• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers

SoliDeoGloria

Active Member
Mister Emu said:
The infant...

I am an emotional fallible human...

I would have to agree with this one.

Interesting discussion. Kind of reminds me of why the law is so tongue and cheek on the issue.

Take for instance, If I were to get into a car accident with a lady who was on here way to a clinic to get an abortion, and both the lady and whatever you want to call it inside her dies, the courts could legally find me guilty of two counts of vehicular homicide and sentence me accordingly.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
 
linwood said:
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.
Not necesarily, as even if you choose to save the embryos they have to be defrosted and then planted in a mother. They are not developing as it is, while the infant is. In fact, the infant already has developed into something, even by Pro-Choice standards...it's breathing, out of the mother's womb, etc. Sure, embryos have "potential", but that's all they have. They aren't even growing. They're FROZEN. a child in its mother's womb is constantly growing, developing, etc.


Yes and if you do let that already breathing child die you will have saved hundreds of lives.
Not necesarily, as you don't know what will happen to those embryos without intentional external action. Again, this is seen in contrast to a child in the mother's womb, which WILL become a human naturally if left alone for nine months.

Because those 600 embryos will indeed become many many many human beings .
Again, you don't know that because they have to be defrosted and then implanted in human mothers.

They will become human beings if the fire doesn`t consume them.
They will become hundreds of human babies perhaps.
Not necesarily, for the same reason as above.
So you are allowing hundreds of humans to die to save the life of one.
This is devaluing those hundreds of humans.
Not at all. That's like saying if you can only save one drowning person but two are drowning in the pool that you are devaluing the one you don't save. Again, if we could save both we would. However, because those embryos are not developing and will not naturally grow into children, then the already breathing child takes precedence.

Your choice is nothing more than an emotional reaction.
It`s not rational.
So you're saying it's rational to save 600 frozen embryos and let an infant die in a fire?


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.
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.


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".
Again, the distinction lies int the fact that a naturally conceived child will grow and develop naturally, while these frozen embryos will not. A fetus in the womb isn't just a "potential" human, since if you leave it alone it WILL become a child. The frozen embryos, however, must be artificially caused to develop into children. Unless that artificial external influence takes place, these embryos will yield nothing.


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
Not at all. A fetus is by nature a human, but whether it will actually develop into a child is another issue altogether.

FerventGodSeeker
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
SoliDeoGloria said:
Take for instance, If I were to get into a car accident with a lady who was on here way to a clinic to get an abortion, and both the lady and whatever you want to call it inside her dies, the courts could legally find me guilty of two counts of vehicular homicide and sentence me accordingly.

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

The law is screwed on this issue.
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
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
Embryos, by biological definition, must be fertilized.

Saving the baby means exactly that you do not believe a human being is created at conception.
 
Pah said:
Embryos, by biological definition, must be fertilized.
Thanks for clarifying, someone else already did. I think I read the statement wrong or something. Oh well, I responded accordingly with that definition later on in the thread.

Saving the baby means exactly that you do not believe a human being is created at conception.
That's simply not true. If two people are drowning and you have the choice to save only one, does that mean that you do not consider the other to be human? As I already stated, if I could save both I would.

FerventGodSeeker
 

sparc872

Active Member
I see where you are coming from with this and I completely agree with your argument that if someone is pro-life, the embryos would be the clearcut choice.

I hear all the time about people fighting to end embryonic stem cell research because the embryos are 'potential' humans. How does that argument apply any differently now? Why would it be ok to end the possibility of 600 lives and save one life?

I would have to say the child though, because it has developed. I am not pro-life all the way. I believe abortions should be legal up to a certain time in the pregnancy. There are circumstances that severely limit the ability for a parent to provide a loving and caring relationship for a child. I believe it is far better to end that life and prevent it from going through the trouble of finding out it was adopted, or it's mother was raped and it is a ba***rd child, or have it raised in an unstable household. It just doesn't make any sense.
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
...
That's simply not true. If two people are drowning and you have the choice to save only one, does that mean that you do not consider the other to be human? As I already stated, if I could save both I would.

[/COLOR]FerventGodSeeker
It's not a question of TWO drowning - it'a question of one vs six hundred. Your comparision is bogus

I don't know why you are mis-reading key points in the thread
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:

Yes, one actual breathing baby with 600 frozen embryos that will not naturally develop into anything. Hopefully you can see the difference.

FerventGodSeeker
I can see the difference and I've always seen that difference. The repurcussion of your decision places you in the camp that does not believe conception is the beginning of a human being. Where is the point where human life must be protected?
 
Pah said:
I can see the difference and I've always seen that difference. The repurcussion of your decision places you in the camp that does not believe conception is the beginning of a human being.
How are you arriving at that conclusion?

Where is the point where human life must be protected?
I believe all human life, born and unborn, should be protected from undue harm. However, this situation mandates that we cannot save everyone involved. It's really a lose-lose situation when you answer this question as a Pro-Lifer who wants all life to be saved. If we say the baby, you say, "But aren't those embryos human?" And if we say the embryos, you say, "How could you let a little baby burn to death?" So I really don't know what you're looking for, as there is no answer to this situation that will satisfy you.

