I’m bashing this one out like a horny 13yo, please forgive minor errors but this isn’t worth deep thought.
It’s funny if you have a working brain.
Black and white thinking.
I could go on.
The correct answer legally is to ‘save’ nobody because you are not legally obliged (humans are not Superman) but in the attempt you become responsible for any and ALL deaths.
Stupid Americans. You love human law more than Bible, right? It turns out without Jesus, everyone is a jerk.
Keep packing that strawman tight.
If C, you all die, then it’s impossible to save anyone.
This is one of your intellectuals? Burn the Ivies.
Just Burn them All.
You wanted low trust society, that means no cooperation.
If you do not conceive the child, it is not yours. You’re not supposed to go anywhere near it.
People who oppose abortion i.e. people with a conscience, also object to their forced financial involvement. There is no money stolen at gunpoint here.
Inb4 lefties don’t want to abstain from taxes on moral grounds – oh, like taxes that go to churches or to fund the Iraq war?
Matters of conscience and lifestyle choice. Agency comes after responsibility.
Why do dopey Americans think you can call any stupid question, loaded with false premises that beg the question, a ‘thought experiment’ and it magically becomes logically, morally, legally and experimentally valid?
Do you want to be a eunuch or a moose? Ya gotta pick one.
BTW, they say, if you pick the moose option, that’s badthink* and you hate trannies. I see no ad hominem here. From google: “is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.” they’re not even waiting for a reply, just assuming you hate one child because they placed one child in danger, they cry out in pain as they strike you!
Thought experiments have a genuine structure and I don’t think anyone over there is even functionally capable of explaining it, let alone the practice of constructing a clever question.
The trolley experiment is limited in method. Nobody said otherwise.
This is a non sequitur too, it presumes – the trolley problem applies to other people’s responsibilities (minors) and also, here’s some fire.
It reminds me of the study saying right wingers could predict the reasoning of the left, the moral reasoning, but they had no idea how we operate.
But how could anyone justify letting the kid die?
How could anyone justify letting a severely autistic kid live, knowing it can’t? Two can play the emotional appeal game. What about the flipside of abortion, euthanasia? The only difference is the age of the people who would ‘suffer’, like this example.
It reminds me of a question that often makes evangelical Christians squirm: “Is Anne Frank burning in Hell?”
Duh, obviously. Except Jews don’t believe in Hell, which explains a lot. So technically, it’s impossible for any Jew to go to Hell. She might be in outer darkness.
*Speaking of “illegal thoughts” and forbidden moral choices.
[If I am amoral, everyone must be amoral! To be moral! – moral relativists]
A better version of this would be;
There is one oven, instant incineration. You are a Nazi in the 40s. Either you can save one small Jewish child you must raise yourself or a pregnant white woman who is dying and will leave their child an orphan.
Which do you save?
What if the races were reversed?
And it doesn’t mention that, does it?
Considering the majority of abortions are performed on non-whites.
Those with pro-life convictions should at least have the decency to be honest and say they’d let the child die. Even if it makes them look like monsters.
No, they save more life that way, and the parents of the 5yo are responsible for it. Not you.
It’s the logical and utilitarian thing to do. Don’t Communists love killing the minority to spare the majority?
Hell, they already sound cruel when they argue that rape victims should be forced to give birth to their attackers’ babies,
I’ve never heard that.
The reasoning is consent. You consent to sex, you consented to pregnancy. Goes for the father too.
Nobody consents to rape. Prior to Roe v Wade, women did get abortions – for rape. Nobody minded.
That has always been true, because it was accepted rapists wanted to breed. Otherwise, they’d choose oral, or something else unlikely to result in pregnancy. It isn’t about power, it’s about orgasms and r-selection. Sexual sadism.
I know most readers of this site share my pro-choice views, but I’m genuinely curious if anyone can explain how saving the 1,000 embryos could be a valid option without coming off as an awful person. Can you play Devil’s advocate?
1.not what that term means.
2.if it isn’t a valid option, there is no question and you’re lying.
Logic says you’re intellectually dishonest, like all the other amoral cowards.
Free love but no free abortions, eh? No free STD shots? No free infertility treatments?
“friendlyatheist” no such thing, totally individual belief set, no belief in the sanctity of life because ergo no sacred exists, none of those children have souls, born or unborn.
I put it to you, since the Left love murdering children so much in your “thought experiments”: What if that one child was Hitler?
What if the embryos were the future of the Jewish race?
Where is your high horse now, motherfucker?