person, they'd likely save the person.

Same question to you then: would you expect most people would save the fetuses instead of the baby if one of those fetuses were theirs?

I'm honestly not sure. Maybe?

But you're pivoting to a completely different line of questioning that puts one's own family members into the equation. The point of the question (which you clearly understand) is about the value of a baby vs the value of a fetus. Not "YOUR" fetus or "MY" fetus, just "A" fetus. This is what the argument about abortion always centers around. And nobody sane would choose to save a random fetus in a test tube over a random actual living, breathing baby, because we recognize that one has inherently more value.
---

The fetuses. Not because I care about abortion, but because if up to 1000 people took the time and money to create test tube kids they're more likely going to a home that wants them, as opposed to parents that would leave their baby in a burning building.

The baby. The baby is irreplaceable, where presumably the potential parents of those zygotes can produce more genetic material for future zygotes if they need to.
---

Neither, I'd throw that baby some bootstraps as I jumped out the window and tell him to deal
---

I enjoyed the original Twitter thread about this, especially when pro-life people thought they could outsmart the question by saying they'd take the embryos, and his response was that it takes a lot of bravery to admit publicly that you are a monster lol
---

Asherlee10 posted...

How would a fetus fit in a test tube, ffs?

To be fair, it's not really a test tube. It's more of a dish. It's just commonly referred to as "test tube babies". Also you can't grow a fetus in a test tube forever either. At some point you need to inject into a person to finish growing it as otherwise it won't get the nutrients it needs.
---

Also, part of the scenario was that the machine that holds and preserves the embryos is the same size and weight as the baby

TC forgot a few details
---

That_Happened posted...

But you're pivoting to a completely different line of questioning that puts one's own family members into the equation. The point of the question (which you clearly understand) is about the value of a baby vs the value of a fetus. Not "YOUR" fetus or "MY" fetus, just "A" fetus. This is what the argument about abortion always centers around. And nobody sane would choose to save a random fetus in a test tube over a random actual living, breathing baby, because we recognize that one has inherently more value.

Ok, different question. Would you save a baby or an adult man?

It's almost like what we consider "valueable" is not an objective standard. People have a natural inclination to protect infants rather than grown dudes, but that's not evidence that the dude isn't a life that's otherwise worth protecting, right? So too with the 1000 fetuses.

Asherlee10 posted...

How would a fetus fit in a test tube, ffs?

NOW who's getting hung up on context, hunh?
---

eston posted...

I enjoyed the original Twitter thread about this, especially when pro-life people thought they could outsmart the question by saying they'd take the embryos, and his response was that it takes a lot of bravery to admit publicly that you are a monster lol

And he responded to people like me who pointed out that his question was bogus by blocking them

Which is about as close to owning someone as getting punched in the mouth and retaliating by crying and running away.
---

Why would i save any ? i dont risk my life

Asherlee10 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

How would a fetus fit in a test tube, ffs?

To be fair, it's not really a test tube. It's more of a dish. It's just commonly referred to as "test tube babies". Also you can't grow a fetus in a test tube forever either. At some point you need to inject into a person to finish growing it as otherwise it won't get the nutrients it needs.

It's just a fertilized egg. I'm not even positive it's technically a zygote at that point.

Fetus = 8 weeks into gestation

Right.

Well since it's a hypotechical, it's probably some scifi machine that acts as a womb for the fetus. Not a test tube.

Which "test tube baby" is just a term people use and not an accurate depiction.
---

Mal_Fet claiming a question is bogus when he can't even actually make a proper refute against it

Must be a day ending in y
---

Mal_Fet posted...

eston posted...

I enjoyed the original Twitter thread about this, especially when pro-life people thought they could outsmart the question by saying they'd take the embryos, and his response was that it takes a lot of bravery to admit publicly that you are a monster lol

And he responded to people like me who pointed out that his question was bogus by blocking them

Which is about as close to owning someone as getting punched in the mouth and retaliating by crying and running away.

That's because the post you made was an irrelevant tangent. Your dog isn't there. The choice is between a baby or 1000 embryos. Two options.
---

Asherlee10 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

Asherlee10 posted...

How would a fetus fit in a test tube, ffs?

To be fair, it's not really a test tube. It's more of a dish. It's just commonly referred to as "test tube babies". Also you can't grow a fetus in a test tube forever either. At some point you need to inject into a person to finish growing it as otherwise it won't get the nutrients it needs.

It's just a fertilized egg. I'm not even positive it's technically a zygote at that point.

Fetus = 8 weeks into gestation

Right.

Well since it's a hypotechical, it's probably some scifi machine that acts as a womb for the fetus. Not a test tube.

Which "test tube baby" is just a term people use and not an accurate depiction.

I always took the term "test tube baby" to mean that the baby started out IVF, not that there is an actual baby in a test tube.

Well yeah that's what the term is used for. It's just we don't have anything that I'm aware of that allows you to sustain a fetus til it's ready to be birthed. So I wouldn't be surprised if people use the same term to refer to this.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Ok, different question. Would you save a baby or an adult man?

"OK I'm just gonna desperately keep trying different questions with different contexts in the hopes that something will stick!"

Pro-life people argue that babies and fetuses are ultimately the same thing and that both are innocent lives that deserve to be saved. This question points out that no, they are not the same, and yes one is clearly a life that is more deserving of saving. No one argues that babies and adult men are the same.

But I look forward to your next pivot! (Honestly I don't. Youve proven the TCs point).
---