And if 100 out of 100 choose to save the child rather than the old man does that mean that we can kill old people for the sake of convenience?
Who people choose to fail in this absolute fail of a hypothetical says nothing about the legality of killing another human.
Speaking of strawmans and red herrings. :chuckle: .....disanalogous and irrelevant to my scenario.
Again, :sigh: Per my analogy: Chosing the suffering, fully developed human being (
A) over the idealized version
i.e. zygote (
B)... illustrates the relative, moral values humans intuitively attach upon each.
1. My scenario's conclusion illustrated that the vast majority would be intuitively moved to save
A over
multiple instances of
B. Thus, their relative moral values are at variance.
2. Your position has historically been that A = B (morally speaking)
3. Conclusion: You are in error. (at least on the intuitive, ostensible level)
I also wrote this proviso...alowing you to define/refine your position:
| Well then, are you backing off your assertion that a zygote holds the moral equivelent value of say, a fully developed, independently functioning human being? If not, then it's entirely relevant to your objection to abortion...so, deal with its implication instead of cowardly running from it. |
And instead of answering my question...you circumvented it by calling it a strawman?
Now either rebut my boxed inquiry, show me how this is a strawman or bow out gracefully. Your choice....just quit playing these hide and seek games.
