"Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I've been asking for ten years now"...

[CousinIT]

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. 1/

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. 2/

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 from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. 3/

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 or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. 4/
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 A or B answer to this question. And I never will. 5/

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. 6/
This question absolutely evicerates 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. 7/
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 cliam to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women. 8/

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. 9/9

Link to tweet

[Orrex]

1. Because they are cowards and liars, here is how they will answer:

1. I wouldn't be in a fertility clinic in the first place
2. My choice doesn't matter, because the person who started the fire is responsible for both deaths
3. That's a false dichotomy (note that this objection is either a straight-up lie or else culpable ignorance)
4. I don't deal in hypotheticals
5. God will guide my decision when the time comes

I'm not guessing about this. I've actually asked the question of a number of anti-choice assholes, and the response is always one of those five.

They are cowards and they are liars, and--as a group--they have decades of practice at evading the real issue, that they don't give a shit about fetuses and are in fact only interested in controlling women.

[BobTheSubgenius]

12. I have also used this argument, and never received an answer at all.

But, it's far easier to just drop a discussion thread online than it is to walk away from a live conversation...and I've never had to pose this in a conversation. I literally know no one that would take that position.

My take-away from your post, though, is the commendable use of "anti-choice" instead of "pro-life." Far more accurate, less emotionally loaded and takes away their self-perceived moral high ground.

Adopting that term - as well as "regressive" instead of "conservative" is a fond wish of mine, and I think both are necessary and achievable.

[Orrex]

16. Disclaimer: I stole that term long ago and have used it ever since

I saw it online, almost certainly not from the person who coined it, but I think it's far superior to the false "Pro-Life" label that they've picked for themselves.

I like your suggestion about "regressive," too, and I'll be stealing that as well.

[wellst0nev0ter]

37. I always go with "forced-birthers" (n/t)

[xxqqqzme]

43. I use 'forced birthers' now

I says it all to me.

[TlalocW]

39. I've used this exact thing as well

The person arguing with me always wants to change the subject.

TlalocW

[WinkyDink]

2. A couple things: First of all, life does begin at conception; it is what "conception" means. It is

an unscientific riposte but more importantly NOT the point, which is VIABILITY. No-one can argue that a zygote is viable.

Secondly, positing a version of "Sophie's Choice" is not a strong argument.

But lastly, and to me the crux, is when anti-choice supporters allow the exceptions** of "cases of rape or saving the life of the mother." If ALL abortions are MURDER of an innocent "child," then how does one agree to ANY said "murder"?

THAT is the argument that puts the lie to their alleged moral stance.

**Those who would allow no exceptions are at least true to their beliefs.

[wryter2000]

14. Rape and incest

That one proves the hypocrisy. Why does how a child is conceived affect its humanity?

Of course, many of them don’t make that exception.

[christx30]

20. The really anti-abortion people I've read

reject abortions in the case of rape or incest, for just the reasons you state. It's not the child's fault it's mom was raped. If you're not going to kill the father for committing rape, why kill the child?

I think forcing a woman to give birth is further victimizing a rape victim. Especially in states that allow the father of the child to have contact, and even partial custody of the child.

[Major Nikon]

19. "life begins at conception" has no basis in reality

It's nothing more than assigning metaphysical properties to human cells. Human eggs and sperm are in fact, living human cells. The joining of those two can potentially create a living human, but we could might as well assign metaphysical properties to countless other processes which are also necessary.

Viability is no less arbitrary. We are quite close to developing artificial wombs which would bring viability back to the egg and sperm stage, and perhaps not even then with cloning technologies.

There already are religious nutbags who don't agree with any exceptions.

[Orrex]

50. You're misrepresenting the viability argument

Viability is no less arbitrary. We are quite close to developing artificial wombs which would bring viability back to the egg and sperm stage, and perhaps not even then with cloning technologies.

Even if a zygote can flourish in an artificial womb, that zygote still isn't any more viable than one that exists in a human uterus.

Viability in this context doesn't mean "can live outside of a human uterus" but rather "can live outside of the direct physiological support of a womb."

