I normally stay out of any abortion issues, but I think this one nails it

[KelleyKramer]

I'm going to try to post it, this is a 9 tweet thread.. hopefully it will work

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

.

[canetoad]

1. Certainly does.

K&R

[Throck]

2. Is there an obligation to save either?

When a fire gets out of control and firemen are in a building their objective is to get out and not comit suicide, does this mean firemen are immoral?

[Wednesdays]

4. Um, wha?

[KelleyKramer]

6. In this hypothetical question there are only 2 answers, A or B, you have to choose, Period

You are actually making his point, you do realize that, right?

[sharedvalues]

11. This post chooses C: "Troll"

This one went for whataboutism to the firefighters... A poor troll at best but at least he used the trolling tools.

[Iggo]

26. C: You all die.

[Orrex]

39. Yes, there is

When a fire gets out of control and firemen are in a building their objective is to get out and not comit suicide, does this mean firemen are immoral?

No, it means that your trolling hypothetical is absolutely 100% irrelevant to the question posed by the OP.

[Phoenix61]

3. I so need to remember this nt

[delisen]

5. Answer: How rich and what color the child?

[unblock]

7. i don't believe he's been asking this for 10 years without getting an honest answer.

unless what he either hasn't actually asked the question to anti-choicers very often at all, or he simply believes that when they choose the 1,000 embryos, they're not being honest.

i've debated (even formally) this issue many times over the years, and there are most definitely plenty of people who would absolutely save the embryos.

they would certainly object to the "sophie's choice" aspect, and they would certainly mourn for the child.

but they would then pat themselves on the back for being some sort of oskar schindler hero and look forward to the day that 1,000 people throw them a party and give them a medal or something.

[Decoy of Fenris]

9. I'd choose B. It's just a numbers game, independent of freedom of choice.

A thousand potential long and healthy lives or one potentially long and healthy life. That sort of math requires only a pulse and minimal brain activity to figure out.

No backpatting, no anti-abortion stance or moral high ground or heroism. A thousand potential lives, even if not actively life at the time, holds more weight to benefit humanity than one active life.

The tweeter in the OP has a valid point, but for him to automatically dismiss the answer that doesn't fit his political narrative reduces his credibility in my opinion.

[sharedvalues]

13. You forgot the 1000 uteruses, and families

Got bad news for you... Each time sperm is spilled that's about a million potential lives all getting thrown away.


To take an embryo to a long potential healthy life you need a woman with a uterus, and someone to care for the child. The five year old already exists. That's why he's correct that most socially normal adults would choose the kid. I certainly would.

[Decoy of Fenris]

22. I didn't forget them. I included them under the use of "Potential."

Assuming even a "failure" rate (inclusive of failure to implant, expiry, non-viability of implant, et cetera) of 99%, that thousand embryos still holds a potential growth of ten lives. Net advantage in favor of saving the genetic material.

We can hash this out back and forth all day long, but the simple truth of it is that this example not nearly as cut and dry as the OP and the tweeter seem to think it is. Already downthread, you have three or four folks making a similar point to mine. Some people view life differently than you do, and that's okay.

[bluepen]

14. And his analogy doesnt work.

I mean, unless he’s talking about multiple fetuses within a womb and which do you save. Which is still kind of odd.

The question would be more accurately set up like this: you’re in the clinic, a fire breaks out, you’re in a room with a container labeled “1,000 viable human embryos.” Do you grab the container on the way out or not?

If I had to play his game, though, I’d probably do what most people would instinctively do and grab the child who was “crying and screaming” (two words he used to inject emotion into the hypothetical).

[tblue37]

34. But the 1000 embryos feel no pain or fear, while the child would suffer an agonizing death.

The suffering of a living sentient being matters.

In fact, I would save a dog, a cat, a ferret, a parrot, or a goat over the 1000 embryos!

On Edit: Don't ask what those animals are doing in a fertility clinic.

[Decoy of Fenris]

36. That may be the case for you.

I respect that and give you a hat tip. Some people in life -should- care about such things. People like you are needed to help keep humanity compassionate.

