• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A poll

In regard to the situation posted, which do you save?

  • The baby

    Votes: 27 90.0%

  • The test tubes containing the fertilized eggs

    Votes: 3 10.0%

  • I honestly don't know

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    30
X Factor said:
And they're all going to be Pulitzer prize winning presidents that will bring about world peace...:roll:
Click to expand...

Is it really that inconceivable that one might be able to remove them safely, and that they are all spoken for for implantation?
 
Rootabega!
 
digsbe said:
I would still chose the baby and this is why. The test tubes are still living human life and should be protected. If someone maliciously kills one they should be charged with murder. However, they are not independent. It would be similar to choosing the life of a healthy child or the life of a 90 year old person in a coma on life support. Both of their lives are valuable and deserve protection, but the child is already viable. Not saving the test tube embryos does not negate the fact that they are human life that deserves legal protection.
Click to expand...

So, a hundred not yet viable 'children' aren't worth more than one viable one?
 
Dezaad said:
So, a hundred not yet viable 'chidren' aren't worth more than one viable one?
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. However as I have stated, their lives are no less valuable and worthy of protection. It would still be murder to kill a senior citizen on life support. We would chose the young child versus the dying old man (or men), yet both of their lives are valuable. However, both are not viable.


Goshin said:
Rootabega!
Click to expand...

Don't be a hippie. Only hippies would save rooted vegetation over human life.
 
Last edited:
Dezaad said:
Is it really that inconceivable that one might be able to remove them safely, and that they are all spoken for for implantation?
Click to expand...
Even if all that were true, that doesn't mean they would all make it to delivery. There'd be no way to know what you were saying. That many embryos could just as easily be destined for stem cell research and destruction anyway.
 
MaggieD said:
Anyone who answers anything other than "the baby," is being disingenuous.

.
Click to expand...

That's the first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title, that some people would say the test tubes in order not to minimize their pro-life stance.
 
X Factor said:
Even if all that were true, that doesn't mean they would all make it to delivery. There'd be no way to know what you were saying. That many embryos could just as easily be destined for stem cell research and destruction anyway.
Click to expand...

And you don't know that the six month old will live past today either.
 
digsbe said:
But what do you think? I don't mean to sound like a troll, I'm just merely fueling thought. My question was mainly to show that as a pro-life individual who believes life begins at conception, it is not hypocritical to save a born child versus test tube embryos. Conversely, my question was to show how it isn't hypocrisy for a pro-choice individual to save the pregnant woman over the not pregnant woman.
Click to expand...

I also was just trying to fuel thought. If the woman was in her first trimester, for me, it would be whose hand I could grab first. If she was in her second trimester it would probably be the pregnant woman, since in my mind, I would be saving two lives. The point I was trying to get to is when as a person do you tell yourself not to just grab the first random woman, but rather make the decision to save the pregnant woman.
 
I do know I would be emotionally sickened by the loss of the baby, while I couldn't give much more than a rat's ass about even a trillion single celled 'humans'.
 
danarhea said:
Just answer the question, and later on, we can discuss the results.

There is a fire at a medical facility. In one room, there is a 6 month old baby. In another room, there are 100 test tubes, each containing a fertilized egg. You don't have time to save the baby and the eggs. You can only save either the baby or the eggs. Which do you save, and why?
Click to expand...

A couple of people here say they would 'rescue' the fertilized eggs, which can feel no pain, rather than the 6 month old, which would die in unimaginable agony.

Stick with the agenda, guys, no matter how much goddam crap it is in this scenario.
 
digsbe said:
You see two women. A pregnant woman and a woman who is not pregnant. You can only save one, who do you save?
Click to expand...

If I had time to think about it and make a considered decision I would save the pregnant woman. More than likely I wouldn't have the time to think it over and would make a spur of the moment decision.
 
The baby, of course. Who cares about a bunch of nameless, faceless cells in a tube?

digsbe said:
You see two women. A pregnant woman and a woman who is not pregnant. You can only save one, who do you save?
Click to expand...