There already are religious nutbags who don't agree with any exceptions.

That is unquestionably true.

[Major Nikon]

59. You're misrepresenting the viability argument

Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/case.html

A 20 week old baby isn't going to live without being encased in a machine, period. Viability isn't a rational argument, and never was because it's entirely arbitrary. Technology will always push viability farther back, even conceivably (pardon the pun) back to the egg and sperm stage if not beyond.

[Orrex]

63. Interesting, but not definitive

Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.

I'm very confident that "artificial aid" in this context refers to such currently available technology as incubation, breathing tubes and feeding tube, rather than to some kind of hypothetical full-immersion artificial womb. Do you agree? Is there anything in that article that makes a firm declaration about any and all support technology, current and future?

It seems to me that there's a very good chance that the definition would be revisited when an artificial full-term womb actually enters the discussion.

Viability isn't a rational argument

Well, I'm not sure that it's quite so simple. If a woman is trying to decide whether to carry a fetus to term, and she asks her doctor "is it viable at this stage?" would you advise the doctor to dismiss her question as irrational and arbitrary? Does that empower the woman to make an informed healthcare decision?

For that matter, lots of medical decisions are equally arbitrary, such as when death occurs and when a transplant is worth the associated risk, to name just two of countless examples. Should we eliminate all such arbitrary practices?

Calling the question arbitrary is simply a way to dismiss the discussion by fiat, reducing it to an "eh, whatever" proposition when it is far from that. A better way to describe it IMO is to say "the decision is based on the best medical information currently available," which is frankly the most we can ever hope for in the first place.

even conceivably (pardon the pun) back to the egg and sperm stage if not beyond.

Of course, that technology exists already, insofar as sperm, ova and embryos can be frozen for long periods outside of the mother's or father's body.

I think that one would be hard pressed to support an argument claiming that there's no fundamental difference between individual sperm or ova versus a fertilized zygote, so questions of ovum/sperm viability must be considered entirely separate.

[Major Nikon]

64. You are missing the point

Viability is and always has been a moving target, which makes it completely arbitrary. In 1973, it was 28 weeks. Thanks to advances in technology, "viability" has been legally redefined as 20 weeks. The first time doctors are able to get a single infant to "survive" (if you can call it that) at 19 weeks, that will become the new "viable". Then it will be 18 weeks, then 17, then ... It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see where this is going.

The difference between individual human sperm and eggs vs a diploid cell is now the chromosomes are joined, or in other words one of the countless steps of reproduction has been completed. If I can use either of those things to create a human, then ethically there is no difference, so there really is no legal reason why the zealots couldn't continue to push their legal arguments further up the process. In reality, they already have by financially limiting the options for birth control, and if they can make it illegal, you'd best believe there are those who will try.

[Orrex]

65. No, I get the point

The point is that a great many medical decisions are "arbitrary" according to the standard that you set, so what are we to make of this?

A clear distinction can be identified between "viable within a natural or artificial womb" and "independently viable." Namely, if it can physiologically survive outside of a womb, then it's viable; if it can't, then it ain't. Incubation, assisted breathing and a feeding tube are very different from direct circulatory support by a host womb.

If I can use either of those things to create a human, then ethically there is no difference, so there really is no legal reason why the zealots couldn't continue to push their legal arguments further up the process.

It's hard for me to accept that you find that reasoning sound or compelling.

if they can make it illegal, you'd best believe there are those who will try.

Yes, but those people are idiots and assholes, and their own fucked up agenda should be used to claim that no distinction does or can exist. You are requiring medical science to abandon a distinction because you anticipate it to be politically inconvenient at some point.

It is profoundly unlikely that even the most zealous of zealots will argue that every sperm is sacred, so you're mounting a preemptive defense against an attack that will never occur.


Before someone makes an incorrect observation in all of this, I am definitely not claiming that "viability" precludes the woman's absolute right of reproductive choice. That choice is hers to make and no one else's.

