Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

[linwood]

Sorry,
Lemme clarify.

There is no baby involved just you in a burning clinic with a canister of 600 embryos.

Do you take the canister with you?

Sure, as long as you're not making us choose between the embryos and the baby.

Why?

 

[Smoke]

Why?

I assume that canister contains, in effect, the hopes of lot of childless couples. Trying to help seems like the right thing to do.

Do I think embryos are people? No. If you had asked the same question about dog embryos, a cherished photo album, a rare book, or an antique chair, my answer would have been the same.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Which is to say, you can't imagine a high enough number of embryos that would coherce you into taking them instead of the baby?

I only ask at this stage to watch how you answer yet another direct question with lazy moral ascription, shameless dodging and deliberate misdirection.

Shameless dodging? Like how you've only been responding to selective parts of my statements, THAT kind of dodging? Give me a break, seriously. Your question has no bearing on my rationale in choosing the child, which you seem to refuse to address directly (more "shameless dodging"?), and instead insist that I apply some arbitrary value to an unborn child, becoming so desperate for an answer that you actually suggested I ascribe a monetary value to them. Your point is moot, please move on.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[mr.guy]

...becoming so desperate for an answer that you actually suggested I ascribe a monetary value to them.

I rest my case.

 

[Flappycat]

I'd save the embryoes and write a book on it. I'd make a fortune.

 

[dawny0826]

I would save the infant. Why? Instinct.

\

As would I.

(Although, this doesn't change the fact that I feel the 600 embryos are very MUCH living beings.)

 

[linwood]

Your question has no bearing on my rationale in choosing the child, which you seem to refuse to address directly (more "shameless dodging"?), and instead insist that I apply some arbitrary value to an unborn child, becoming so desperate for an answer that you actually suggested I ascribe a monetary value to them.

I must have missed this.

Did Mr.Guy suggest that you ascribe a "monetary" value to an unborn child?

Your position seems tenuous at best.
It would seem you have just equivocated an embryo to an unborn child.

If you truly feel an embryo is an unborn child you should save the canister.

I might have missed something here though.

 

[linwood]

I assume that canister contains, in effect, the hopes of lot of childless couples. Trying to help seems like the right thing to do.

Do I think embryos are people? No. If you had asked the same question about dog embryos, a cherished photo album, a rare book, or an antique chair, my answer would have been the same.

Precisely the answer I`m looking for.
Most pro-choice people would state this or something close to it.

I`m just trying to show that while there may be extremes on either end of the spectrum within this debate the vast majority of those who hold what would seem opposite opinions really aren`t that far apart in their beliefs.

You find value in the embryos as a pro-choice proponent, just not as much value as a living human.
FGS finds value in the embryos as a pro-life proponent, just not as much value as a living human.

Considering this
It would seem the pro-life side in this debate supports it`s position on cultural/emotional symbolism and not rationalism.

 

[evearael]

You find value in the embryos as a pro-choice proponent, just not as much value as a living human.
FGS finds value in the embryos as a pro-life proponent, just not as much value as a living human.

Now, the interesting question would be what the hierachy would be regarding humans after they are born. Do you value a child over a convicted murderer? Do you value a sibling over a stranger? And so on...

 

[Pah]

....Considering this
It would seem the pro-life side in this debate supports it`s position on cultural/emotional symbolism and not rationalism.

I agree and would go further. I can't think of a social issue in which emotionalism does not play a large role in leading and energyizing so many followers.

 

[linwood]

Now, the interesting question would be what the hierachy would be regarding humans after they are born. Do you value a child over a convicted murderer? Do you value a sibling over a stranger? And so on...

Well that would make the choice too subjective.

Alot of personal knowledge may be involved in those choices.

We all value different humans differently for different sometimes emotional reasons.

In a choice between saving my 5 year old or another 5 year old I`m saving mine.

Why?
I protect my investments.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I must have missed this.

Did Mr.Guy suggest that you ascribe a "monetary" value to an unborn child?

When I asked if he had any suggestions as to what system of measurement I should use to determine the value of an embryo, he replied in his next post:

The next question is, how many embryos are worth one baby? Imagine nickels, dimes and dollars, if it helps.

Your position seems tenuous at best.
It would seem you have just equivocated an embryo to an unborn child.

Was I equivocating? Sorry about that, let's be more clear: An embryo IS an unborn human life.

If you truly feel an embryo is an unborn child you should save the canister.

Not true, for the reasons I've already explained. The embroys are frozen and not developing, and cannot develop unless artificially induced to do so (which is the reason why this situation is not the same as considering a growing child in its mothers womb), and because they cannot feel pain while the baby would be tremendously tormented in the fire. I don't know how many more ways I can say this.



FerventGodSeeker

 

[Ðanisty]

Sorry,
Lemme clarify.

There is no baby involved just you in a burning clinic with a canister of 600 embryos.

Do you take the canister with you?

Why?

Yes, I take the canister with me because although embryos don't hold any value for me, they hold a great deal of value for the parents. If I have the opportunity to rescue something valuable, I will.

Let me clarify just a bit though. This is all assuming I'm already in a burning clinic. If I was outside the clinic, I would most likely go in to rescue a child, but not to rescue embryos. A child could possibly be more valuable than I am, but I wouldn't even consider going in and risking my life for some embryos. I feel though that if I was already there, I would certainly do my part to help others and if the only others to help are embryos, I would do so.

