Which do you save?

[Resha Caner]

I find these kinds of questions silly. The essence of them is: if you must break one of your morals, which one would you break?

The Pharisees constantly tried this tactic with Jesus in the NT, and he would always introduce a third option or turn the question around to make them look like fools. I'm not as clever as Jesus (obviously), but I'm not going to choose from your options. My answer is:

1) I would never be in or near a fertility clinic in the first place. But if I was ...

2) In all honesty, I might be enough of a coward that I would flee, let then both die, and then try to comfort myself by saying it was the fireman's job.

3) But, since I'm not a doctor, I didn't know until you said it here that the petri dish would have a chance of surviving. I would have assumed it was dead and rescued the child. Even if I did know such things, I wouldn't have the time or resources to confirm the embryo's in the dish were alive. With the child, on the other hand, it would be obvious. Even further, if I were convinced the embryo's were alive in that moment, how likely is it that the fire department would rush in with a freezer to save those rescued embryo's? My point is that real situations have so many mitigating circumstances that these hypothetical questions are simply ridiculous.

4) If I did feel the need to look brave, I'd probably grab the closest thing to me, whatever it was. I'd probably end up outside with the photo album that grandma dropped on the way out - the most precious thing in her life since grandpa passed away 2 years ago.

5) But since we're being hypothetical, if I were to accept your restrictions here is the philosophical position I take when sitting comfortably before my computer rather than feeling the scorching heat of a fire. I would not make a choice. I don't choose one life over another. So, if I decided to stay and save lives, I would save as many as I could until I died - regardless of how much time I have or what the personal threat is to my own life.

BTW, ever been in a fire? I have. I once helped burn off a field. The fire got out of control and I got separated from my son. He was trapped with another man between the fire and an impassible thicket of thorns. What I did do? My first reaction was to try to reach my son to pull him out. The heat of fire and the smoke, though, created instinctive reactions I couldn't control. What would be the use of running through fire only to arrive at my son incapacitated by burns and smoke inhalation? So, my second action was to get water and a hatchet - water to keep the thicket from going up in flames and a hatchet to clear a path.

As it turned out, they had a fire damper with them that they used to beat a path through the thorns, so we met in the middle. IMO the real hero was the man with my son who kept him calm and found a solution to get out. I felt guilt about the whole thing. How did we get separated after all?

The point is, again, that in real life you don't know what you'll do until you're there.

6) So, my last option might be to look for alternatives - blankets or water to keep the fire under control - axes to cut a new path - the list goes on. But the point is: don't ever give up. Don't ever settle.

 

[lux et lex]

I know this is silly and ridiculous...but this is how I see many of the hypotheticals given by the "pro life" crowd. I've always thought most "pro life" people are hypocrites anyway and why not pick at that while giving a ridiculous hypothetical. But hopefully someone thought twice before they picked the 2 year old and thought about what that means.

 

[Resha Caner]

I know this is silly and ridiculous...but this is how I see many of the hypotheticals given by the "pro life" crowd. I've always thought most "pro life" people are hypocrites anyway and why not pick at that while giving a ridiculous hypothetical. But hopefully someone thought twice before they picked the 2 year old and thought about what that means.

Understood, and a most gracious reply on your part. I'm glad you didn't take what I said personally. Yes, both sides can get a bit ridiculous. I've found myself saying ridiculous things from time to time and I have to back up and think about it. I suppose that's part of the learning process.

 

[Ave Maria]

Hopefully I will never be in that position but I would save the 2 year old child. That said, I do not value the 2 year old child more than I do the embryos as they are both persons. That said, invitro fertilization is evil. Many of the embryos created just get thrown away and that is just as evil as abortion.

 

[lux et lex]

Hopefully I will never be in that position but I would save the 2 year old child. That said, I do not value the 2 year old child more than I do the embryos as they are both persons. That said, invitro fertilization is evil. Many of the embryos created just get thrown away and that is just as evil as abortion.

