An moral and ethical conundrum for those who believe that human life begins at conception..........................

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,597
Here's the hypothesis.
Imagine that you have been recently been incapacitated by a broken arm. You are currently visiting the IVF fertility which holds a frozen supply of human embryos belonging to you and your partner. A huge fire suddenly breaks out. As you race to the exit and safety you pass a doorway where you see a two-year-old infant crying hysterically. As you stop to lift her and carry her to safety you spot a container labelled "1000 viable frozen embryos belonging to ...................." - your name is on the jar. You realise that with your one good arm you can either lift the infant and carry her to safety or you can save the embryos, but you cannot carry both, and you realise that there will not be time to return a second time.
Do you save the infant or the embryos?
The correct answer is to find a fat man and push him onto the fire, thereby extinguishing it.
 


talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,680
If you want to be led by the nose then knock yourself out.
I'm betting you won't be able to justify your answers here either.:)
No, you're a coward. Abortion is an issue related to ethics, obviously, and if you want to discuss it, and convince people to your point of view (as you appear to), you have to be prepared to discuss ethical issues. But when anyone puts a difficult ethical issue to you, you say "don't be silly, that would never happen" and you run away from answering. But if you actually have clear principles on this, you shouldn't be afraid to answer.

So, simple question, you have a choice - save 10 frozen embryos or one born baby, what's your answer?
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,272
There is no logical answer.

There are 2 possible answers. I'd save the embryos since they are mine. Why should I save some infant that the parents cared so little about that it was left alone?
A weird choice by any standard, but was the decision motivated by Darwinism or the DUP? :)
 

Munnkeyman

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
6,992
It's right for you.

And that's what a free society is all about.

Like you, I'd save my own.

Why save the infant? It could belong to Shinners or some other reprobates.
When I (and my Munnkey embryo army) conquer the world I'd have you working in the mines. Your embryos then wouldn't be worth saving unless you'd want them to work there with you. I don't really know if embryos are any good at mining...
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,597
Exactly.

Is the point of the OP a desperate attempt to portray that because many people would save the infant that it's OK to kill embryos via abortion?
The point of the OP is pretty clear - it's an argument against the idea that an embryo is morally equivalent to an infant.

If it was, one would be entitled, or perhaps obliged, to save the jar.

But since that's clearly a ludicrous view, this suggests that the embryo (indeed, very man embryos) are of less moral importance than a single infant.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
A weird choice by any standard, but was the decision motivated by Darwinism or the DUP? :)
What's weird about saving your own flesh and blood?

Say there were 2 infants there - your own infant plus the other one from your scenario. Which one would you save?
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
The point of the OP is pretty clear - it's an argument against the idea that an embryo is morally equivalent to an infant.

If it was, one would be entitled, or perhaps obliged, to save the jar.

But since that's clearly a ludicrous view, this suggests that the embryo (indeed, very man embryos) are of less moral importance than a single infant.
What is ludicrous about that view?
 

raetsel

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
9,272
The correct answer is to find a fat man and push him onto the fire, thereby extinguishing it.
Wrong answer and not very smart. Don't you know how combustible fat is? It would be like trying to extinguish a fire with packet of zip firelighters. Darwin had people like you figured out as well. :)
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
But the embryos belong to you.
Even if the embryo is my last chance of fatherhood and the two year old is a deaf, dumb and blind offspring of the OP’er and Cyp - the kid gets saved.
It has zero relevance to any current debate. Some people think it’s not only relevant but actually think it’s a good point. Some people are not very bright.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,597
What is ludicrous about that view?
Most people, in a situation like that, would opt to save the infant, rather than the jar.

I take it you have the strong intuition that one ought to leave the child to die and save the jar instead?
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
No, you're a coward. Abortion is an issue related to ethics, obviously, and if you want to discuss it, and convince people to your point of view (as you appear to), you have to be prepared to discuss ethical issues. But when anyone puts a difficult ethical issue to you, you say "don't be silly, that would never happen" and you run away from answering. But if you actually have clear principles on this, you shouldn't be afraid to answer.

So, simple question, you have a choice - save 10 frozen embryos or one born baby, what's your answer?

I choose the embryos. The OP said that they are mine.

If the infant was mine and the embryos weren't, I'd save the infant.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Most people, in a situation like that, would opt to save the infant, rather than the jar.

I take it you have the strong intuition that one ought to leave the child to die and save the jar instead?

Did you read the OP in full? The embryos are mine. The infant isn't. I'd save the embryos.

Let the infant's parents save the infant.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,680
The point of the OP is pretty clear - it's an argument against the idea that an embryo is morally equivalent to an infant.

If it was, one would be entitled, or perhaps obliged, to save the jar.

But since that's clearly a ludicrous view, this suggests that the embryo (indeed, very man embryos) are of less moral importance than a single infant.
It needn't come down to who is "morally equivalent" though. The infant is here, it has made it through a whole lot of circumstances that might have seen its demise, none of the embryos are certain to reach that stage.
 

Beachcomber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2010
Messages
10,843
Here's the hypothesis.
Imagine that you have been recently been incapacitated by a broken arm. You are currently visiting the IVF fertility which holds a frozen supply of human embryos belonging to you and your partner. A huge fire suddenly breaks out. As you race to the exit and safety you pass a doorway where you see a two-year-old infant crying hysterically. As you stop to lift her and carry her to safety you spot a container labelled "1000 viable frozen embryos belonging to ...................." - your name is on the jar. You realise that with your one good arm you can either lift the infant and carry her to safety or you can save the embryos, but you cannot carry both, and you realise that there will not be time to return a second time.
Do you save the infant or the embryos?


If I'm an abortion doctor with only one good arm can I smash the infant's head in, then destroy the jar and embryos, just to make sure that all inconvenient children have no chance of surviving?

That would be in line with my calling.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,597
Did you read the OP in full? The embryos are mine. The infant isn't. I'd save the embryos.

Let the infant's parents save the infant.
I did read it.

Most people would prioritize the life of another person's child over a jar of their own embryos.

You appear to have highly unusual intuitions in this case. To put it charitably.
 

Munnkeyman

Moderator
Joined
Jul 14, 2010
Messages
6,992
I did read it.

Most people would prioritize the life of another person's child over a jar of their own embryos.

You appear to have highly unusual intuitions in this case. To put it charitably.
But MY jars of cells!!! MINE!!!
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
87,597
It needn't come down to who is "morally equivalent" though. The infant is here, it has made it through a whole lot of circumstances that might have seen its demise, none of the embryos are certain to reach that stage.
I don't think that's relevant. If there are enough embryos it might be the case that some of them actually have more of a chance of making it to adulthood than the infant.

Indeed, if we extend that logic it would suggest that given the choice between saving a healthy child and a sick one from a fire, we should save the healthy one.
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,124
Last edited:


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top