Who would you save?

[michabo]

You are visiting a fertility clinic when an intense fire breaks out. You must flee the building immediately or be killed. In the room with you is a single newborn infant and a dish containing 40 fertilized embryos. You can save one or the other, but not both.

Which do you save?



To all of the people that say abortion is murder, can you explain what choice you made and why?

 

[selfinflikted]

If i know that I can make it out safely, I would obviously try to save the infant. I can't imagine anyone in their right mind saying they would choose the pitre dish over the baby. I can see where you're going with this and think it deserves a response, but I doubt you'll get any satisfactory answers.

 

[happydance]

No question, I would risk my life to save the baby.
I wouldn't risk my life for embryos.

 

[coyoteBR]

Would be nice to have a poll for this.
Now, personally I am against abortion*, but this case is a no-brainer: I choose the baby, whose full life already started, who already mades an impact on the life of his/hers parents and community, who already moves the economy (from diapers to saving accounts) and who is already a soul fully connect with the body and, therefore, has a reason to be on this planet.

Plus, the heat probably had already damaged some of the embryos.


* But I will never support any law on that matter, as for there's nothing in Brazilian Constituition that says that I have the right to push my religious beliefs to others.

 

[TwinCrier]

It's a shame when accidents happen and life is lost. Shameful still to use tragic accidents to justify willful destruction of human life.
If you want to defend choice, defend choice. I've never understood the logic of using miscarriage and stillbirths to defend abortion. Hate not the embryo.

 

[happydance]

It's a shame when accidents happen and life is lost. Shameful still to use tragic accidents to justify willful destruction of human life.
If you want to defend choice, defend choice. I've never understood the logic of using miscarriage and stillbirths to defend abortion. Hate not the embryo.

So, would you save the baby or embryos?

 

[michabo]

If you want to defend choice, defend choice. I've never understood the logic of using miscarriage and stillbirths to defend abortion. Hate not the embryo.

I haven't laid out an argument in favour of choice, nor am I defending choice. I think you're jumping the gun a bit. I'm just illustrating that, despite the inflated rhetoric, even the most ardent pro-lifers understand that infants are intrinsically more precious than one, two or even 40 embryos.

An abortion is a major decision, but it isn't "murder".

Once we get the dogma and hyperbolic language out of the way, then we can begin to discuss the issues.

 

[gengwall]

So, let me get this straight. You are asking anti-abortion folks to make the choice between saving 40 lives or saving 1, right?

OK - on a practical level I think most people, (including myself) would save the infant, simply because a petri dish does not confront us with a face. I assume in a crisis situation, (especially one where we aren't physically able to handle both an infant and a small dish simultaneaously), that we don't have time to ponder the 40 "invisble" lives while presnted with the one very visible life. Put frankly, I don't think the lives in the dish would cross our mind.

Maybe you can reconstruct the scenario so that we have time to contemplate both choices.

But let's explore further. Supposing we have in fact been thinking about those 40 lives in the dish for some time before the fire breaks out. Supposing we have, in fact, had them very much on our mind leading up to the very second the crisis hit. Supposing even more, that the infant has been present as well, not so much the focus of our thoughts but occupying our attention equally. In that way, both the embryo's and the infant are on the same mental as well as moral plane. So, who do we choose then?

Let's make it even better. Suppose the infant is ours, but we have become infertile, and the forty embryos represent our only other hope for more children. I mean, let's really make it "Sophie's Choice", eh? I suppose someone could justify in their mind taking the infant because "a child in the hand...". I think I would be inclined to take the child I actually have versus the children I might only potential be able to bare. (Note, I am not saying the embyos are "potential life", only that they, as embryo's, only have a chance of developing to birth). In fact, those forty embryos probably only represent one more chance of producing one more child, based on the ratios of emrbyos to actually produced children that usually occur in infertility programs. So, the choice of the born child is easy.

I suppose we could also look at it from the emotional perspective that typically is taken by abortion advocates. The born child certainly, currently, has the "better" life, and therefore should be the one saved.

And I suppose we could look at it from another emotional perspective - who is dying going to "hurt" more. Embryo's despite what some may claim, don't "experience" death like born people do, especially the kind of horrifying death which would occur for the infant. So, let the one's who are unaware of their existence die and save the one who is self aware.

And finally, we could look at it from the simple standpoint that we don't consider the embryos valuable yet. I certainly can't envision embryo's in a dish having souls yet and therefor can't imagine God placing more value on them than the born infant. So, save the one that God has already invested a soul in.

