This thread is worth reading, and IMO he accurately anticipated and predicted the responses.https://twitter.com/stealthygeek/status/920085535984668672 …
-
-
Replying to @michaelmalice
I think its easy. You save the 5y/o. But that doesn't render the embryos valueless. If it was a 5 y/o or an 85 y/o you still save the 5 y/o
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Dclutch72
Michael Malice Retweeted Michael Malice
Michael Malice added,
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michaelmalice
Right. But the pt is you save the living human over the potential, that doesn't mean the potential isn't worth saving also, given the chance
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @CovfefeAlertSys @michaelmalice
You misunderstood the topic. It's about about destroying the "pro-life" case. It's about destroying the idiotic "life begins at conception."
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @CovfefeAlertSys @michaelmalice
Those questions aren't "goofy." They're well debated concepts that exist within ethics and philosophy. That's how humanity evolves.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Nate we need an answer, you are holding back humanity
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Glol
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.