The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
thezencynic
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

burning building: test tube babies v. 6 yr old girl - saving girl is inconsistent w prolife message

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/31/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 667 times Debate No: 55826
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

there is a burning building. you only are able to save a box of test tube babies with at least ten inside, or you can save a six year old girl. which is morally the right thing to do?

i would say save the girl.

i define prolife here. someone who is prolife at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion..... should to be consistent save the test tubes.

how would it be consistent for them to save the girl?
thezencynic

Con

The "morally right" choice and the consistency with anti-abortion principles are 2 different debates unless you explicitly identify your operating use of "morally right" as "most consistent with anti-abortion folk.....

The question asks the "morally right" choice. You did not ask which choice is more consistent with the anti-abortion ethos, but you provided an operating definition for which you use the word "pro life," and then proceeded to appeal to to the principle in defense of the pro life position without modifying the question to define the morally superior choice as the choice which is also most aligned with the position.

In addition to failing to make clear the connection between the moral imperative and the pro life imperative, the operating definition of "pro life" ["who is pro life at all points of pregnancy, where they think the laws should pretty much reflect that by mostly outlawing abortion"] renders the test tubes incapable of the pro life requirement to escape the fire in the first place. A test tube specimen does not have the cognitive ability to be "pro life" or "pro choice" because a test tube specimen does not understand any language yet. The test tube is incapable of being pro choice, disqualifying the test tube from rescue.

That leaves you and the 6-year old girl. How is it that your argument that condemns the 6-year old does not apply to you? More so, how does the argument that saves the test tubes apply to you?
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con resorts to semantics. he also mentions gets into points about how the test tubes do not have language skills and doesn't have the abitlity to be pro life or prochoice etc. basically, he's going even further than semantics, and into the realm of nonsense.
thezencynic

Con

thezencynic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

reiterate
thezencynic

Con

thezencynic forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Spec10 2 years ago
Spec10
I would accept based on what I think you mean, but this post makes little sense.
What are the choices exactly? Save a six year old or stem cells in tubes?
No votes have been placed for this debate.