FerventGodSeeker
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
And if we say the embryos, you say, "How could you let a little baby burn to death?" So I really don't know what you're looking for, as there is no answer to this situation that will satisfy you.
I`m starting to think you are intentionally skewing this hypothetical in order to avoid having to face the fact that your convictions are simply emotional.

No one here would fault you for saving the embryos over the infant considering the fact that by saving the embryos you have sacrificed one life to save hundreds of lives while saving the infant you have sacrificed hundreds of lives to save one.
No one could fault you considering that the most ethical choice for someone who believes life begins at conception is to save the embryos.

You do indeed value a living breathing child over a fetus.
Life does not begin at conception for you, you can deny this but your potential actions speak louder than words.
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
How are you arriving at that conclusion?

I believe all human life, born and unborn, should be protected from undue harm. However, this situation mandates that we cannot save everyone involved. It's really a lose-lose situation when you answer this question as a Pro-Lifer who wants all life to be saved. If we say the baby, you say, "But aren't those embryos human?" And if we say the embryos, you say, "How could you let a little baby burn to death?" So I really don't know what you're looking for, as there is no answer to this situation that will satisfy you.

FerventGodSeeker
I wouldn't say that. I would say that if all life is precious to you then you should save the 600. But you choose the living over the potential - "600 frozen embryos that will not naturally develop into anything" You have disdain for the frozen embryos and respect the living baby more. You do not honor the belief that human life begins at conception - just because it is in delayed development? You have no right to push the idea that conception should be the point where a human being is protected by law.

I'm going to bed now. Our work is done with you and with such a simple question.
 
linwood said:
I`m starting to think you are intentionally skewing this hypothetical in order to avoid having to face the fact that your convictions are simply emotional.
How so?

No one here would fault you for saving the embryos over the infant considering the fact that by saving the embryos you have sacrificed one life to save hundreds of lives while saving the infant you have sacrificed hundreds of lives to save one.
No one could fault you considering that the most ethical choice for someone who believes life begins at conception is to save the embryos.
Fair enough.

You do indeed value a living breathing child over a fetus.
Life does not begin at conception for you, you can deny this but your potential actions speak louder than words
I thought an embryo was not yet a fetus, according to the definition you gave?

I do believe life begins at conception. However, in this case we have a living breathing child in contrast to a group of embryos that are frozen and will not naturally develop into anything. They are not the equivalent to 600 fetuses (feti? lol) in the womb's of 600 mothers, which naturally grow and develop.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Pah said:
I wouldn't say that. I would say that if all life is precious to you then you should save the 600. But you choose the living over the potential - "600 frozen embryos that will not naturally develop into anything" You have disdain for the frozen embryos and respect the living baby more.
How do I have disdain for the embryos? I am being realistic - you have one breathing infant in comparison to a group of embryos that are undeveloped, frozen, and will not naturally develop.
You do not honor the belief that human life begins at conception - just because it is in delayed development?
The development isn't simply "delayed", it's completely stopped and will not continue unless artificially caused to do so.

You have no right to push the idea that conception should be the point where a human being is protected by law.
Luckily, you are not in charge of what my rights are or are not. ;) I will let the Constitution and the laws of the land define what my legal rights are, thanks.

I'm going to bed now. Our work is done with you
Whose work, and what work? Why is it that whenever I discuss anything with you that I feel like you hate me? Have I done something to upset you or offend you? Or does it just upset you that I don't view everything the way you do?

and with such a simple question
Right....life and death situations are just SO simple. :rolleyes:


FerventGodSeeker
 

Pah

Uber all member
FerventGodSeeker said:
....
I do believe life begins at conception. However, in this case we have a living breathing child in contrast to a group of embryos that are frozen and will not naturally develop into anything. They are not the equivalent to 600 fetuses (feti? lol) in the womb's of 600 mothers, which naturally grow and develop.

FerventGodSeeker
You seem to have taken a wrong turn in your education. You are right that 600 frozen embryos are not equivalent to 600 fetuses. The difference is that the frozen embryo must be thawed and then, after implanting, develop for a time. Being frozen does not disquaily a embroy from the same life a newly born has if you ascribe to the thought that a human being is created at conception. When you favor the new born, you have dismissed saving 600 lives to save 1. The conclusion taken from the magnitude of the numbers shows your disregard for a product of conception in favor of one from birth.

BTW, it is not 600 mothers that carry 600 embryos but more like somewhere between 75 and 100 mothers. From your lack of understanding, it seems like you have parroted the slogans with little or no understanding of the process. That would be the "mindset of sheep" that is so decried by many that observe Christianity. It is what is hoped to provide success to the campaign for the so-called Marriage Amendment.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
I thought an embryo was not yet a fetus, according to the definition you gave?
Thats a mental slip up on my part I meant embryo.
Sorry.

I do believe life begins at conception. However, in this case we have a living breathing child in contrast to a group of embryos that are frozen and will not naturally develop into anything. They are not the equivalent to 600 fetuses (feti? lol) in the womb's of 600 mothers, which naturally grow and develop.

