Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[gnomon]

What a knee-jerk, reactionary thread.

Here's an atheist's perception. I would save the baby.

Oh yes. Life begins at conception. Still would not save a bunch of frozen embryos. Could care less.

Let the fellow atheist who think they understand life psychoanalyze that.

 

[Ðanisty]

Again, no, since the embryos are frozen, and even if you save them, they will not naturally grow into children. External influence must defrost them and then implant them into a womb.

I strongly doubt that matters to the mothers of those frozen embryos. I agree, you do speak as if you find in vitro life less valuable.

Thats an excellent dillmma for pro-choicers as far as morality goes.

Not really. All of this, for me, depends on how far the child is developed. I believe in abortion definitely in the first and possibly in the second trimester (depending on circumstances). After that, the child can easily be distinguished as a person and could manage to live on it's own. I feel that the mother should have made the decision for abortion before it reaches this stage. So, if it was in the first or second trimester, the fetus should not count as a homocide. If it was in the the third trimester, it should.

Yes, but what kind of life am I favoring over another? I am favoring the life one breathing baby to the lives of a group of frozen undeveloped embryos that won't become anything unless aritificially induced to do so.

But if saved they will be artificially induced to do so!

Or a breathing child is simply more valuable. That doesn't mean unborn lives are NOT valuable, it simply means that in a situation where only one can be saved that the infant who is already born and breathing into the world will be the preferred one.

Believe it or not, this is something a lot of women face when considering abortion. Many of them think of the lives of the living, breathing children they already have and consider how they may suffer if the unborn child is allowed to live.

 

[mr.guy]

What a knee-jerk, reactionary thread.

And why not? We've been told by pro-lifers that embryo = baby; no distinction of the two is observed by that camp, we're told. Now, we're being instructed on how it's just a bunch of fertilized eggs; baby > 600 embryos. Perhaps by the time this threads' developed, we'll all be a little more aquainted with the pro-lifer's currency on "life".

 

[gnomon]

And why not? We've been told by pro-lifers that embryo = baby; no distinction of the two is observed by that camp, we're told. Now, we're being instructed on how it's just a bunch of fertilized eggs; baby > 600 embryos. Perhaps by the time this threads' developed, we'll all be a little more aquainted with the pro-lifer's currency on "life".

Actually, I think my previous initial statement is gross mischarcterization.

 

[Pah]

I would save the child because it is already active and breathing while the embryos are frozen and undeveloping, plus they won't feel anything, while an infant would suffer terribly. Again, if I could save both I would, but I'm simply opting for the lesser of two evils.

FerventGodSeeker

Then if living breathing life is to be given preference, the living, breathing mother can dispose of any fetal or embryonic matter BECAUSE THE EMBRYO OR FETUS DOESN"T BREATH YET

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I strongly doubt that matters to the mothers of those frozen embryos. I agree, you do speak as if you find in vitro life less valuable.

It is definitely a more artificial process which requires external force to induce development, as opposed to a child in the womb.

But if saved they will be artificially induced to do so!

Sure, so we hope. But it's much less certain than a group of unborn children in their mothers' wombs.

Believe it or not, this is something a lot of women face when considering abortion. Many of them think of the lives of the living, breathing children they already have and consider how they may suffer if the unborn child is allowed to live

How do the lives of older children suffer if they get a little baby brother? Let me guess, you're the oldest . At any rate, adoption is always an option if they really think their quality of life will significantly decrease with another child.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Then if living breathing life is to be given preference, the living, breathing mother can dispose of any fetal or embryonic matter BECAUSE THE EMBRYO OR FETUS DOESN"T BREATH YET

That is such a huge logical jump I can't even see where you landed. Just because, in a life or death situation, a breathing infant would be chosen over frozen embryos, doesn't mean that a mother has a right to dispose of her unborn child at any time she chooses, and especially not simply because the child doesn't breathe. People who can't breathe have value, too. However, we're talking in this situation about choosing the lesser evil here, since both of them are bad options.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Pah]

That is such a huge logical jump I can't even see where you landed. Just because, in a life or death situation, a breathing infant would be chosen over frozen embryos, doesn't mean that a mother has a right to dispose of her unborn child at any time she chooses, and especially not simply because the child doesn't breathe. People who can't breathe have value, too. However, we're talking in this situation about choosing the lesser evil here, since both of them are bad options.

FerventGodSeeker

You made the point of your argument "living, breathing" That does not qualify for fetus or embryo. The only "living, breathing" individual is the woman and thus, according to your point, is more valuable.

It is definitely a more artificial process which requires external force to induce development, as opposed to a child in the womb.