Well at least you're consistent. Do you work to ban IVF too?

 

[good brother]

Abortion is more like this:

Person A has thrown their two year old into the clinic then set it on fire because they didn't want the responsibility of the child anymore. One pro life person at the clinic trying to put out the fire set by person A and trying to save the child that was thrown into the fire by person A.


For the most part this is a far better comparison of the pro life mindset than that of the OP.


In Christ, GB



And actually, I can answer the OP's easier than that of what I said above.

Here is the answer to the OP's question:

Why would you fault the one who is in the midst of the fire trying desperately to perform a rescue despite the rescuer's choice of which victim they chose to save? Would not let the fault of the loss of life fall on whomever left their two year old in a burning building, and who left the little unborn children there?

Yes, that is the better answer.

Again, In Christ, GB

 

[lux et lex]

It could be your two year old and a petri dish of your embryos.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Lux et Lex,

I know this is silly and ridiculous...but this is how I see many of the hypotheticals given by the "pro life" crowd. I've always thought most "pro life" people are hypocrites anyway and why not pick at that while giving a ridiculous hypothetical. But hopefully someone thought twice before they picked the 2 year old and thought about what that means.

Thats fair enough, as the pro-life crowd think the pro-choice argumnets are mentally insane because they are outside reality.

But we have already swapped opinions several times.

My question to you is regarding the OP and thread question, how would you respond to a proposal for the unborn to be saved rather than the mother on the basis of the following argument ..
The unborn was conceived by the mother and father's choice, so the mother and father have had their choice, the unborn now needs to be able to live to choose.

And
What compromise do you wish?
1. That both die.
2. That neither the mother dies nor the abortion of the unborn.

 

[Archivist]

Thats fair enough, as the pro-life crowd think the pro-choice argumnets are mentally insane because they are outside reality.

That is very sad if you are indeed speaking for the majority of those who identify themselves as "pro-life." While I might disagree with their position, I would certainly never accuse the "pro-life" crowd--which is in many cases a misnomer--of being "mentally insane."

My question to you is regarding the OP and thread question, how would you respond to a proposal for the unborn to be saved rather than the mother on the basis of the following argument ..
The unborn was conceived by the mother and father's choice, so the mother and father have had their choice, the unborn now needs to be able to live to choose.

Your question ignores the fact that the rights of a person-in-being outweigh those of a fetus.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Archivist,

That is very sad if you are indeed speaking for the majority of those who identify themselves as "pro-life."

I don’t think we would agree, whilst not all of us would go as far as saying mental insanity, though I hardly think such as view is as bad as murdering the unborn, most acknowledge the pro-choice arguments are outside reality.

While I might disagree with their position, I would certainly never accuse the "pro-life" crowd--which is in many cases a misnomer--of being "mentally insane."

Me neither, you will see I referred to their arguments, not to them. You however did address "most "pro life" people are hypocrites " which I would not want to do.

Your question ignores the fact that the rights of a person-in-being outweigh those of a fetus.

Well no it doesn’t according to the proposition that the mother and father already having made the choice to conceive whereas the unborn has the right to be able to make the same choice one day.
You need a better argument than merely because you think so. I can use that as well.
So what of the compromise I proposed?

 

[Archivist]

I don’t think we would agree, whilst not all of us would go as far as saying mental insanity, though I hardly think such as view is as bad as murdering the unborn, most acknowledge the pro-choice arguments are outside reality.

But the specific term that was used was "pro-choice argumnets are mentally insane." In other words, those who hold such views have a "mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior" (definition from Psychology Today). You really think that describes those of us who call ourselves pro-choice? Very sad.

Me neither, you will see I referred to their arguments, not to them. You however did address "most "pro life" people are hypocrites " which I would not want to do.

Big difference between saying that someone is a "hypocrite" and saying that they are "mentally insane."