 

[Flappycat]

\

As would I.

(Although, this doesn't change the fact that I feel the 600 embryos are very MUCH living beings.)

It sounds to me like there's a pretty big difference between what you believe and what you think you believe.

 

[linwood]

When I asked if he had any suggestions as to what system of measurement I should use to determine the value of an embryo, he replied in his next post:

Yes and he was giving an example of a system of measurement not that you use money to determine their value.
This is a twisted red herring.

Was I equivocating? Sorry about that, let's be more clear: An embryo IS an unborn human life.

But as unborn human life it has less value than a a human who has gone through birth.
You apparently believe human life begins at conception and becomes more valuable as it ages up until birth.
I believe the same way to an extant but I`m definately not pro-life.
I believe abortion should be a womans choice up through the first trimester.

Not true, for the reasons I've already explained.

There`s that rationalising again.

 

[linwood]

Let me clarify just a bit though. This is all assuming I'm already in a burning clinic. If I was outside the clinic, I would most likely go in to rescue a child, but not to rescue embryos. A child could possibly be more valuable than I am, but I wouldn't even consider going in and risking my life for some embryos.

Understood, I would do the same thing myself.

It sounds to me like there's a pretty big difference between what you believe and what you think you believe.

Interesting isn`t it?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Yes and he was giving an example of a system of measurement not that you use money to determine their value.
This is a twisted red herring.

Why would he suggest money as a system of measurement that I would use to determine the value of an unborn child? Even if he didn't mean that (which he never clarified, even though I commented on it as soon as he said it), doesn't it seem like a rather odd suggestion?

But as unborn human life it has less value than a a human who has gone through birth.
You apparently believe human life begins at conception and becomes more valuable as it ages up until birth.

I believe all life is valuable and worth saving, but again, this situation only allows that one of the two choices is saved. I think you're assuming too much simply because my choice was the older life. If my choice was the embryos, you wouldn't extrapolate that I believe that human life DECREASES in value as it develops, would you?

I believe the same way to an extant but I`m definately not pro-life.
I believe abortion should be a womans choice up through the first trimester.

Why should a woman have the choice to kill her child?

There`s that rationalising again.

What, you mean listing the reasons I've been reiterating for the entire thread? I guess if that's what you call "rationalizing" then ok....


FerventGodSeeker

 

[Ðanisty]

Why would he suggest money as a system of measurement that I would use to determine the value of an unborn child? Even if he didn't mean that (which he never clarified, even though I commented on it as soon as he said it), doesn't it seem like a rather odd suggestion?

I would wager to say he mentioned money because you didn't seem to understand the concept of a value system. In other words, I think he was using small words and familiar concepts so you wouldn't get confused and so you couldn't further claim you didn't understand what a value system is.

I believe all life is valuable and worth saving, but again, this situation only allows that one of the two choices is saved. I think you're assuming too much simply because my choice was the older life. If my choice was the embryos, you wouldn't extrapolate that I believe that human life DECREASES in value as it develops, would you?

Of course not...because there were 600 embryos and if you believe that unborn life is equal to born life, then 600 clearly outweighs 1. Besides, it would have been consistent. Consistency is good because it shows you have really thought about the core issue and not just the resulting surface issues.

Why should a woman have the choice to kill her child?

Because it's not a person and it feeds off her body like a parasite. It's a living organism that fastens itself to her insides and sucks out her nutrients for survival.

 

[Melody]

Those here who would call themselves Pro-Choice.
If you were in a burning invitro clinic and knew there were 600 embryos in a single canister there.
Would you attempt to save them before escaping?

Linwood,

Good to see you again! I am Pro-Life and do believe that life begins at conception.

Life is full of choices and whether anyone will admit it or not, our choices are a reflection of what we value. I do believe that the embryos are life, but I place a higher value on the life of one infant who is self-aware and can feel pain than on 600 embryos who are not and cannot.

If the only choice was to grab the embryos, then yes I would *if* I did not have to risk my own life in doing so. Again, I place my life first.

It is not that they have no value. It is that in order of priorities, they have less value....as does everything that is not chosen first.

 

[Pah]

Linwood,

Good to see you again! I am Pro-Life and do believe that life begins at conception.

Life is full of choices and whether anyone will admit it or not, our choices are a reflection of what we value. I do believe that the embryos are life, but I place a higher value on the life of one infant who is self-aware and can feel pain than on 600 embryos who are not and cannot.

If the only choice was to grab the embryos, then yes I would *if* I did not have to risk my own life in doing so. Again, I place my life first.

It is not that they have no value. It is that in order of priorities, they have less value....as does everything that is not chosen first.

Good to see you posting again!

I would think important the question of how much less significant one embryo is in relation to a baby and then mutliply that times 600. But we are really not speaking of a rational decision, are we. Emotion is what guides the choice of whom to save. And emotion is what propels the argument for conception being the point of begining a human being. This dilemma shows that the living, breathing human being is more important on an emotional level over the fertilized ova which is much less important than an embryo which is less important than a fetus more fully developed. The dilema shows that there is not the same value for each stage of gestration yet the argument for voiding the legality of abortion starts with the least important part of pregnancy.

We hear soaring rhetoric about the primacy of conception but the reality is there is a point in pregnancy when it's value is eclisped. The law, so eager to be overturned, recognizes just that relative progress of a human being.