For the first and last reasons, I personally would save the infant. And shame on you for putting people through such moral angst.

Of course, you avoided presenting plan "C" - "You can save both the dish and the infant at the loss of your own life"

 

[jayem]

Plus, the heat probably had already damaged some of the embryos.

Reality is suspended when posing hypotheticals, but that's true. Just being outside of their liquid N2 containers, the embyros are goners.

So ethics aside, it's much easier to grab the baby and run, than lug out a heavy tank full of one-celled people.

 

[gengwall]

I haven't laid out an argument in favour of choice, nor am I defending choice. I think you're jumping the gun a bit. I'm just illustrating that, despite the inflated rhetoric, even the most ardent pro-lifers understand that infants are intrinsically more precious than one, two or even 40 embryos.

An abortion is a major decision, but it isn't "murder".

Once we get the dogma and hyperbolic language out of the way, then we can begin to discuss the issues.

Although I am in favor of removing hyperboli myself, your whole scenario is hyberbolic. But that aside...

The decision someone makes in your scenario has no bearing on "murder", unless, of course, the person doing the saving is also the person who started the fire. But simply rescuing human "a" over human "b" does not eliminate the possiblity that human "b" could ever be murdered.

 

[michabo]

OK - on a practical level I think most people, (including myself) would save the infant, simply because a petri dish does not confront us with a face.

The infant has a face, that's true. But 40 faceless lives aren't worth one face? How many fertilized embryos are necessary to make up for their lack of face, I wonder?

Personally, I can't imagine them ever being worth a human life unless we're in some bizarre apocalypse scenario where the human race is at stake. I think there's a lot more going on than their lack of a face.

But let's explore further. Supposing we have in fact been thinking about those 40 lives in the dish for some time before the fire breaks out. Supposing we have, in fact, had them very much on our mind leading up to the very second the crisis hit. Supposing even more, that the infant has been present as well, not so much the focus of our thoughts but occupying our attention equally. In that way, both the embryo's and the infant are on the same mental as well as moral plane. So, who do we choose then?

That's an interesting question. I think that we could construct something where we get people to pick the petri dish, but only if no one knew that they could have saved the infant.

I think it would be similar to the question of whether you save your dog (or cat) from a burning building or some stranger that you've never met before. Clearly the human is the right choice, but if we don't know the stranger and no one else would know what we did, perhaps we would choose our own comfort (the dog) over a random good deed. After all, we know that the dog is good and loyal and the stranger might be a real jerk, and we have an emotional bond to the dog.

While I think this sort of question is very interesting, I think it reveals a lot more about our selfishness than it does about any other issues. It's tangential, but still a great question.

 

[michabo]

The decision someone makes in your scenario has no bearing on "murder", unless, of course, the person doing the saving is also the person who started the fire. But simply rescuing human "a" over human "b" does not eliminate the possiblity that human "b" could ever be murdered.

I think you're wrong, it has everything to do with "abortion is murder".

"Murder" only happens when a human life is taken. If we don't value even 40 of these "lives" as equal to a single infant, that shows that we treat these embryos as worth much less than a human life. It may still be an unfortunate or even repugnant act, but it isn't murder.

 

[gengwall]

I think you're wrong, it has everything to do with "abortion is murder".

"Murder" only happens when a human life is taken. If we don't value even 40 of these "lives" as equal to a single infant, that shows that we treat these embryos as worth much less than a human life. It may still be an unfortunate or even repugnant act, but it isn't murder.

It still doesn't equate because you are forced to make a choice where "someone" has to die. And you are making a value decision about specific lives, vs. a value decision about "life" itself. Say the choice is between your 80 year old grandma and your 2 year old daughter. Most people would take the daughter in an instant because they value her more. But that doesn't mean they value life less as it existed in grandma. Even include the ratio - say you can save 40 strangers (which the embryos are, and then some) or your own child. I know many people that would swallow hard and save their own child. They value their child's life in relation to themselves more than the others but it has no bearing on their value for human life in general. People can still think murder is wrong regardless of whether or not they would have chosen the murder victim in a choice between the death of one of two innocents.

 

[michabo]

It still doesn't equate because you are forced to make a choice where "someone" has to die. And you are making a value decision about specific lives, vs. a value decision about "life" itself. Say the choice is between your 80 year old grandma and your 2 year old daughter.

Now you're getting into evolutionary morality.

I intentionally avoided questions of saving your own child since people would give their own lives to save their children. As one biologist joked, I would give my life for two brothers or four cousins.