[Major Nikon]

66. I don't even find the viability argument reasonable or compelling. YMMV.

[Orrex]

67. Fortunately, you'll never be in a position to have to make a decision based upon it.

[Major Nikon]

68. Not sure why you'd claim that

The vast majority of the population will probably never be in that position, either. That doesn't mean we should be apathetic towards those who will, especially when others are already making that decision for them.

[Orrex]

69. Because you are making statements as though your opinion is definitive

Unless you have some undisclosed legal, ethical or medical expertise and authority to issue your proclamations, then your opinion is more or less exactly as arbitrary as those you decry.

I notice that you ignored this question:

If a woman is trying to decide whether to carry a fetus to term, and she asks her doctor "is it viable at this stage?" would you advise the doctor to dismiss her question as irrational and arbitrary? Does that empower the woman to make an informed healthcare decision?

When I raised this question, you claimed that I was missing the point, yet in fact it seems rather central to the point. You are arguing that information should be denied to a woman simply because you imagine that future implications of that information will be politically inconvenient.

Consider this situation:
A woman is carrying a fetus with a brain defect that will render it unable to survive outside of the mother's womb. The woman is trying to decide whether to abort the fetus, so she asks her doctor if there's any chance that it will be born viable.
Her doctor replies, "In a hypothetical future someone might invent a mechanical contrivance to maintain a fetus outside of the mother's womb, so your question about viability is arbitrary and irrational."

You are (perhaps innocently) confusing "arbitrary" with "deciding based upon the best available information," and fortunately you will never be in a position to have to make a decision based upon it.

[Major Nikon]

70. You are conflating personal opinions and legal opinions

The reason I didn't answer your question is I didn't consider it all that relevant to the discussion at hand, at least until the SCOTUS starts to consider prevailing public opinion as a legal basis.

I'm talking about basing public policy on legal decisions and whether the viability provision in Roe v Wade can be ethically supported based on sound reasoning, which has pretty much nothing to do with a personal decision based on medical advice.

[Orrex]

71. Then you should take it up with the SCOTUS, since you know better

The discussion at hand, in fact, is based on the OP and upon the arguments endlessly put forth by anti-choice advocates who--you might be shocked to learn--generally are not members of the bar. The OP wasn't asking for your armchair legal counsel as he prepares to go to court; he was offering a valid strategy for dealing with people in a general conversation on the subject.

If you throw down a highly specific legal distinction in a discussion with an ordinary person, they will rightly object that you sound like a poser and that you are full of yourself, rather like the pre-law freshman who threatens to sue when his pizza has one too few slices of pepperoni.

So you'll be all set for presenting your case in DC, but no one will give a shit when you're demonstrating your legal expertise to the layman.

[Demit]

53. I always understood viability to mean a fetus being able to live & breathe on its own,

outside the womb.

[Major Nikon]

60. If that's what it meant, viability wouldn't occur until well into the 3rd trimester

Assuming a 28 week old infant lives past the birthing stage, it's immediately going into an artificial respirator and incubator which effectively performs much of the job of a human womb.

[Demit]

61. Yes, I realize there've been great medical advances over the years.

I guess I was thinking of when I first learned the term, many years ago.

[Honeycombe8]

62. Exactly. An AMOEBA is "life." But an embryo is not a PERSON, altho it's alive.

Pro-lifers fail to acknowledge that difference.

Alabama had a bill to declare an embryo a PERSON. The people rejected that bill, even in conservative Alabama.

That would mean you get to sue for the death of a PERSON, if a woman 3 months pregnant miscarries because of a car accident. Or as a result of a defective product.

[exboyfil]

3. The Old Testament already addresses it

Killing of a fetus is a property crime and not punished in the same way as murder. Also paternal property rights (right to pass property down to genetic decendents trumps life of child or welfare/wellbeing of mother - see the bitter waters ceremony for a wife accused of adultery).

[safeinOhio]

11. Best OT verses that most Christians have never read.

Numbers, 5:11-31.

how to have god abort your wife's fetus.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. I regret that I have but one Rec to give.

This scenario is brilliant.

