Comments by "Moon Shoes" (@moonshoes11) on "'Heartbreaking': Patients devastated after Alabama frozen embryo ruling" video.

Hypothetical: You’re in a burning building, with a three month old baby, and twelve frozen embryos. You have only enough time to rescue either the three month old or the twelve embryos. Which do you save?
287
If we keep them frozen, how long can I continue to get the tax write off?
269
Religion truly poisons everything.
105
@barrypoontang 12:1 Seems like you can’t even be honest long enough to answer one question. And please, don’t try to pretend you understand logic.
67
@roejogan7770 And no, it isn’t a fallacy. It is a hypothetical. You don’t understand how a hypothetical works, or what a fallacy is, apparently. You couldn’t even answer honestly. You died in the fire, trying to save both. Hypothetically.
63
@roejogan7770 I’m so, so sorry you don’t understand what a hypothetical scenario is. This seems to be a reflection of your lack of understanding. You failed the thought experiment.
44
@roejogan7770 The parameters of the hypothetical said you only had enough time to save one or the other. You died in the fire. How’s it feel to fail a hypothetical thought experiment?
43
@roejogan7770 Yes, 12 is a greater number than 1. Congratulations on struggling through a simple thought experiment. Too bad you couldn’t be honest with yourself naturally.
20
@rattiegirl5 I didn’t see anyone labeling the embryos as “potential humans”. I certainly didn’t. The embryos are certainly of human origin and decent. I’m not sure how your version the hypothetical is better. Also, you can’t say you “know that my body can save this other person” when you have to dismiss all risks to the woman, and the embryo hasn’t achieved personhood. If a child is born needing a kidney, do we ever force a parent to give up a kidney to save the child?
12
Not a candidate so much as an insurrectionist.
11
@doodle8 They could be Harry Potter’s off spring too, right? So, because you carry personal religious beliefs, just let the baby suffer. Your God would do the same, it seems.
8
@rattiegirl5 I’m still curious why your hypothetical would be better.
5
@rattiegirl5 I’m curious why that would be better, when the subject is about frozen embryos? I’m not saying it isn’t…just curious why you think it would be better.
3
@rattiegirl5 Sorry, but pregnancy changes a woman’s body irreversibly. The medical risks are part of the choice, isn’t it? It’s called taking responsibility for one’s actions. So, which would you save, the baby or the embryos. I notice you haven’t answered. And no, I don’t mean “potential persons”. If I had meant that, I would have said that.
3
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 If you answered the question, perhaps that post was removed. But if you’re modifying the thought experiment in order to fit your answer, then you haven’t answered the question. Sure, you can create other hypotheticals with other scenarios. Nobody is stopping you. My question wasn’t intended to address every possible scenario based on your assumptions. So you can ask whatever questions you’d like, but those will not be addressing my hypothetical, but your own. If you’re going to use ad hominem, and accuse me of bad faith, you’re not honest enough to have this conversation.
3
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 There is no “who do you save first” when the parameters of the hypothetical is that there is only time to save one or the other. All you’re doing, it seems, is trying to deflect and not actually answer the question. Which, you still haven’t done. You don’t have to answer.
3
and you don’t even know how and when to use quotations.
3
@rattiegirl5 Going with the original hypothetical, If the baby was unconscious, would you save the one baby, or the 12 embryos?
2
@rattiegirl5 What other people refer to frozen embryos as isn’t relevant.
2
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 You’re missing the point of the thought experiment. It’s like you’re trying to miss the point. If you can’t just answer the question, you’ve failed.
2
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 Nobody was expecting a yes or no answer to an either A or B question. You should have lead with the question on the point of the thought experiment, since you didn’t understand it. Instead, you wanted to drop insults and modify the thought experiment, changing the question to fit your answer… Instead of just answering the question.
2
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 Nice rent. You just aren’t honest enough to answer the question. Changing the hypothetical to fit your tantrum isn’t answering the question. By your own admission, you don’t even understand what the hypothetical was asking. Next time, try some intellectual honesty.
2
@BBB-to4cc Of course. Why else?
2
@BowB4Me666 How they are labeled isn’t relevant, really. But I think I get your meaning. ✌️
1
@dougdimmadomeownerofthedim2918 You couldn’t even be honest enough to answer a simple hypothetical question. You still haven’t. Of course you missed the point! You’ve tried to avoid answering from the word go. And that’s OK. You’re just not intellectually honest enough to do so. And look at you now. You can “positively” say you know the reason for my actions, even better than I do. Brilliant. You’re so desperate to find a way to give an answer to a different question, you can’t even be honest enough to give one. I wasn’t trying to “score a point”, but clearly that was your intent from the beginning. No, we didn’t both fail. You’re the only one here still (1) unwilling to answer the question, (2) the inability to demonstrate a shred of intellectual honesty. If you were ever interested in honest dialog, you’d have answered the question instead of trying to shoehorn your alternative thought experiments. Yes, your questions could make for different or additional conversation, but you neglected to address the original concept. Which, you admit you still don’t even know what it was. Normally, I’d be happy to have a more in depth conversation. But you started off with as hominems, dishonesty, and a refusal to even answer.
1
@fallon-may0935 This isn’t about your baby, but a baby. And this isn’t about whether or not either are considered people.
1
@WalmartAnus It’s not my job to educate those who choose willful ignorance. Trump does have 91 criminal charges against him. How many of those charges will,he need to be found guilty of before you drop him like a dirty diaper? Also, can you openly admit you don’t understand the scientific theory of evolution?
1
@WalmartAnus I’m not the one siding with a criminal insurrectionist who not only lost to Biden, but is currently facing four criminal trials. Who’s coping now, believer?
1
Nope. Just another citizen whose rights were violated by criminals like you. Troll-fail. So sad.
1