Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[linwood]

I just found this hypothetical situation posted over at iidb.

Thought it was an interesting moral dilemma.

Let's say you have a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, you have an infant in a crib. In the other room you have a cannister in the freezer containing 600 frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization. You only have time for one stop. Do you save the infant or do you save the 600 embryos? If you believe that human embryos are equivalent to 600 human lives, shouldn't you choose to save the 600 embryos instead of the infant? If not, why not?

 

[Bishka]

The infant, because that infant is already alive, and kicking.

Why the infant, I'm not sure, and you'll say that's a cop-out and not a good answer, but I believe the living child's life to be of more worth then the 600 embryos.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Let's say you have a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, you have an infant in a crib. In the other room you have a cannister in the freezer containing 600 frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization. You only have time for one stop. Do you save the infant or do you save the 600 embryos? If you believe that human embryos are equivalent to 600 human lives, shouldn't you choose to save the 600 embryos instead of the infant? If not, why not?

If the embryos have not been fertilized, then obviously I would save the infant since there is no guarantee that the frozen embryos will make it through the fire and eventually be fertilized to become children. I think this will be the pretty universal Pro-Life answer, so I don't really see it as much of a "dilemma". But it is an interesting hypothetical, thanks for posting it.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[linwood]

If the embryos have not been fertilized, then obviously I would save the infant since there is no guarantee that the frozen embryos will make it through the fire and eventually be fertilized to become children. I think this will be the pretty universal Pro-Life answer, so I don't really see it as much of a "dilemma". But it is an interesting hypothetical, thanks for posting it.

FerventGodSeeker

An embryo has already been fertilized.
The only thing left to do is implant it into a womans womb and wait 9 months.

It is a dilemma

 

[Bishka]

An embryio has already been fertilized.
The only thing left to do is implant it into a womans womb and wait 9 months.

It is a dilemma

But we have no idea if that woman's womb will even take it, it could be rejected, but I'm still saving the child.

 

[linwood]

But we have no idea if that woman's womb will even take it, it could be rejected, but I'm still saving the child.

That same argument works for abortion.

There is no way to know if the fetus will be viable, miscarry, or be horribly mutilated .

Edit:
Also, the odds of 600 embryos being rejected are immensely improbable.

You`re bound to have more lives created with that one canister than a single infant

 

[Ody]

How would i be able to carry 600 embryos?

 

[linwood]

How would i be able to carry 600 embryos?

They`re contained in a single canister.

I think I need to define "embryo" here.

em·bryo

1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching

b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

For the sake of this topic these embryos are nothing more than fertilized eggs.


Editted to include a better broader definition.
(Thanks Sunstone)

 

[Sunstone]

If the embryos have not been fertilized, then obviously I would save the infant since there is no guarantee that the frozen embryos will make it through the fire and eventually be fertilized to become children. I think this will be the pretty universal Pro-Life answer, so I don't really see it as much of a "dilemma". But it is an interesting hypothetical, thanks for posting it.

FerventGodSeeker

I believe you are mistaking "embryo" for the human egg or something along those lines. Embryos, by definition, are already fertilized. From conception to the third month of development, the developing human is called an embryo. After that, it's a fetus.

 

[Ody]

O ok, i thought they would be in multiple containers. MY BAD :sorry1:
(Always on the look out for trick questions)

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

An embryo has already been fertilized.
The only thing left to do is implant it into a womans womb and wait 9 months.

It is a dilemma

My apologies, I think I misread the situation or something. However, it's still not a dilemma, since those forzen embryos won't naturally become children. They're frozen. Even if they weren't, they're sitting in a tube, they're not going to become children by themselves, are they?

That same argument works for abortion.

There is no way to know if the fetus will be viable, miscarry, or be horribly mutilated .

Except that such things are uncontrollable in a natural situation. A miscarriage is not intentional. However, an abortion is. Pro-Lifers reject intentionally terminating the life of a child in the mother's womb.

Edit:
Also, the odds of 600 embryos being rejected are immensely improbable.

You`re bound to have more lives created with that one canister than a single infant

Except again, in the proposed situation, the embryos are frozen, so acceptance or rejection is not even in question here.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[linwood]

O ok, i thought they would be in multiple containers. MY BAD :sorry1:
(Always on the look out for trick questions)

No problem.
When I see or hear the word "embryo" the first image that pops into my head is a fetus too.

I dunno why.

 

[linwood]

My apologies, I think I misread the situation or something. However, it's still not a dilemma, since those forzen embryos won't naturally become children. They're frozen. Even if they weren't, they're sitting in a tube, they're not going to become children by themselves, are they?

No but is a fact that a great many of them are going to become children if they aren`t destroyed.
They will be living breathing humans..thats a fact.