[DownriverDem]

5. When Life Begins

A while back I worked for a law firm where the lawyers were mostly Jewish. The subject of abortion came up. I was told that the Jewish religion does not believe that life begins at conception. To them life begins when the baby is born and the soul joins the body. I am not Jewish, but I always wondered if this is true.

[eggplant]

6. My jewish mother always told me that life begins when you finish graduate school. n/t

[cilla4progress]

8. gawd bless you,

Eggplant. Thanks for the laff.

Badda bing.

[Doreen]

42. I can't quit laughing.

[PatrickforO]

45. LOL and how right she was!

[hamsterjill]

7. I am a liberal Christian.

I believe that life begins when the soul enters the body and I believe that is when the baby takes its first, independent breath.

I've heard this as to Jewish beliefs, but like you, I do not know the facts about those beliefs.

[Maraya1969]

22. It does say."God.breathed the breadth of life into him"

There is a video on YouTube of a baby elephant born not breathing. The mother throws a fit, kicking him and trying to pick him up with her trunk. This goes on for probably less than a minute but it seems like an hour when the baby finally opens its eyes and mouth and takes I its first breath


That solidified it for me. That's when this baby became alive.

[azureblue]

10. it is

it is based upon the Old Testament passage, "And God breathed life into Adam". The Christian churches for centuries also used this the define the when life begins - when the newborn takes its first breath.

The Christian churches (Catholic) also used Baptism as a rite to define when the newborn receives its "soul" that is, becomes "human". The background to that is that, back in the middle ages, it was a practice to take unwanted newborns out into the woods and leave them there to die. So, to soothe the guilt of the parents, the abandoned newborn was not officially "human" so it was OK with the church to do that.

[TlalocW]

40. I had a good friend in college

That loved to throw "serious" discussions into chaos by joining in and insisting that, "Life begins at 40."

TlalocW

[hamsterjill]

9. This really IS brilliant.

I have some neighbors who invited me to lunch back in the summer. They are Trump supporters but had been, at least up until that point, pretty quiet about it.

At that lunch, they decided to let loose. Of course, I countered their arguments. They brought up abortion, and I asked them why what a woman does with her body is any of their damn business. "To protect the unborn", was, of course, their answer. I gave them my opinion as to when life begins.

I wish I'd have had this story to use as an argument. I think it's a brilliant form of questioning the true motives of the "pro life" movement.

Oh, and since that lunch, I haven't heard another peep out of these neighbors, so guess we won't be dining together again any time soon!!! LOL LOL LOL

[Thunderbeast]

13. Evangelicals and Rigid Catholics are NOT Pro-Life......

.......They are anti-sex.

This is why the anti-choice movement vilifies homosexual sex.

These people can not accept that we are animals; Just one part of the cosmic soup. We have evolved consciencness, and moral codes of conduct which further the survival of the species. So have other mammals.

Those codes of conduct have been warped by dominant men in an effort subjugate women and marginalize those who are not like them.

The primal brain can do great damage when not moderated by the pre-frontal cortex where high-order reasoning occurs.

[broadcaster90210]

15. Brilliant.

nt

[ffr]

17. Well done!

[Sunlei]

18. Something easier to ask, "why don't you all have 15-20 kids?"

[Ms. Toad]

25. That's not the same dilemma.

Their belief is that a fertilized egg is a life.

The question has to pitt life (an actual child) against life (a fertilized egg). Posing the question as life (15-20 kids) against not life (not having 15-20 kids) is entirely different.

[moriah]

21. Regardless of when "life" begins....

I would save the fully mature child who would suffer more from the death.

I am pro-choice because I don't believe that women should be forced into either having a child OR aborting one. The attitude of the woman toward what's in their womb is what makes pregnancy something that can be amazingly wonderful or horrifyingly terrible -- and no one except the woman knows which it is for that pregnancy. Violation of that ability to choose whether or not to host another life inside you is traumatic whichever way the pressure comes from.

