Say you were given the following choice (moral question related to abortion).

[ALiberalModerate]

Say you were given the following choice.

1. You could prevent 10,000 first trimester abortions.

or

2. You could prevent 1000 children from being killed.

Also, lets keep replies in this thread limited to those that actually vote in the poll.

 

[bhkad]

The choice is between living children vs unborn children.

Living children have a voice and representation.

Aborted babies have neither a voice nor advocates.

I vote to give a voice and advocacy to the fetus.

 

[Redress]

The first anti abortion person who comes along is going to blow a gasket at that question. I really wish you had phrased that at least a little different.

For me the obvious answer is 2.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The choice is between living children vs unborn children.

Living children have a voice and representation.

Aborted babies have neither a voice nor advocates.

I vote to give a voice and advocacy to the fetus.

And I am calling bull****. Its easy for you to say that. I just don't even remotely think that if you were given that choice, you would choose to condemn 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions. I don't think that hardly anyone would.

 

[bhkad]

And I am calling bull****. Its easy for you to say that. I just don't even remotely think that if you were given that choice, you would choose to condemn 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions. I don't think that hardly anyone would.

And I call Bull **** at your premise. Nowhere and never would such an offer be made. So, within a theoretical set up I choose the 100% humanitarian yet theoretical response.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And I call Bull **** at your premise. Nowhere and never would such an offer be made. So, within a theoretical set up I choose the 100% humanitarian yet theoretical response.

Its a question conscience, not something that could actually happen and you know as well me that in good conscience, you would choose the second option.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ah, a bogus poll.

Not playing.

Whaddya got, the Green Goblin holding a ten thousand vials of saline solution in one hand and a thousand screaming kids in the other, and ol' Spidey's gotta make the terrible moral choice?

 

[Redress]

Did I mention people would be blowing gaskets?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Ah, a bogus poll.

Not playing.

Whaddya got, the Green Gremlin holding a ten thousand vials of saline solution in one hand and a thousand screaming kids in the other, and ol' Spidey's gotta make the terrible moral choice?

If you don't have the balls to answer the question, then as specified in the opening post, don't offer up your opinion.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Did I mention people would be blowing gaskets?

Of course they will because no one in good conscience would pick the first option if they actually had to live with the choice. Especially if they were a parent themselves.

 

[DeeJayH]

simple numbers to me
saving 10,000 is more important than saving 1000
atleast the 1000 had a chance to live

now are we going to throw in more bull**** with 'well what if it was one of yoru kids?"

 

[bhkad]

Its a question conscience, not something that could actually happen and you know as well me that in good conscience, you would choose the second option.

As long as the issue remains fantastic I will stand by my response.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

simple numbers to me
saving 10,000 is more important than saving 1000
atleast the 1000 had a chance to live

now are we going to throw in more bull**** with 'well what if it was one of yoru kids?"

So you are honestly saying that if literally given that choice, you could live with condemning 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions? Be honest.

 

[Burning Giraffe]

Say you were given the following choice.

1. You could prevent 10,000 first trimester abortions.

or

2. You could prevent 1000 children from being killed.

Also, lets keep replies in this thread limited to those that actually vote in the poll.

Having already been born and utterly conscious, I would prevent the killing of 1000 children. Now, if it would have been 1,000,000 first trimester abortions versus 100 already born children, my answer may be different.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I am not in anyway saying that abortion is not wrong or immoral here. Just making a point.

 

[Jerry]

Say you were given the following choice.

1. You could prevent 10,000 first trimester abortions.

or

2. You could prevent 1000 children from being killed.

Also, lets keep replies in this thread limited to those that actually vote in the poll.

My selection of option 2 in no way changes the scientific facts of biology, SCOTUS president or legislation of individual states.

In addition, my selection of option 2 is perfectly consistent with every compromise on abortion I have reached with reasonable Pro-Choice DP members in the past.

 

[jallman]

Say you were given the following choice.

1. You could prevent 10,000 first trimester abortions.

or

2. You could prevent 1000 children from being killed.

Also, lets keep replies in this thread limited to those that actually vote in the poll.

Easy. I wouldn't even bother trying to prevent the 10,000 first trimester abortions as they are of no moral consequence.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If you don't have the balls to answer the question, then as specified in the opening post, don't offer up your opinion.

Next time you make a poll like this, include an option that says "bogus poll", because you know, and I know, that's all it is.

Ridiculous artificial never to exist imaginary moral dilemmas don't illustrate anything except the biases of the person making them up.

A real situation is that the United States chose not to bomb the execution chambers at Nazi concentration camps on the grounds that their bombs would have killed people.

Well, what's the moral issue there, since it was already well known what those units were being used for? Was it moral to kill innocents to destroy the means the enemy was using to kill even more of those innocents on an industrial scale, or was it moral to leave the situation alone and concentrate on ending the war?

Ultimately, the US had the responsibility to end the war the fastest to preserve as many of it's own troops as possible, even though it was plain that the number of bombers to take out those facilities was insignificant in terms of the scale of the European conflict at the time.

That's a real moral question.

 

[Red_Dave]

Say you were given the following choice.

1. You could prevent 10,000 first trimester abortions.

or

2. You could prevent 1000 children from being killed.

Also, lets keep replies in this thread limited to those that actually vote in the poll.

Ild go for the latter due to the fact that the children would have formed more meaningful relationships with their parents ,freinds etc. then a foetus would and would be able to feel pain. I think ultimatly its a toss up between ending a life* and preventing one. Why do you ask?

*Im a defining life as a state in which one can think, experience emotions etc. Incidently if there is any stage in which a foetus can do either of these then im against the abortion.

 

[Goobieman]

And I am calling bull****. Its easy for you to say that. I just don't even remotely think that if you were given that choice, you would choose to condemn 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions. I don't think that hardly anyone would.

This, folks, is a prime example createing a threat foir the purpose of baiting and flaming.
Where is CC?

 

[Jerry]

So you are honestly saying that if literally given that choice, you could live with condemning 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions? Be honest.

He's not condemning anyone to death.

With either choice the person answering the poll is saving lives.

 

[DeeJayH]

So you are honestly saying that if literally given that choice, you could live with condemning 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions? Be honest.

i was
10 characters

 

[Goobieman]

So you are honestly saying that if literally given that choice, you could live with condemning 1000 children to death to prevent 10,000 abortions? Be honest.

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that someone might honestly believe that, even if unborn, a child is still a child?

Or does the fact that the unborn cannot look into your eyes and plead with you not to kill them make them 10x easier for you to kill?

 

[jallman]

He's not condemning anyone to death.

With either choice the person answering the poll is saving lives.

But they aren't morally equivalent lives. Hell, the fetus in the first trimester doesn't have "a life", though I am not arguing that it does have life. It's morally neutral to perform a 1st trimester abortion but it is morally reprehensible to not save 1000 children if you can.

 

[jallman]

Why is it so difficult for you to believe that someone might honestly believe that, even if unborn, a child is still a child?

Or does the fact that the unborn cannot look into your eyes and plead with you not to kill them make them 10x easier for you to kill?

There is not such thing as an unborn child. There are fetuses and then there are children.