Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco67
Ok, so the answer is save the child.
Given the parameters that you're willing to accept ---which is that it's not possible to have this scenario ---means you would save the child, because embryos can't exist outside a uterus. We all know that embryo's can be frozen, but you can ignore that fact if you'd like.
When it comes to the general argument of what constitutes a human life, pro-lifers see it as starting at the embryonic stage -- whether or not it's inside or outside a woman's body. You keep calling me dumb, but you just keep avoiding the question by pretending to be unable to use a little imagination for the sake of an analogy. You should go look up the word, you dipshit.
It's so hard for you to answer this simple question, you devolve into histrionics to distract from the fact that you're avoiding giving a straight answer.
|
It artificially fertilized. Artificially. Get it, dumb fuck? There is no life if you don't put in womans ovaries. They are gone.. Simply gone. They can't grow, they can't survive. Its a chemistry. Man made chemistry, moron. Thats why when docs do IVF they put shit tone of eggs inside because most or all will never become a baby. There isn't a child to child comparison in your dumb ass example. There aren't 200 children in that jar.
Most hardcore religious people don't even believe in artificial insemination, just like they don't believe in cloning. I am done with your stupid ass.