Because it's a fact that while an early abortion is as safe as any other medical procedure for the mother but all procedures carry some risk, I do think "rare" is an appropriate goal -- by making unplanned pregnancy itself more rare. It may be as safe done early as a tooth extraction, but no one wants to have to have one yanked if they can avoid it. And while no birth control is perfect, and carries risks as well, Nexplanon is more effective statistically than tubal ligation because of how often they get botched. We need access to long-acting reversible contraception, and male reversible birth control too. Both partners using a method at the same time that's more effective than condoms would help a lot.

And at the same time, we should be supporting women who would prefer to continue an unplanned pregnancy but don't see a way to do so financially. Financial coercion by circumstances and lack of support shouldn't be what drives a woman to seek abortion when it's really not what they want. The only "pro-life" person in Congress I ever heard address that side of the issue is Bob Casey. The Republicans don't like to think about what it would cost to fully empower women to not have financial issues be their main motivation for an abortion.

To me, the above is the true way to reduce abortions. We've seen what's happened when sexual education and reproductive services have been stripped from communities. Democrats seem to be the only party that actually wants to use effective methods to reduce unplanned pregnancy and support women who want to parent.

Republicans can't accept reality -- that people who don't want to have kids have sex. That not every married couple is Quiverfull. That even sterilization fails sometimes. That it costs less to prevent a child than raise one. And that if you try to regulate first trimester abortion when most natural miscarriages occur in that timeframe, or risk a mother's health without her informed consent to try to save a child that can't survive outside the womb yet, try to implement a rape exception that mandates reporting the assault, or neglect mental health in health and life concerns....

That we will end up with self-abortion attempts, underground abortions without safety, police investigating women who have just lost a wanted child, losing two lives when only one could be saved anyway, desperate women claiming to be assaulted by strangers, literally imprisoning women who are afraid to name their assailants and/or who hate what they bear so much they want to die in mental wards potentially for months, compounding their trauma.... talk about small government!

The only moral pro-life stance is to increase sex education, access to effective contraception, and support for women who find themselves pregnant so they can still live their lives and have the child if that's what they feel is the right decision.

[PatrickforO]

47. Subsidized child care and Medicare for all Americans would be a start.

WIN programs. Excellent early childhood education. Access to inexpensive contraceptives. Systematic sex education in all schools that includes education on healthy relationships.

Women could certainly have better lives then, and not have to feel like second class citizens.

I'm a man, but say these things on behalf of my daughters and granddaughters.

[GreenEyedLefty]

55. Women should be able to get as many abortions as they want.

Safe and legal. Period.

[moriah]

58. I want the *need* for them to be rare.

Again, it's as safe as a tooth extraction, and yes a person who needs her tooth extracted should be able to get it done without a lecture about brushing and flossing or judgment or being called a druggie. Safe and legal.

But having had both, I wish I'd been able to avoid the medical situations that preceded both procedures. I don't regret doing what had to be done to treat, but prevention is better than treatment for the patient.

My goal for rarity is not a moral judgment, nor should attempts to restrict abortion access be used to try to encourage "rarity". Sex ed and contraception are the tools to reduce the medical condition treated by the procedure.

[TCJ70]

23. To anyone making a religious argument about it I would ask...

....how many cities were destroyed by God and the Israelites according to the Bible. Then I would ask them if they think there weren’t any pregnant women in those cities. There are literal commands from God to kill everyone in the cities. No exclusions for women, children, or the unborn.

[TexasBushwhacker]

24. And while we are at it, a woman's life is worth more than the life of an embryo n/t

[lindysalsagal]

26. Why have I never heard that one before?

But you could make the same statement about healthcare: For every grown person of reproductive age, if you deprive them of proper healthcare, it could have dire consequences for their life or their ability to reproduce.

So, every time you don't furnish someone of reproductive age with proper healthcare, you're actually putting the hypothetical situation into real-world practice:

In other words, you can't be anti-healthcare and pro-life at the same time: You must be pro-healthcare in order to qualify as pro-life.

And what goes with that is pro-education.

[GaryCnf]

27. Perfect

[johnsonsnap]

28. They hate babies

That is all there be to it. All there be to it.

[Billy Jingo]

29. I am Pro-Life

My answer is "A."