Even include the ratio - say you can save 40 strangers (which the embryos are, and then some) or your own child. I know many people that would swallow hard and save their own child.

Yes, but I think most people would chose to save 40 strange adults over 1 strange child so infants aren't sacrosanct. So why is it that we can't seem to find that critical point where the number of embryos outweigh the life of an infant?

People can still think murder is wrong regardless of whether or not they would have chosen the murder victim in a choice between the death of one of two innocents.

I'm not talking one or two innocents, I'm talking 40. If 40 is too small, why don't you tell me how many embryos it would take to tip the balance so you'd favour the embryos over the infant.

 

[gengwall]

Now you're getting into evolutionary morality.

I intentionally avoided questions of saving your own child since people would give their own lives to save their children. As one biologist joked, I would give my life for two brothers or four cousins.


Yes, but I think most people would chose to save 40 strange adults over 1 strange child so infants aren't sacrosanct. So why is it that we can't seem to find that critical point where the number of embryos outweigh the life of an infant?


I'm not talking one or two innocents, I'm talking 40. If 40 is too small, why don't you tell me how many embryos it would take to tip the balance so you'd favour the embryos over the infant.

I don't disagree with you as much as I think we are talking past each other. My point is this. One's opinion about the sanctity of all life, which murder addresses, is a different topic than one's opininon about the relative importance to them alone of certain individual lives, which this scenario addresses.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Man, I knew what this was the moment I saw the title, but I didn't think it would be an argument FOR abortion.

This is a liberal question. And who are you to say I cannot take both? LOL. Besides, this is very poorly constructed. Everyone would save the baby, most likely, because we know that it is a baby. We probably wouldn't have a clue as to what was in the petri dish, or even if we recognized them as embryos, we would not know whether they were fertilized or not. We would assume they are unfertilized, making them in effect not embryos but eggs, since they were all left out like that in the first place.

And just for the record, abortion is murder.

Here are two definitions of murder:

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2. kill intentionally and with premeditation

Since the embryo is alive inside the mother, it can be killed. And those doing abortions have "premeditated" the whole procedure. So technically, it can be said to be "murder".

Please, consider the facts before making such accusations like "Abortion isn't murder".

 

[NavyGuy7]

Here's one for you:

You are by the train tracks, when you see the approach of a train. It clearly has not begun to hit the brakes, yet, and can only stop with a mile of clearance. Ahead of it lies a chasm of sorts, and the distance between the two is under a mile, thus the train could never stop in time. The track on this part is still in construction, you see, and there is no bridge across the gap.
There is a lever nearby you, one that will change the course of the train to a safer set of tracks, but you then see one of your dearest friends on that set of tracks, seemingly unconscious.

What do you do? Do you pull the lever to save the many lives on the train? Or do you pull your friend off the tracks?

Please use your logic and reason on this one. I will post my answer after you have had a guess.

 

[WatersMoon110]

We probably wouldn't have a clue as to what was in the petri dish, or even if we recognized them as embryos, we would not know whether they were fertilized or not. We would assume they are unfertilized, making them in effect not embryos but eggs, since they were all left out like that in the first place.

Um...if something is an "embryo" it is not a fertilized or unfertilized ovum. You are mistaken. Embryo is the stage of growth from when the already fertilized ovum has implanted to eight weeks of pregnancy. It is the stage between zygote and fetus.

And just for the record, abortion is murder.

Here are two definitions of murder:

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

2. kill intentionally and with premeditation

Since the embryo is alive inside the mother, it can be killed. And those doing abortions have "premeditated" the whole procedure. So technically, it can be said to be "murder".

Please, consider the facts before making such accusations like "Abortion isn't murder".

In the US, the legal term "murder" only applies in cases where a legal person unlawfully kills another legal person, with premeditated malice. Legal people, in the US, are either born or naturalized (according to the Fourteenth Amendment), or are businesses. Unborn humans, not being born, are not considered legal persons at this time.

So, while abortion is killing, it does not meet the requirements to be legal murder. Using the other definition of "murder" meaning "something very bad" as in "the traffic out there is murder" one could consider abortion to be murder, but it isn't, legally.

 

[WatersMoon110]

To answer the OP, I would try to save both the Petri Dish and the Infant. If that wasn't possible, I would, of course, save the infant. Viable life before potential life.

 

[suzybeezy]

I agree WatersMoon. I'd try to save both, but if I couldn't I'd save the life of the infant.