Poll of the Day > Just a quick test. Only A or B answer.

(+) Yeah! (+)

C

Niether
---

mrsunshine posted...

I would save the child. Even if it was a situation were I was told that saving the child in the fire would kill 1000 people somewhere in the world. Standing there, with the kid screaming and the flames building, I would still save the them.

I think most people would. Just how were wired.

Nope let the kid die
---

I go for the kid, I am not liable for saving the clinics property, ok?
---

The world is overpopulated so C should obviously be, Leave them both and get the heck out asap.

Which I would choose:)
---

Is the child male or female?
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

This scenario is meant to be asked to people who are pro-life. Here, I'll just type out what he put.

Kinda assumed it was that kind of a troll question. That said, the interpretation posited by the question's maker is flawed because, at the same time, saving one 18 year-old could equally be shown as being better than saving ten 5 year-olds for the same logic. Being able to assign a relative value to individuals does not mean that other individuals have no value.

Dikitain posted...

Embryos are replaceable, the kid isn't. So the kid.

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

mrsunshine posted...

I would save the child. Even if it was a situation were I was told that saving the child in the fire would kill 1000 people somewhere in the world. Standing there, with the kid screaming and the flames building, I would still save the them.

I think most people would. Just how were wired.

This is definitely another consideration. Even if somebody saw a puppy in a fire and knew that if they saved the puppy a thousand people would die, the human instinct would still be to save that puppy.
---

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.

those memories never happened. nothing to replace. just something that could have been, and not what has been. point being is someone somewhere has likely formed a bond with that child, and would be far more upset of their loss than the loss of "what could have been"
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.

those memories never happened. nothing to replace. just something that could have been, and not what has been. point being is someone somewhere has likely formed a bond with that child, and would be far more upset of their loss than the loss of "what could have been"

By that logic, no woman who miscarries should be sad about the miscarriage because it was a potential child instead of a child. I invite you to tell that to any would-be expectant parents' faces who just lost their unborn child.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

The parents will die in merely decades and those memories will become nothing.
---

Not that I have a problem with abortion but this is loaded question just to justify one end.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.

those memories never happened. nothing to replace. just something that could have been, and not what has been. point being is someone somewhere has likely formed a bond with that child, and would be far more upset of their loss than the loss of "what could have been"

By that logic, no woman who miscarries should be sad about the miscarriage because it was a potential child instead of a child. I invite you to tell that to any would-be expectant parents' faces who just lost their unborn child.

isn't there some kind of medical reason why they get all depressed in those cases. it does something to them biologically speaking? I could be wrong on that, health class was a Looong time ago for me. also my grandmother miscarried 3 kids, she was upset about it for awhile but she did get over it. I doubt she would have gotten over losing the one she did actually have.

to be fair though everyone is different and handles things differently on a mental level. proof being all those women who willingly get abortions. some it doesn't phase at all. some it makes a bit sad but they just felt it was for the best.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

Not that I have a problem with abortion but this is loaded question just to justify one end.

Then maybe pro-life people should stop saying that life begins at conception if they don't actually mean it.
---

Golden Road posted...

darcandkharg31 posted...

Not that I have a problem with abortion but this is loaded question just to justify one end.

Then maybe pro-life people should stop saying that life begins at conception if they don't actually mean it.

Well, like Koga said, it does tug at peoples emotional heartstring because of the kid crying. there is such thing as being mentally aware and whatnot, there's a major difference between looking at a crying child asking to save them than looking at box of embryos, and if you can't see that's kinda messed up.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.

those memories never happened. nothing to replace. just something that could have been, and not what has been. point being is someone somewhere has likely formed a bond with that child, and would be far more upset of their loss than the loss of "what could have been"

By that logic, no woman who miscarries should be sad about the miscarriage because it was a potential child instead of a child. I invite you to tell that to any would-be expectant parents' faces who just lost their unborn child.

isn't there some kind of medical reason why they get all depressed in those cases. it does something to them biologically speaking? I could be wrong on that, health class was a Looong time ago for me. also my grandmother miscarried 3 kids, she was upset about it for awhile but she did get over it. I doubt she would have gotten over losing the one she did actually have.

to be fair though everyone is different and handles things differently on a mental level. proof being all those women who willingly get abortions. some it doesn't phase at all. some it makes a bit sad but they just felt it was for the best.

It's called having emotions. Last I checked, there's no real treatment for it.
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

Golden Road posted...

darcandkharg31 posted...

Not that I have a problem with abortion but this is loaded question just to justify one end.