[LanternWaste]

38. And it may be the case that many people eat scrambled chicken for breakfast

And it may be the case that many people eat scrambled chicken for breakfast rather than the more accurately and more aptly named 'scrambled eggs' to maintain the pretense of similarity when none ethically exists. It's fun to rationalize, but adds nothing of substance.

[Decoy of Fenris]

42. Hehe. That's a joke my wife and I like to share.

Also, if anyone knows how to scale that down, it'd be appreciated. ~.~

[tblue37]

40. You say you would save the 1000 viable fetuses because 1000 potential human lives are

more valuable and might do more good for humanity, but in fact the last thing humanity--or any other life on this planet--needs is to add a lot more people to the population. Besides, any of those 1000 could grow up to be a Trump, a Sessions, a Hitler, or a Pol Pot, so potential human life is not inherently a certain good.

See, I also value life somewhat differently than many. I don't think potential human life has any particular value in the abstract. But I do believe it to be a moral imperative to reduce or prevent suffering wherever and however I can--regardless of whether the suffering sentient being is human or not.

[Decoy of Fenris]

43. By that logic, you should also be in favor of letting the child die without regard to the embryos.

The child you save may -also- grow up to be a Trump, a Hitler, a Pol Pot, et cetera. Then it just boils down to a numbers game again.

As a thought experiment, if we were to say a child were dying, painlessly and comfortably, but you had the option of saving him or a thousand embryos, which would you choose? To clarify, the child in question has no pain, anguish, and has accepted his inevitable death.

[tblue37]

44. No, because the child is a suffering sentient being. The suffering of an already living,

sentient being--and its life--matter in a way the potential life of 1000 nonsentient embryos doesn't.

[Decoy of Fenris]

46. I think our definitions of "Suffering" aren't quite the same, but that's okay.

I get the gist of what you're trying to say, and that's perfectly fine. We'll just have to disagree.

[Mustellus]

8. If life begins at conception.... 2/3 'ds of all human beings simply dribble out....

The difference between 'conception', and the AMA definition of pregnancy, which is implantation, is about a factor of three.

Statistically.. all of us who were born.. have a brother and sister who didn't make it. Failed to implant...

Died as the wet spot on the bed dried up...

Died on that tissue thrown in the trash....

Died on the panties tossed into the laundry....

We know this from in-vitro fertilization statistics. Remember OctoMom? Had eight injected.. 'cause the doctors expected no more than three. Otherwise they'd never have done it.

We know this from hormone studies of the fertilization process. Little 16 cell babies start putting out powerful hormones to shut down the mother's coming period. Sometimes that hormone signal just... dies out.

So.. should we start running around calling people "Dribble Abortionists"?

[aikoaiko]

10. It tries to be a gotchya question, but it really isn't.

So I'm one of those people who believes the life of an individual human organism begins at conception, but I'm completely pro-choice.

The ethical decision in the hypothetical can be answered different ways depending on your deontological or consequentialist perspectives.

For me, ethical decisions are about avoiding or reducing suffering. You can weigh the suffering and death of one child against 1000 deaths but no suffering and still choose the one child.

[sharedvalues]

15. Why conception and not ovulation, or at sperm?

Or at implantation? Or at 4 to 8 weeks when most women know they are pregnant?

[aikoaiko]

18. I'm defining the individual organism when the genetic material from gametes are combined.

So not eggs or sperm. Gametes are half the genes.

Pregnancy of the woman is defined with implantation.

[sharedvalues]

24. Right but why?

If a gamete has the wrong amount of genetic material (extra or missing chromosome) does that make it less of a person?

The gamete definition is arbitrary, and that definition is evangelical-driven and has little to do with science or the way humans think about life. A much better definition is life begins at birth, or when the fetus is viable without heroic intervention.

[aikoaiko]

25. I would say legal personhood begins at birth. I avoid using the word life.

No, science says the individual organism is genetically formed at conception with species that reproduce sexually (versus asexually), but you're right that's not the way most people think about "life".