Well no it doesn’t according to the proposition that the mother and father already having made the choice to conceive whereas the unborn has the right to be able to make the same choice one day.

No, one does not become "in-being" until birth. According to Roe (which I presume you have read) the choice rests with the pregnant woman.

You need a better argument than merely because you think so.

But I didn't use that argument. I noted that the rights of a person-in-being generally trump those of a fetus. That has been upheld throughout the history of the Common Law. Read Hale. Read Coke. Read Blackstone.

I can use that as well.

You probably can, but that isn't waht I did.

So what of the compromise I proposed?

Compromise requires a quid pro quo, meaning an equal exchange. Exactly where is the quid pro quo in your proposal?

 

[brightmorningstar]

Armistead14,

But the specific term that was used was "pro-choice argumnets are mentally insane."

and outside reality.

In other words, those who hold such views have a "mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, cannot conduct her/his affairs due to psychosis, or is subject to uncontrollable impulsive behavior" (definition from Psychology Today). You really think that describes those of us who call ourselves pro-choice? Very sad.

Well that’s what you said, not me, that someone has lost touch with reality on one issue doesn’t necessarily mean they have lost touch with all reality and I specifically said the argument and not the arguer.
Besides, if you dont want to know what we think of your arguments I suggest you dont start trading personal opinions such as calling us hypocrites and stick to the issue.

Big difference between saying that someone is a "hypocrite" and saying that they are "mentally insane."

As I didnt say they are mentally insane, and you did I guess you had better address that yourself. What I would add is even if I had there is a big difference between making personal remarks and killing an unborn baby.

No, one does not become "in-being" until birth.

Of course they do.

According to Roe (which I presume you have read) the choice rests with the pregnant woman.

Ah yes according to people who have lost touch with reality. Not everyone agrees with Roe you know and not everyone lives in the US.

But I didn't use that argument. I noted that the rights of a person-in-being generally trump those of a fetus.

Which is not what everyone thinks.

Compromise requires a quid pro quo, meaning an equal exchange. Exactly where is the quid pro quo in your proposal?

Ah ok. At the moment only the mother has the right to abort which is what you are defending. I am defending the right of the unborn. If you are saying the mother has a right to abort the unborn I am saying the unborn has a right to abort the mother. So.the compromise is either
1. That both die.
2. That neither the mother dies nor the abortion of the unborn.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

What I find sad about this whole discussion is that a Christian started it, who defends abortion. Hmmmmm He does everything in his power to debunk what the scriptures say. My question is why? Why the hostility towards God and what He says about life.
That is the moral dilema here for me......not who would I grab first.

I probably would stay and die with both....so there.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Understood, and a most gracious reply on your part. I'm glad you didn't take what I said personally. Yes, both sides can get a bit ridiculous. I've found myself saying ridiculous things from time to time and I have to back up and think about it. I suppose that's part of the learning process.

You previous response was interesting and I think you hit the nail on the head.

But could you elaborate further on something you imply in this post.....you said....Both sides can get ridiculous. What do you think pro-lifers say and do that is ridiculous?

I am a pro-lifer and work out in the field....would like to know what you mean so I don't make that mistake.

I take this subject very seriously...

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Hypocritical thinking is claiming you belong to Christ and then believing what the WORLD says about the issues God say is sin and wrong.

 

[lux et lex]

What I find sad about this whole discussion is that a Christian started it, who defends abortion. Hmmmmm He does everything in his power to debunk what the scriptures say. My question is why? Why the hostility towards God and what He says about life.
That is the moral dilema here for me......not who would I grab first.

I probably would stay and die with both....so there.

Being a martyr is always fun.

 

[mdancin4theLord]

Being a martyr is always fun.

A martyr for what? Something evil like abortion? Well if the shoe fits put it on.

 

[lux et lex]

People are martyrs for all sorts of causes. If you want to die to make a point most people won't remember or don't care about, be my guest.