Then maybe pro-life people should stop saying that life begins at conception if they don't actually mean it.

Well, like Koga said, it does tug at peoples emotional heartstring because of the kid crying. there is such thing as being mentally aware and whatnot, there's a major difference between looking at a crying child asking to save them than looking at box of embryos, and if you can't see that's kinda messed up.

Someone needs to speak up then for the thousand embryos. Its selfish to save the one kud, crying or no.
---

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

Zeus posted...

Technically they're equally replaceable in the most basic sense. It just takes a bit longer and is more expensive to replace the kid.

you cant replace the memories the kid shared with his/her parents.

Nor can you replace the memories the children resulting from those embryos would have. Both would be unique, thus making both equally replaceable.

those memories never happened. nothing to replace. just something that could have been, and not what has been. point being is someone somewhere has likely formed a bond with that child, and would be far more upset of their loss than the loss of "what could have been"

By that logic, no woman who miscarries should be sad about the miscarriage because it was a potential child instead of a child. I invite you to tell that to any would-be expectant parents' faces who just lost their unborn child.

Your argument lacks basic human reasoning, it's humorous you used the word logic, ok?

Zeus posted...

It's called having emotions. Last I checked, there's no real treatment for it.

You have 494 AMP, you giving treatment advice on social issues makes sense, ok?
---

can i save beforehand to check out what rewards i could get depending on what i choose?
---

Nade Duck posted...

can i save beforehand to check out what rewards i could get depending on what i choose?

lol, no save scumming nade!!!!
---

guess we're all dead then.
---

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If we're in a "children of men" situation, the embryos, if we're in the real world, the child.

This. An actual child beats children in potentia-it's not a greater good answer or even what I think is the right answer but it is what most people would do in that situation based on instinct.
---

My_Unit posted...

Oh, My_Unit psssh
---

Syntheticon posted...

TheCyborgNinja posted...

If we're in a "children of men" situation, the embryos, if we're in the real world, the child.

This. An actual child beats children in potentia-it's not a greater good answer or even what I think is the right answer but it is what most people would do in that situation based on instinct.

Those people are stupid then. The potential of 1000 embryos is greater than 1 crying child. Can always have many more. Its for the greater good.
---

Trick question, i wouldn't have given a fuck about the screaming in the first place.
---

https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/400-current-events/75919369

Almost identical results (proportionally)
---

Topic thief!!!!
---

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Topic thief!!!!

you yourself stole this from some celeb's blog or something lmao
---

-Komaiko54- posted...

AllstarSniper32 posted...

Topic thief!!!!

you yourself stole this from some celeb's blog or something lmao

A blog isn't a topic. We here at GameFAQs hold ourselves to a higher standard.
---

Not gonna read this whole topic because it's probably filled with Zeus' drivel but obviously you save the kid.

1) its a living breathing human life and 2) out of 100 viable embryos, most of those won't even do well when put inside a mother so you're definitely not going to get anywhere near 100 lives out of it.
---

PuddingBoy posted...

Not gonna read this whole topic because it's probably filled with Zeus' drivel

All he's really said is that the crying kid is the same as the embryos.
---

Each sperm in my testes is a potential child.

Therefore the child's developing reproductive organs must be preserved above the embryos.

Poe's law disclaimer this is sarcasm

Counter question: Would you save 1000 serial killers serving life in prison, or a single child? No one should pick the child because all lives are equal, right? But there are a lot of people that would choose the child.

What if we increase the number of embryos to 1 billion*? At 1 billion embryos I'd choose them over the child. Maybe you would say that there's no number of embryos that equals the life of a child, but I'd take a page out of the original question's author's book and call it a lie.

*Anyone about to mention overpopulation or other subjects unrelated to the hypothetical can leave before posting.

A) I'd rather rescue a child that's actually alive and has a life then embryos that may or may not become a life.
---

PolloftheDay posted...

Counter question: Would you save 1000 serial killers serving life in prison, or a single child? No one should pick the child because all lives are equal, right? But there are a lot of people that would choose the child.

What if we increase the number of embryos to 1 billion*? At 1 billion embryos I'd choose them over the child. Maybe you would say that there's no number of embryos that equals the life of a child, but I'd take a page out of the original question's author's book and call it a lie.

*Anyone about to mention overpopulation or other subjects unrelated to the hypothetical can leave before posting.

maybe you should have gone with a different type of criminal for your point. I personally would prefer if serial killers died. they've taken lives and if given half the chance potentially would again. saving them could endanger other lives.
---