The gamete definition is arbitrary? Evangelical-driven? I don't think so.

[snooper2]

49. It's not life until it can live outside the womb

[aikoaiko]

53. I think when I say legal personhood and you say life at birth I think we are saying the same thing.

Fertilized eggs, blastocysts, embyros, and fetuses aren't legal persons and don't have the same protections as a legal person, by my way of thinking.

[snooper2]

55. No, when I mean it's useless until it can survive outside the womb, when life begins

There is a reason animals in the wild eat their stillborn babies...no sense to let it go to waste.

[aikoaiko]

57. I'm not sure individual uselessness or usefulness is a good way to draw the line.

Last edited Tue Oct 17, 2017, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

The way you are defining useless is a temporary state much like someone being in a coma or vegetative state (not like being dead and stillborn).

I think we fundamentally disagree on something so I'll bow out.

[sharedvalues]

59. That definition is not right

I'm a scientist. More a fluid dynamicist, but climate science certainly interacts with biology.

In fact scientists avoid using the term "life" because it's so ill-defined.
Are viruses alive? Their genetic material is complete. Seeds that can lay dormant for years? Their genetic material is complete.
Are eggs and sperm alive? Sperm can swim and locomote - by any plausible definition of "alive", sperm are alive.

The gamete definition is evangelical-driven. An equally valid definition is the point at which an organism can survive without its mother. For humans, without medical help, that's 34 weeks and up. (Remember, the _president's_ child died when delivered prematurely at 34 weeks in 1960).

The point is that saying when life begins is a fool's errand. It's a political definition, not a scientific one.
Personally, I'd like to see abortions rare above 20-22 weeks, when a fetus is viable WITH modern medical help. And I'd like to see the mother's health given equal or greater consideration to the fetus.
But I wouldn't claim any scientific support for that particular date.

[aikoaiko]

60. That why I said I avoid the word life.

This works for me biologically and philosophical.

The complete genetic new human occurs at conception.

Legal person with the right to life (i.e. Not be killed without justification) occurs after both.

[sharedvalues]

61. False statement.

"The complete genetic new human occurs at conception. "

False. It's not a human at conception. It's a cell. By definition.

And you're moving the goalposts.
Your first post:
"So I'm one of those people who believes the life of an individual human organism begins at conception, but I'm completely pro-choice."
Me:
"the definition of life is not ironclad"
Your recent post:
"I avoid the word life." ... Let's talk about 'complete genetic new human'


Here's my point: anything you will say about "complete" and "human" and "conception" and yes, also "life", cannot be ironclad. Because there IS NO ironclad scientific definition of when a life or a complete human starts. Sure, you've said "well, genetic completeness" is the key measure we should care about. But I will then say no, viability is what's important. Or ability of a cell to be motile. Or formation of the brain (a few weeks after conception). Or formation of myelin (much later). So that explains it. There is no scientific definition. If you want to draw a line at conception great. But it's on you. It's a political decision you are making. Not a scientific one.

[aikoaiko]

62. Well I probably should have used the lifespan beginning at conception

Maybe that makes my point

And yes at conception we are a cell. - a complete human cell. Soon it will be two cells. And we keeep making cells until we are dead. That's pretty basic biology - not politics.

[sharedvalues]

63. Yet its a cell that often does not survive

Many spontaneous abortions happen after conception when the embryo fails to implant. In those early spontaneous abortions, the woman usually does not know. Do you advocate a full funeral in that case? (Of course funerals are often warranted when the fetus is older and viable.)

Again, claiming there's a hard and fast rule based on science has no grounding in fact. You want to define lifespan starting at conception. That's fine and it's your prerogative. But it's not based on objective fact, it's a moral decision you make.

[aikoaiko]

65. It doesn't matter to me if people consider a failed implantation or miscarriage worthy of funeral.

As you said, most women don't know when a blastocyst fails to implant.

Most of the child development books I've seen talk about lifespan development of the human organism occurring from conception forward. You should check them out. It is a rational decision with grounding in biology. You should ask your biology friends.

