I’d like them on the record as to whether they support these types of illegal and unethical tactics.
Not to mention if you return to CommieDearests question of a 5 year old or a jar full of fertilized eggs, if one truly believed that a single fertilized egg is a human life the same as any other it should be a fairly easy call, from a utilitarian perspective, to save the jar and the numerous “human lives” it contains over the lone five year old. If someone says they would save the five year old or that they can’t decide it shows that at some level they don’t believe that a fertilized egg is the same human life as a five year old.
1 Like
Of course there is, that doesn’t mean the embryo is not living and lacks value. Another way of putting it would be if you could save a baby or a 100 year old person, who do you save? Most people would probably save the baby, so does that mean the 100 year old is of no value and they are not worthy of living!
What about if I enter a building and have the choice to save one five year old or 20 elderly people and I choose the one five year old, does that mean those 20 elderly people are not alive and not human? Decisions to save one life over others is not that uncommon, so it is only hypothetical as those who never had to make those choices.
I already said it has value; my first reply made that more than clear, unless you willfully misread it. But no, that’s not “another way of putting it” – a baby and a 100-year-old are both people, and (unless your faith says otherwise, which is not an issue for government or science) an embryo is not.