[JenniferJuniper]

30. Women are human beings. Embryos are not.

That is all.

[BigmanPigman]

32. Best reply on the whole thread.

Are you a Donovan fan by the way?

[BlancheSplanchnik]

31. Same for me, they do all kinds of verbal acrobatics avoiding an answer.

Asswipes.

[Takket]

33. A little caveat to make it even more interesting

Add to the equation that they have to raise and be responsible for whichever they choose. Rethugs love embryos but HATE actually paying money for kids

[bullwinkle428]

34. If a forced-birther attempts to hem and haw with their response, just drop this on them:

"THIS IS NOT THE FUCKING KOBAYASHI MARU SCENARIO!! (Google that... ) THERE IS ACTUALLY A CLEAR ANSWER HERE!!"

[stopwastingmymoney]

35. Also, the only way to grant rights to a fetus

Is to take those rights away from a woman.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. I tell the so-called pro-lifers

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Period. Other than that, don't try to make decisions for anyone else.

[Ernest Partridge]

38. Life doesn't "begin," it continues.

Life does not begin at conception: life continues at conception. (Garrett Hardin)

"But when does human life begin?"

Oh, maybe 100,000 years ago (homo sapiens).

Or do you mean "Lucy" (australopithecus)? Then three million years ago, +/- a few 100k years.

When does human life begin? Depends on what you mean by "human."

And human life doesn't begin at any "point in time." Human life evolves gradually.

See my "The Paradoxical 'Right to Life'" --

http://gadfly.igc.org/politics/liberties/right%20to%20life.htm

[mr_lebowski]

41. Why not just make the hypothetical regard ONE human embryo?

Why does it need to be 10, 100, 1000, whatever. Just ONE makes the same point.

Just askin'.

Other than that, I love it!

[Demit]

56. Presumably to make the scenario realistic (you can only carry one, the child or the container).

Otherwise, it's conceivable (no pun intended) that you could pick up the child then grab a small vial on the way out.

[Doreen]

44. Actually C should have another option with an explanation.

C. Do you die with child and embryo as you expect other women to do?

[Missn-Hitch]

46. Love it and I look forward to presenting this. But, may I suggest

a minor tweak.

Leave out fertility clinic as to the starting point. Instead, begin with "You are in an office building attending a meeting with your accountant, there is a fire, you are running to the exit and happen to hear a child crying. You look on the door and it says 'Fertility Clinic'......."

May assist in avoiding the self righteous response of "I wouldn't be in a fertility clinic".

Thanks for the hypothetical ammo. Cheers.

[pnwmom]

48. Make the 5 year old in the story be a 1 year old instead.

Because I could move faster than a 1 year old could.

But a 5 year old would go a lot faster on his own than if I were trying to carry him.

[pansypoo53219]

49. make the kid a woman.

does the incubator count?

[Funtatlaguy]

51. My abortion argument always gets them on the punishment question.

So, if abortion is murder.....
Then, the abortion doctor is guilty of First degree premeditated murder.
The Mother is guilty of,at a minimum, conspiracy to commit murder.
The Father of the fetus and the parents of the Mother may also have some conspiritable culpability if they signed off on and or agreed to or encouraged the murder.

So, forced birther, that’s gonna be a lot more people in prisons. Just how many bigger prisons do you want to pay for with your higher taxes?
They usually shut up or walk away with mouth agape and clutching a Bible.

[greymattermom]

52. Here's another question for them

if personhood begins at conception, are all babies conceived in the US legal US citizens?

[dsc]

54. that isn't as hard to answer as you think it is

The embryos would need electricity to survive while the child wouldn't. Hence the embryos would die anyhow since the place has burnt down and there would be no way to keep the embryos on ice as it were. The child, once freed from the burning building would survive. Thus one would save the child.

[GreenEyedLefty]

57. I use the whose rights supersede whose argument.

If the product of conception, regardless of stage, is fully vested with human rights, can you have two human beings with equal rights occupying the same body? (Nope.)

[Nitram]

72. Good argumnet. I'll have to try that one sometime.