Man Shuts Down Anti-Abortion Argument By Asking One Question

Writer laid out the dishonesty of pro-choice zealots on Twitter

The topic of abortion is one of those issues that, like gun control, or where you stand on President Trump, has become so divisive that thinking rationally has taken a backseat to emotion and politics.

A writer on Twitter laid the situation bare with one simple question.

His name is Patrick S. Tomlinson, and he’s a science fiction writer. Last week, he took to Twitter to lay out the one question he’s been asking the “life begins at conception” contingent of anti-abortionists for ten years. In the decade he’s been asking it, he claims he’s never gotten a straight, or honest, answer.

Original Quill wrote:How does the question relate to abortion?  I agree that the choice is saving the boy (A).  But that's me.

Most abortions do not take place at the cost of a live child.  It is genetic material (primarily proteins).  So, its a question of how much you value protein, and is it the equivalent of a living person?

Of course he has never gotten a straight answer, because that's the crux of the debate.  People are forced by the question to describe a position on a continuum, not a straight answer.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:How does the question relate to abortion?  I agree that the choice is saving the boy (A).  But that's me.

Most abortions do not take place at the cost of a live child.  It is genetic material (primarily proteins).  So, its a question of how much you value protein, and is it the equivalent of a living person?

Of course he has never gotten a straight answer, because that's the crux of the debate.  People are forced by the question to describe a position on a continuum, not a straight answer.

WTF?
Most abortionists place a living child first.
Why?

Original Quill wrote:I agree that the choice is saving the boy (A).

nicko wrote:A burning hut in Vietnam,   a Baby crying inside, a VC running away carrying his gun.  Do you save the Baby, or chase after the VC who could go on to kill your Soldiers if you don't shoot him?

eddie wrote:

Writer laid out the dishonesty of pro-choice zealots on Twitter

The topic of abortion is one of those issues that, like gun control, or where you stand on President Trump, has become so divisive that thinking rationally has taken a backseat to emotion and politics.

A writer on Twitter laid the situation bare with one simple question.

His name is Patrick S. Tomlinson, and he’s a science fiction writer. Last week, he took to Twitter to lay out the one question he’s been asking the “life begins at conception” contingent of anti-abortionists for ten years. In the decade he’s been asking it, he claims he’s never gotten a straight, or honest, answer.

Here are his tweets, compiled together:


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. 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.

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.

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.



Read more and see the tweets:  http://www.scarymommy.com/patrick-s-tomlinson-twitter-abortion/?utm_source=FB

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


WTF?
Most abortionists place a living child first.
Why?

What did I say?

 

Original Quill wrote:I agree that the choice is saving the boy (A).

I am pro-choice.  I have a hard time seeing equivalency between a living person, and genetic material having the potential to becoming a living person.

eddie wrote:

Writer laid out the dishonesty of pro-choice zealots on Twitter

The topic of abortion is one of those issues that, like gun control, or where you stand on President Trump, has become so divisive that thinking rationally has taken a backseat to emotion and politics.

A writer on Twitter laid the situation bare with one simple question.

His name is Patrick S. Tomlinson, and he’s a science fiction writer. Last week, he took to Twitter to lay out the one question he’s been asking the “life begins at conception” contingent of anti-abortionists for ten years. In the decade he’s been asking it, he claims he’s never gotten a straight, or honest, answer.

Here are his tweets, compiled together:


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. 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.

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.

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.



Read more and see the tweets:  http://www.scarymommy.com/patrick-s-tomlinson-twitter-abortion/?utm_source=FB

Syl wrote:Surely even an avid pro lifer would have to choose the living child.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Surely even an avid pro lifer would have to choose the living child.

and by doing so prove that an embryo is not a child and therefore the anti-abortion argument that is often used in the USA that life beings at conception is a fallacy

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Surely even an avid pro lifer would have to choose the living child.

and by doing so prove that an embryo is not a child and therefore the anti-abortion argument that is often used in the USA that life beings at conception is a fallacy

Of course its a fallacy, but not in the minds of the avid pro lifer.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course its a fallacy, but not in the minds of the avid pro lifer.

until they have to choose been saving a child and 1000 embryos

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course its a fallacy, but not in the minds of the avid pro lifer.

until they have to choose been saving a child and 1000 embryos

And maybe they would choose the embryos....how do we know?

Another hypothetical question was asked on a forum I was on once....Fire in building, a young child you have never met in one room, in the other your pet cat, you can only save one......one person said she would definitely choose her cat because she loved him and she didn't know the child.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

And maybe they would choose the embryos....how do we know?

Another hypothetical question was asked on a forum I was on once....Fire in building, a young child you have never met in one room, in the other your pet cat, you can only save one......one person said she would definitely choose her cat because she loved him and she didn't know the child.

did you read the OP?
that is what the guy asks them and they never say the embryos