How come people don’t just say they will save the embryos insthead of the other person?
I’m not following.
You know, the one about the toddler and the hundred embyros in the burning building.
Yeah that one!
(The exclamation mark is too much isn’t it)
Because they wouldn’t. The article lays out the reasons pretty clearly.
Because the only answer is to save the child.
The question is a trick question. It is trying to make pro-life people look like hypocrites. Yet the fundamental inability to protect tiny children in a freezer is one of many reasons IVF is immoral.
The grievous sin if putting the children in the freezer in the first place precludes ever rescuing them should disaster strike.
Is a baby a toddler? Is a toddler a teenager? Is a teenager an adult? Is an adult a senior citizen? The answer to all is “no.” They all look different and they are all at different stages of development. BUT they are all persons, they are all human beings, and killing them is murder.
A human being is a human being regardless of their stage of development. Therefore, abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. No civilized society should allow it.
Mostly because the burning building scenario is stupid. The premise of the question is attempting to box the person into a situation where they have to make a subjective decision on what they would do given two potentially bad consequences, saving a toddler or fertilized embryos in a burning building, and then trying to make the claim that the fact the person had to make a subjective decision to save one or the other demonstrates that destroying babies early on in the development process is somehow still a moral or ethical decision. First, the situation is irrelevant to the question of abortion. In the scenario, a person involuntarily is being thrust into a situation where they must take action to prevent one of two negative consequences from occurring. The nature of this question (taking action to prevent one of two tragic outcomes) is fundamentally different than voluntarily making the decision to do something that is fundamentally evil (murdering a child). Second, my subjective decision to save one or the other is not a commentary on the value of one life over another. If we change the math of this scenario for example and say that instead of being forced to choose between a toddler and fertilized embryos, and say instead that you are forced to choose between saving your wife or your child, the answer to the question doesn’t mean that the wife or the child holds more value than the other. Fundamentally, this whole line of questioning is a useless exercise that demonstrates nothing of value.
Again, voluntarily choosing to murder a child of any level of development is evil.
Exactly. The scenario is a ‘When did you stop beating your wife’ question. Star Trek defined it as Kobayashi Maru
Our culture, generally speaking, has lost the ability to think coherently. And where reason is gone, we have unreason. Chaos. Disorder. Oppression.
We have many people that don’t know what the word “human” means.
And can’t distinguish between a same sex union and the marriage of a man and woman.
And can’t even acknowledge simple sexual differentiation in the human person.
“and their senseless minds were darkened”
It certainly boggles the mind what some people consider as a “compelling argument” in support of abortion.
I think they allow you to defy the laws of physics when it comes to carrying the thing the embryos in.
The preclusion from being able to protect the embryos is not a matter of physics. It is about conflicting moral duties. A pro-life individual opposes keeping children in freezers for the same reason he is sicken by a toddler burning to death. The embryos are in mortal jeopardy whether or not there is a fire due to the unnatural circumstances of their conception and storage. Many thousands of people sinned to create a situation where a thousand children may die in a freak fire at the fertility clinic. The pro-life position rejects mindset that is the central premise of the question.
So it proves nothing that a compassion individual heroically saves a screaming child to save it from pain. The fact that the question can be asked proves the foreseeable danger of ignoring the pro-life position!
Because it’s a simple one to flip.
For example: You have a five year old, terrified and crying in a fire with an infant. In order to save the infant, you have to pass the 5 year old. You don’t have time to save both. What do you do?
Do you run past the 5 year old? Do you save the 5 year old first and leave the infant?
These are so called “can’t win” situations. Personally, I would try to save both, even if they told me there wasn’t time to save both.
Here’s another situation: your 5 year old child is caught in a fire and to save him/her, you have to run past a stranger’s set of twin babies. What do you do? And what if you need to be able to carry your 5 year old because he/she broke her leg on a beam that fell from the ceiling? Do you save the baby twins and let your child watch in horror as you turn you back on your own kid to rescue the twins? Or do you leave the twins to die in order to save your own child?
These are gut wrenching situations that are not part of the normal course of everyday life. People respond with instinct.
However, with abortion - the situation isn’t as drastic. Yes, some young women are under emotional duress, but it’s still not a reason to justify cold blooded murder, which is exactly what abortion is (esp 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions).
BTW - I agree with Captain Kirk, the Kobayashi Maru isn’t a fair test.