I'm completely pro-choice. Women have the right to control their bodies regardless of pregnancy status or the existence or fertilized eggs that are dividing away. By my way of thinking, legal personhood should apply after birth (either natural or artificial) and all the protections thereof.

If you don't think a fertilized cell, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus is an individual human being, then what species does it belong, too?

[JoeStuckInOH]

12. ehhhh. I don't think it's all that great of a question/scenario.

If depending on your rationale, it either really only serves to point out the difference in valuation of different lives.

If the choices were:

a) child
b) box of 20 kittens

or

a) child
b) two elderly blind people

The question falls apart because options A and B in both involve victims that are undeniably "alive". Option a Saves fewer lives than option B yet most people would still choose "A" (despite condemning a greater number of actual lives to die). This because everyone values life differently and sometime, the life of one is more valuable than the lives of many. The question in the OP really only points to the fact that people value lives differently.

Alternatively, for the strict logical person with no heart strings to be tugged upon, choosing the 1000 potential humans over the child in the original scenario is based in sound logic. Just as someone might determine the life of one child is worth more than two eldery or 20 kittens... someone might decide 1000 potential humans is worth more than one child. In fact, you don't even need to believe those embryos are alive to support that decision.

[sharedvalues]

16. No, it's much more like

A) child
B) sperm



Sperm is a lot closer to a fertilized egg than two old elderly people.



His point is about the relative value we should place on kids vs eggs. Makes sense to me.

[JoeStuckInOH]

21. How about two infants versus a 28 year old prenatal surgeon?

Statistically, that doctor has a much higher chance of saving more lives than the potential of any two random infants.

[snooper2]

56. how about redheaded twin toddlers and a pygmy marmoset vs the entire Redskins team

LOL

[KelleyKramer]

17. Just curious, which would you choose from the original question.. A or B ?

[ret5hd]

23. And remember: Baby Jeebus cries every time you lie..

[bluepen]

19. Exactly. The only way to measure how someone values

the “1,000 viable human embryos” would be for the hypothetical to put a person in the room with only the 1,000 embryos and ask if they’d grab that container on the way out.

Edit: before anyone asks how I would answer his emotionally-charged hypothetical, I did so here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9719680

[Iggo]

27. Look at all the people trying to get out of answering A or B.

You save the actual child.

You know you do.

Period.

[KelleyKramer]

28. Yes, it's very telling isn't it

[ismnotwasm]

29. Yup. Exactly as whats happening in the twitter thread.

I said about what you did. Of course you save the child. Anything else is a horror. Attempts to intellectualize this as a complex thought experiment are bullshit. I see a kid whose about to get burned to death? I’m saving the screaming, suffering child every time.

[Decoy of Fenris]

31. You don't speak for me.

I chose B. There's no wiggling out or trying to avoid answering: B. Period. Full stop.

You may not like it, but there it is. It has nothing to do with choice, abortion, life at conception, freedom of choice, whatever you want to make it about. Yes, there -are- people who would save a thousand viable human embryos over one child when presented with that choice. It has nothing to do with choice, abortion, politics, the definition of life or any such thing. It's a matter of saving a large quantity of viable genetic material that has greater potential positive impact on humanity as a whole than one individual child.

Please don't marginalize people who have views different than your own.

[ismnotwasm]

32. So you leave the burning, screaming, coughing suffering kid behind?

You make a snap decision to save “genetic material”? Holy shit.

[Decoy of Fenris]

33. Of course.

What right do I have to allow that much potential gain to be wasted? As I mentioned upthread, even assuming 99% of those embryos are never used or fail in one way or another, that's still a net gain of ten children to one. I'd certainly mourn the loss of the one child, but I wouldn't regret the decision I made. Were the position swapped and I rescued the child, I would mourn the loss of the embryos just as much if not moreso.

Please, understand that not everyone puts the same value on life that you do, or the person next to you. You and several others are insisting that yours is the -only- correct option and that every other possible permutation is monstrous. It simply isn't like that. It has nothing to do with abortion or patriarchy(I'm pro-choice, such as I can be, being male), it has nothing to do with the morality of letting a child die, it's just a different set of values. Some people put mankind's greater benefit over the benefit of the individual.