It depends how far along the pregnant woman is and whether or not the other woman has children who need her.
 
I would save the baby. My emotional attachment to the baby would be stronger and if I only had time to save one or the other, I certainly wouldn't have time to indulge in a little exercise crunching the myriad arguments pertaining to the moral dilemma thus faced.
 
Gardener said:
I would save the baby. My emotional attachment to the baby would be stronger and if I only had time to save one or the other, I certainly wouldn't have time to indulge in a little exercise crunching the myriad arguments pertaining to the moral dilemma thus faced.
Click to expand...

With very good reason.
 
digsbe said:
Don't be a hippie. Only hippies would save rooted vegetation over human life.
Click to expand...


"Rootabega!", as an item in DP's cultural lexicon, gives me a suitable answer for polls and questions that attempt to create unreasonable and ridiculous comparisons purely to advance an agenda item. :mrgreen:
 
I save the baby. The result is the baby doesn't die.
 
Ok, new scenario:

An evil researcher has placed 100 test tubes with single celled humans in them in a room. He has also placed 1 billion dollars of his own money there (he's a trillionaire). He starts the room on fire, and it is spreading fast, but you would have time, using the forklift he has also supplied, to remove the billion dollars. You probably can't get both the test tubes and the money out. He says you can have anything that you can remove from the room.

What do you remove first?
 
Dezaad said:
Ok, new scenario:

An evil researcher has placed 100 test tubes with single celled humans in them in a room. He has also placed 1 billion dollars of his own money there (he's a trillionaire). He starts the room on fire, and it is spreading fast, but you would have time, using the forklift he has also supplied, to remove the billion dollars. You probably can't get both the test tubes and the money out. He says you can have anything that you can remove from the room.

What do you remove first?
Click to expand...

The money, obviously.
 
RightinNYC said:
The money, obviously.
Click to expand...
Pro choice Republicans are supposed to say "The Forklift". Because they would never take a handout, and would use the forklift to start earning their own billions.
 
Dezaad said:
Ok, new scenario:

An evil researcher has placed 100 test tubes with single celled humans in them in a room. He has also placed 1 billion dollars of his own money there (he's a trillionaire). He starts the room on fire, and it is spreading fast, but you would have time, using the forklift he has also supplied, to remove the billion dollars. You probably can't get both the test tubes and the money out. He says you can have anything that you can remove from the room.

What do you remove first?
Click to expand...

Single celled humans? In test tubes? No brain, no mother, nothing but sperm and egg and few days. Make it tougher. Too easy.
 
LuckyDan said:
Single celled humans? In test tubes? No brain, no mother, nothing but sperm and egg and few days. Make it tougher. Too easy.
Click to expand...

This thread is about determining if people really think we ought to have rights from conception onward, or not. Some, here, have already expressed the notion that if I smash a test tube with a single celled human in it, I ought to be arrested, tried and found guilty of murder.
 
Dezaad said:
This thread is about determining if people really think we ought to have rights from conception onward, or not. Some, here, have already expressed the notion that if I smash a test tube with a single celled human in it, I ought to be arrested, tried and found guilty of murder.
Click to expand...

Oh. Well I'm a pro-lifer who thinks you oughtta be charged with property damage in that case.
 
Dezaad said:
Ok, new scenario:

An evil researcher has placed 100 test tubes with single celled humans in them in a room. He has also placed 1 billion dollars of his own money there (he's a trillionaire). He starts the room on fire, and it is spreading fast, but you would have time, using the forklift he has also supplied, to remove the billion dollars. You probably can't get both the test tubes and the money out. He says you can have anything that you can remove from the room.

What do you remove first?
Click to expand...
What if, instead of the test tubes, you had to chose between saving a convicted child murderer and the billion dollars, which would you choose?
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
What if, instead of the test tubes, you had to chose between saving a convicted child murderer and the billion dollars, which would you choose?
Click to expand...

The convicted child murderer should be on death row anyway. Burning to death is very unpleasant, but I'm assuming his victim died unpleasantly as well. So that's justice.

And I'm rich as a benefit.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom