You know, I'm not exactly IGW. I don't write 30,000-word diatribes with no discernible syntax or organization. But, since so many people seem to have difficulty reading until the end of a single paragraph, let me quote how I ended the post that everyone seems to have trouble with: "I think the reasonable moral choice has to be to choose to save the human."
Lose-lose doesn't mean the choices are equal. It just means that, in the context of this particular moral dilemma, both choices were bad for her. The fact that she couldn't easily determine that one choice was less bad obviously makes her a loon, in the minds of most of us, yours truly included. But that doesn't change the fact that she was, in fact, presented with two options that were both, in her mind, bad.
Let me illustrate this problem by changing Prager's dilemma. Instead of a chicken you don't know and a person you don't know, say Prager's murderous psycho is making you choose between your beloved family pet and your wife. I think we'd all agree that you have to choose to save your wife, right? And we would also all agree that choosing to kill your dog sucks, right? Lose-lose. One loss would be much bigger than the other, so the choice is obvious, but both choices are still losses.