This pro-choice argument does not prove what you may think it does!

what a stupid argument. You save the person you have the best chance of saving. If there is a fire taking 2 embryos out of a freezer through a hot enviroment is not as likely to save them as picking up a 5 year old and carrying them outside is.

Pro birth. Not pro life. Pro life would mean caring for the children and people once they are outside a womb.

The anti-choice argument proves that you're anti-rights, and that settles the issue.

they dont have equal value. thats why you choose to save the five year old over the 75 year old. because they dont have equal value (even if we claim they do) e.g; my family has more value than a stranger.

Funny how the pro-choice and pro-abortion arguments often boil down to the most absurd false dichotomy on who to save in a fire.

Yea this isnt the contrapoint. We assign moral value to people. Its an inescapable facet of humanity. You *should* value a born kid over an unborn one. You *should* value a born kid with a life ahead of them over one whose thread has been woven. But nuance in those answers exists

No. You save the 6 month old. That's plainly obvious. Stupid scenario from Stupid liberals

Pro Choice means I might want to save my grandma instead of some random child. Pro Life means fvck my grandma, the random child must be saved. There, I fixed it for you.

More importantly the embryos by themselves aren't viable. You can have an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo is in the fallopian tube- there's nothing you can do, if you leave it, it will die anyway and harm the mother.