Except again, in the proposed situation, the embryos are frozen, so acceptance or rejection is not even in question here.

Certainly it is.
Again, out of 600 embryos many hundreds will become humans if not destroyed.
Your argument devalues life that is not conceived in the usual manner.
By that logic any person who was conceived through invitro is less valuable than any person concieved through copulation.
In fact considering the number of potential humans compared to one infant your logic greatly greatly devalues them.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

No but is a fact that a great many of them are going to become children if they aren`t destroyed.
They will be living breathing humans..thats a fact.

No they're not. They're frozen in a building that is burning down. Unless you save them, they're not going to develop into anything.

Certainly it is.
Again, out of 600 embryos many hundreds will become humans if not destroyed.

"If not destroyed"...that's the whole point. They ARE going to be destroyed, unless you let an already breathing child die.

Your argument devalues life that is not conceived in the usual manner.

How so?

By that logic any person who was conceived through invitro is less valuable than any person concieved through copulation.

How so? I simply said that a naturally conceived person will naturally develop into a complete human if left alone (with the exception of uncontrollable situations like miscarriage), while frozen test tube embryos will not.

In fact considering the number of potential humans compared to one infant your logic greatly greatly devalues them.

No it doesn't. It simply greatly values an already breathing child over and against a group of frozen embroys that won't become anything unless you let a baby die to save them. Obviously if we could save both we would.
You're comparing "potential humans" (which means by contrast they are potentionally NOT humans) to an ACTUAL, breathing human.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[linwood]

No they're not. They're frozen in a building that is burning down. Unless you save them, they're not going to develop into anything.

And if you choose the canister over the infant the infant isn`t going to develope into anything either.
No difference as far as life goes.
A two day old infant has less potential than 600 embryos.

"If not destroyed"...that's the whole point. They ARE going to be destroyed, unless you let an already breathing child die.

Yes and if you do let that already breathing child die you will have saved hundreds of lives.

How so? I simply said that a naturally conceived person will naturally develop into a complete human if left alone (with the exception of uncontrollable situations like miscarriage), while frozen test tube embryos will not.

Because those 600 embryos will indeed become many many many human beings .
They will become human beings if the fire doesn`t consume them.
They will become hundreds of human babies perhaps.
So you are allowing hundreds of humans to die to save the life of one.
This is devaluing those hundreds of humans.
They aren`t as valuable to you as one infant.
Your choice is nothing more than an emotional reaction.
It`s not rational.

No it doesn't. It simply greatly values an already breathing child over and against a group of frozen embroys that won't become anything unless you let a baby die to save them.

Yes it does.
It is an undeniable fact that if you save the canister the result will be many many living breathing infants.
That is a fact.
You have chosen to save one infant over possibly hundred of infants.

You're comparing "potential humans" (which means by contrast they are potentionally NOT humans) to an ACTUAL, breathing human.

Niether is a fetus slumbering within it`s mothers womb.

You`ve just given me the exact same argument I`ve heard almost every pro-choice proponent use when defending abortion.
"It isn`t a human, it`s only a "potential" human".

Your argument with this new addition devalues the very fetus you seek to defend.

You are essentially saying that a fetus isn`t a human.

 

[Mister Emu]

The infant...

I am an emotional fallible human...

 

[jeffrey]

I don't see it as a dilemma either. You can take it a step further and say when you masturbate, you are potentially killing a would be baby. It could have been used to fertilize a few eggs, which if implanted could form life.
It's all would have could have. If the bear would not have stopped to take a poop in the woods, he would have caught the rabbit.

The embryos have not been implanted, so therefore they are not a life form developing.

 

[evearael]

I would save the infant. Why? Instinct.

 

[linwood]

I don't see it as a dilemma either. You can take it a step further and say when you masturbate, you are potentially killing a would be baby. It could have been used to fertilize a few eggs, which if implanted could form life.
It's all would have could have. If the bear would not have stopped to take a poop in the woods, he would have caught the rabbit.

The embryos have not been implanted, so therefore they are not a life form developing.

This "potential" defense is killing me guys..it really is.

I`m finding great joy in hearing it from pro-lifers for a change.
if nothing else this excerise was worth it for that alone.

I have to disagree jeffrey.
Once again..it is an absolute fact that if those embryos survive they will indeed be humans..a fact.

We can quibble about how many will actually survive invitro but the fact remains that it will be more than one so in terms of "potential" life the canister wins over the infant if we`re all being rational.

The only difference between those embryos and an embryo in a womb is geography.
Thats the only difference.

The repeated defense of pro-lifers everywhere is that an embryo is a human life.
I now see alot of retreating from this position and equivocating trivialties.

Just for the record, I would save the infant as well.
Not rational I know....:run:

 

[linwood]

I would save the infant. Why? Instinct.

Excellent answer!!