If you truly do believe life begins at conception yet you would save the infant over six hundred embryos then the only logical conclusion remaining is that you find very little value in life created through invitro.
This means there are ...I have no clue how many ..but thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans walking this earth who according to your standards are far less than human.

Considering your answer to this puzzle there are only two logical choices here FGS..

1:You do not believe life begins at conception.
2: You believe life created through invitro is far less valuable than life created from "natural" conception.

Anything else is illogical, irrational, and inconsistent with your espoused beliefs.
Why can you not see this?

Again, 600 frozen embryos WILL INDEED BECOME MANY MANY HUMAN BEINGS!!
There is no way to twist that fact...they will become humans..many of them.

Your choice according to your beliefs (If you truly believe life begins at conception)is in fact sacrificing the many to save the one.

The only other possible reason for your choice is entirely illogical and irrational.
It is emotional and shows that you do not believe life begins at conception.

If you did you would not allow 600 embryos to burn.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
linwood said:
You do indeed value a living breathing child over a fetus.
Life does not begin at conception for you, you can deny this but your potential actions speak louder than words.
One can value a living breathing child over a fetus while still believing that life begins at conception. If you are in a life and death situation, one will usually act emotionally. That doesn't mean that pro-life opinions are simply emotional.
 
Pah said:
You seem to have taken a wrong turn in your education. You are right that 600 frozen embryos are not equivalent to 600 fetuses. The difference is that the frozen embryo must be thawed and then, after implanting, develop for a time.
Exactly. Development must be artificially induced, which is what I've been saying.
Being frozen does not disquaily a embroy from the same life a newly born has if you ascribe to the thought that a human being is created at conception.
You're right, it doesn't necesarily, but it does require an intermediate artificial step which is unnecesary through natural conception.

When you favor the new born, you have dismissed saving 600 lives to save 1. The conclusion taken from the magnitude of the numbers shows your disregard for a product of conception in favor of one from birth.
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.
BTW, it is not 600 mothers that carry 600 embryos but more like somewhere between 75 and 100 mothers.
Really? Typically a mother only carries one child at a time, right? Wouldn't that mean 600 mothers for 600 embryos?

From your lack of understanding, it seems like you have parroted the slogans with little or no understanding of the process. That would be the "mindset of sheep" that is so decried by many that observe Christianity. It is what is hoped to provide success to the campaign for the so-called Marriage Amendment.
Have you not beaten the gay marraige issue to death already? There is no reason to bring it into a completely unrelated thread. If I'm uninformed about some scientific process, then simply clarify and move on. It's really unfortunate that you think that everyone who disagrees with you must be mindless and ignorant (or at least you come off that way).

FerventGodSeeker
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Aqualung said:
One can value a living breathing child over a fetus while still believing that life begins at conception. If you are in a life and death situation, one will usually act emotionally. That doesn't mean that pro-life opinions are simply emotional.

Agreed and while I don`t believe that life begins at conception the potential life in 600 embryos could logically outweigh the actual life of one infant to the point where I might logically, rationally choose the embryos I would most probably choose the infant instinctively for emotional reasons and be able to live with it because I do not believe life begins at conception.

However this isn`t an emergency, those reading this thread have the time to weigh their thoughts and opinions and submit an answer.
Some on this thread have stated that they know it`s emotional and instinctual rather than logical but they would choose the infant anyway.

I can live with this answer because at the very least they see the irrationality in the choice.
 
linwood said:
If you truly do believe life begins at conception yet you would save the infant over six hundred embryos then the only logical conclusion remaining is that you find very little value in life created through invitro.
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.
This means there are ...I have no clue how many ..but thousands or hundreds of thousands of humans walking this earth who according to your standards are far less than human.
Not at all. Again, SOMEONE in this situation has to die. If I didn't choose the baby, you obviously wouldn't accuse me of thinking the baby is not valuable or human, so why do you do so with the other group?

Considering your answer to this puzzle there are only two logical choices here FGS..

1:You do not believe life begins at conception.
Untrue.

2: You believe life created through invitro is far less valuable than life created from "natural" conception.
Also not true. However, invitro is far more of an artificial prcess than a natural one, and a frozen undeveloping embryo will not naturally grow into an infant.


Again, 600 frozen embryos WILL INDEED BECOME MANY MANY HUMAN BEINGS!!
There is no way to twist that fact...they will become humans..many of them.
No, they won't necesarily. They first have to be defrosted and then aritificially inserted into a womb. If either of those steps is not taken or fails through an outside source, none of them will become breathing babies.

Your choice according to your beliefs (If you truly believe life begins at conception)is in fact sacrificing the many to save the one.
Sacrificing the many what, to save the one what? Sacrificing the many frozen undeveloping embryos to save the one already developing, breahtin and active child.

The only other possible reason for your choice is entirely illogical and irrational.
It is emotional and shows that you do not believe life begins at conception.

If you did you would not allow 600 embryos to burn
Of COURSE it's emotional, I'm in a burning building and I have to let either a bunch of embryos die or an infant die! What did you expect? However, just because it is based in part on emotion doesn't mean that it's totally illogical. 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
 
Top