Which do you save?

[lux et lex]

You are at a fertility clinic and it starts on fire. You know you for certain can get out with time to spare, and there are two options in front of you that you can bring with you. There is no one else around so you cannot count of someone else bringing the other with you. Your options are 2 year old child who is trapped under a beam you can easily move or a petry dish recently removed from the freezer that contains 5 embryos. Which do you take with you as you exit the burning building, knowing the other will certainly be destroyed?

 

[addo]

Won't the embryo's die without a "host" (a uterus to develop on, I mean)? Or before finding women to put them in.

 

[lux et lex]

They take a while to unthaw and could easily be put in another cryo-freezer after being removed from the building.

 

[lux et lex]

49 views and no comments outside of a clarification? This should be proof that the "pro life" group is a bunch of hypocrites too afraid to answer because they know that once they pick the obvious choice, the 2 year old, that they will be raked over the coals because they so vehemently believe that embryo/fetus=baby. 5 embryos...that's 5 potential people and you're picking one 2 year old after that? Really? You don't even believe what you're saying. It's all propaganda to make women into subservient baby making machines.

 

[JCFantasy23]

You are at a fertility clinic and it starts on fire. You know you for certain can get out with time to spare, and there are two options in front of you that you can bring with you. There is no one else around so you cannot count of someone else bringing the other with you. Your options are 2 year old child who is trapped under a beam you can easily move or a petry dish recently removed from the freezer that contains 5 embryos. Which do you take with you as you exit the burning building, knowing the other will certainly be destroyed?

The 2 year old would seem more urgent to me

 

[lux et lex]

The 2 year old would seem more urgent to me

Urgent? I would think that the pro life cost benefit analysis would play out that the maximum benefit would come from saving the 5 "preborn" embryos...they're all lives aren't they?

 

[JCFantasy23]

Urgent? I would think that the pro life cost benefit analysis would play out that the maximum benefit would come from saving the 5 "preborn" embryos...they're all lives aren't they?

Yeah Im just trying to think of me realistically in that case. I have a son who's 9 now and 2 is a precious age. If I saw a 2 year old in front of me to save, he would take priority.

 

[BL2KTN]

Yeah Im just trying to think of me realistically in that case. I have a son who's 9 now and 2 is a precious age. If I saw a 2 year old in front of me to save, he would take priority.

Okay, so change it to a six month old. Do you save a six month old or five embryos?

BL

 

[addo]

Given that I am in that situation, how much time do I have to think about it? That is, if I'd be there and this wouldn't be a hypothetical situation, how much time would I have to make a decision? I assume very few, perhaps a split of a second.

But I ask you anyway, to know for sure.

 

[lux et lex]

You can't get both...you have maybe a minute to decide at most. Go with your instinct and what you believe to be the greater good.

 

[addo]

This is difficult, but I know I will certainly be influenced by my instincts to save the baby -- as you said. First, he'll be crying after his missing mother (or because he is in pain, or because of the smoke, ... anyway why he cries is not very relevant here). That will affect me for sure. I think it is obvious that we are more inclined by our instincts to save the crying baby.

Then it is also true that the baby will suffer if he dies by being burnt alive -- the embryos will not. Therefore another reason I think I'd save the baby because if I'd let him die he'd suffer a painful death - being burnt alive. The embryos can't feel pain. Also the embryos, I think, have less chances of survival.

So, even though I choose saving the baby, how does this justify abortion? How does this prove the embryos are less human? Actually how can someone be more 'human' than the other? You are either human or not. Embryos are an early stage of development of human beings. They are alive, and in the right conditions will continue developing. Also, scientifically speaking, their DNA makes them unique human beings.

So I don't see how this supports abortion. In such a short time our instincts would have their say and we'd save the baby. Also, our choices do not decide who is human or not. Therefore, even though we may choose saving the baby, it doesn't mean the embryos are not human.

I also see you you appealed to their hypocrisy in your post above. Even though they may be hypocrites, this doesn't mean their claims are false. So as I said, one's actions do not affect the truthfulness of a statement.

 

[Obzocky]

You know you for certain can get out with time to spare,
If you can get out with time to spare why would there be no opportunity to save the one that has already entered the world and those awaiting entry?

There is no one else around so you cannot count of someone else bringing the other with you.
Darn those isolated fertility clinics with their lack of staff!

Your options are a 2 year old child who is trapped under a beam you can easily move
A random two year old all alone in a fertility clinic? Ok. I can roll with this. Why did the beam fall? If the beam has fallen the fire must be quite close or the building damaged due to other things.

or a Petri dish recently removed from the freezer that contains 5 embryos.
Of which, should the procedure follow through, may or may not all survive anyway.

Which do you take with you as you exit the burning building, knowing the other will certainly be destroyed?
The child may be suffering from smoke damage and a few broken bones/bruises but they have been born, saving that child allows it a future however long God decides that future should be. This child, if conscious, may be in pain, confused, fearful. They have developed into a human being with all the senses and feelings that come with it, to not save the child would be cruel. Leaving any animal, human or otherwise, to die trapped under a beam would be cruel.

The embryos face an uncertain future, the treatment may be successful, they may all survive, they may all fail to implant. They have no experience of life, they are just starting to develop. Presuming they're the usual 3-5 days into development before implantation then they look something like this

When faced with the option of saving an 8 celled embryo or

It would take some very harsh thinking to take the little petri dish rather than the child.

Edit: even an embryo in their fifth day of development looks like this

The child is still the first choice at this point.


As a note i'm pro-choice, but this question doesn't really show anything conclusive about any pro-lifers.

 

[lux et lex]

It doesn't? But those are 5 pre-born people in that petry dish!

 

[Phinehas2]

The baby or the bathwater?

 

[addo]

@lux et lex: whom are you asking?

 

[Uncle Floyd]

49 views and no comments outside of a clarification? This should be proof that the "pro life" group is a bunch of hypocrites too afraid to answer because they know that once they pick the obvious choice, the 2 year old, that they will be raked over the coals because they so vehemently believe that embryo/fetus=baby.

Precisely. The pro-lifers recognize a childish "gotcha" question when they see it and don't want to play.

The problem with such "do you still beat your wife" silliness is that it doesn't take into account any factors surrounding the life issue and doesn't ask either side to think critically or even carefully. It's just designed so that no matter what answer they give, no matter how sincere or well reasoned their answer, you get to come in and say "A Ha!" because they didn't choose the other choice.

It's what philosophers and rhetoriticians call an "unjust question".

Honestly, it's just stupid and is a waste of our time, the mind God gave you, and ChristianForums' bandwidth.

 

[BL2KTN]

Honestly, it's just stupid and is a waste of our time, the mind God gave you, and ChristianForums' bandwidth.

You broke the Forum Guidelines again with this,

BL

 

[Uncle Floyd]

You broke the Forum Guidelines again with this,

BL

Then report me.

 

[BL2KTN]

Then report me.

Too late.

BL

 

[Obzocky]

It doesn't? But those are 5 pre-born people in that petry dish!

Humans are flawed creatures, that's why you get so many individuals who baulk at the thought of eating rabbit but think nothing of eating chicken. 5 who have not been born into the world, 5 who have not made it out of a petri dish, 5 who were it not for the third party help the couple had from that clinic would not of been here in the first place (at least not at the same time).

It's a question where people can point and say "see, see, my point has been proven" when all that has been shown is that a human will instinctively pick up the child rather than the embryos. As someone who is pro-choice baiting others because of their choice seems like an awful way of making people ignore your opinion on the matter.