A large percentage of live births are artificially performed - very close to 100%. The days of the birth in The Good Earth have long gone. Every assistence is artificial to squatting in the field and delivering the baby. Prenatal care is artificial to that primative process. THAT is the natural process.

Sure, so we hope. But it's much less certain than a group of unborn children in their mothers' wombs.

How does that compare to miscarriage? What is the probability of miscarriage compared to artificial embryo implanation?

 

[michel]

Another thread I missed because we opperate on different time zones! I would have to save the living Baby.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

You made the point of your argument "living, breathing" That does not qualify for fetus or embryo. The only "living, breathing" individual is the woman and thus, according to your point, is more valuable.

In a life or death situation, sure. If the mother is 100% guaranteed to die if she gives birth to her child (or if she for some reason cannot have a C-section as well), then I accept the absolute necesity of an abortion.

A large percentage of live births are artificially performed - very close to 100%. The days of the birth in The Good Earth have long gone. Every assistence is artificial to squatting in the field and delivering the baby. Prenatal care is artificial to that primative process. THAT is the natural process.

Sure, external care HELPS in today's world. But we know from thousands of years of world history that such care is not NECESARY, as literally billions of women have given birth with no medical support (or at least extremely primitive support).

How does that compare to miscarriage? What is the probability of miscarriage compared to artificial embryo implanation?

I'm not sure, to be honest...Will you look it up?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[mr.guy]

People who can't breathe have value, too.

But definately less value, it seems. Exactly how much less are they worth?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But definately less value, it seems. Exactly how much less are they worth?

You tell me; aren't you Pro-Choice?

FGS

 

[mr.guy]

You tell me

But i've only extrapolated this equation from your testaments thus far; you've repeatedly claimed your (hypothetical) actions to be aligned with the "lesser evil". How much "lesser"?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But i've only extrapolated this equation from your testaments thus far; you've repeatedly claimed your (hypothetical) actions to be aligned with the "lesser evil". How much "lesser"?

Again, you tell me; Wouldn't you choose the baby? You should know exactly how much less evil it is, especially if you're going to try to ask someone else to quantify something like that.


FerventGodSeeker

 

[Ðanisty]

It is definitely a more artificial process which requires external force to induce development, as opposed to a child in the womb.

But that doesn't matter to the mother. To the mother, it's just as much her natural child as if it had been conceived in the normal way.

Sure, so we hope. But it's much less certain than a group of unborn children in their mothers' wombs.

I'm not sure what the statistics on such a thing would be, but a lot of women do miscarry. Nothing is ever certain.

How do the lives of older children suffer if they get a little baby brother? Let me guess, you're the oldest . At any rate, adoption is always an option if they really think their quality of life will significantly decrease with another child.

Actually, I'm the youngest. The other children could suffer due to the mother's overwhelming stress and financial burden from having another child. They could suffer from not having the attention/affection they need, etc.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But that doesn't matter to the mother. To the mother, it's just as much her natural child as if it had been conceived in the normal way.

Just because it "doesn't matter" to the subjective opinion of the mother doesn't change the fact that it is more artificial and requires extra steps unnecesary in natural conception.

I'm not sure what the statistics on such a thing would be, but a lot of women do miscarry. Nothing is ever certain.

With the advancements of medicine and science, especially in industrialized nations, I'd venture to say that miscarriages are significantly lower than they have been in the rest of human history.

Actually, I'm the youngest. The other children could suffer due to the mother's overwhelming stress and financial burden from having another child. They could suffer from not having the attention/affection they need, etc

Which again, is why I suggested adoption.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[mr.guy]

Again, you tell me; Wouldn't you choose the baby?

My choice, since you've pegged me as pro-choice, would be irrelevant to the OP.

You should know exactly how much less evil it is, especially if you're going to try to ask someone else to quantify something like that.

Quit dodging. You've declared one to be of lesser evil. Since you've justified your choice by moral quantification/relativism, it would seem an easy thing for you to tell us how much value an embryo has relative to a person.

Simply put, if you say "less", i'll ask "how much less"?

 

[mr.guy]

Here, let me get you started. Simply fill in the value for X.

1 baby = X embryos

 

[Halcyon]

Another thread I missed because we opperate on different time zones! I would have to save the living Baby.

Lol, me too.

I would also save the baby. Babies can feel pain, frozen bundles of cells can't.

 

[Smoke]

In a life or death situation, sure. If the mother is 100% guaranteed to die if she gives birth to her child (or if she for some reason cannot have a C-section as well), then I accept the absolute necesity of an abortion.

Why? If the fetus is a full-fledged person, what makes the mother's life more important than the life of the fetus? If I'm 100% certain to die without a heart transplant, do you accept the necessity of my killing you to get your heart?