The ONLY way you could get me to pick A is if it was my own child. That's a matter of propagation though and likely linked to biological impulse. I'd still hesitate for a split second, but yes, I'd rescue my own child before the embryos. That's quite literally the only situation where I would choose option A though.

[ismnotwasm]

37. Well

That is certainly an interesting personal characteristic. First, while I don’t think you are lying, I also don’t believe you—but that is beside the point. You would “hesitate” to save your own child is even more interesting.

Now, are you interested in genetic material for research purposes or for the potential life the represent? I will guarantee that the embryos will not all be viable.

[Decoy of Fenris]

41. In regards to your question, both.

If we're going to go into splitting hairs about the embryos, it's less about the life they represent and more about the potential gains, -any- potential gains, they'd garner. Whether that is just a net gain of nine children in lieu of one, or something more scientific like advanced research into the human genome is a large factor. Were you to say "These embryos hold the potential keys to curing cancer", then it's easily a no-brainer option and I'd save the embryos with no second thoughts. I admit that if the embryos were just to be used for artificial fertilization purposes, I'd be more ambivalent but would still likely secure the embryos over the child, going back to what I mentioned earlier.

But all of this is kind of dancing around the point. Remove the embryos from the equation and my answer would be the same. If you were to ask me the same question but about a memory stick that contains research data that may cure cancer, I'm saving the memory stick. Again, it just boils down to what action is better for humanity as a whole.

[ismnotwasm]

45. I think you are over-analyzing it.

There are a few major flaws in your argument, but I’m going to bet you can figure them out. I’m now at work and must bow out.

I work in solid organ transplant, where there is always ethical dilemmas in real time.

[Decoy of Fenris]

47. Solid copy. It's been a pleasure.

Good luck at work. That's a field I could never do (Shaky hands), so I applaud you heartily, if shakily.

Have a great day.

[Iggo]

50. You would save the burning screaming child because you are not complete scum.

That is the absolute truth.

[Decoy of Fenris]

51. You're welcome to believe whatever you wish.

Some people believe the earth is flat, others believe that man never went to the moon, still others believe that only their "truth" exists. Fundamentalist Christians come to mind among others.

I can't, nor won't, tell you what to believe, but I'd appreciate you not telling me what I would or would not do. I like to think I've got a slightly better insight into that than you.

[Iggo]

52. It's got nothing to do with belief. It's an absolute fact.

[Decoy of Fenris]

54. Just like the sun rotates around the Earth, right?

Look. It's simple. You don't know me, but you're making judgment calls about me. I've explained why I think what I think, I've offered reasonable and productive discourse, and all you have to offer me is "No, you're wrong."

Well, the truth of the matter is that not everyone thinks like you. People think like me, and they live alongside you, work with you, enjoy hobbies with you. Maybe even share your bed. That's -okay-, man. Diversity is the spice of life. If you want to keep believing otherwise though, go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Until you offer something more meaningful than one-liners ascribing false motives to me though, I'm pretty much done here. Have a good'n, and sleep tight.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. Why do you usually stay out of "abortion issues"?

[logosoco]

35. A topic that brings a lot of questions and thoughts!

Personally, I see this as choosing between potential and a sure thing. I am going to pick the sure thing.

Maybe, if there were not already so many people on the earth and so much harm that has been done to the planet because of all of those people I would make a different choice.

Humans are not an endangered species (as far as numbers go). What if the question was a human child or a bunch of embryos of a species where there are very few in number? I think I may pick the child there if the species was dying out because it lost the ability to adapt to a changing environment. But if the humans caused the species to die off in large numbers, then I start to have more doubts about what to pick.

[treestar]

48. Easy for me

Save the child. A screaming, suffering child will affect me far more. I wouldn't even think about it.

[chowder66]

58. Either way, anyone who wants to play along has choices, unlike some. nt

[alphafemale]

64. I can't imagine anyone taking the time to stroll about reading labels.

Given this scenario.