Hypothetical:
You are trapped in a burning building with a five year-old child and a freezer with three embryos that are supposed to be implanted in a woman's uterus tomorrow. You can't carry the embryos and the child at the same time. You have to choose either 3 embryo babies or one five year old child. Who do you save and why?
The 5 year old!!
ReplyDeleteWhy?
ReplyDeleteAnd yeah yeah yeah the embryos are alive, but if I had to make that absurd choice, I would not leave the 5 year old in the building to burn.
ReplyDeleteBecause the 5 year old would scream and cry and burn to his torturous death and the embryos would just poof away with no suffering.
ReplyDeleteSo one human is then more important than another?
ReplyDeleteWell you asked who I would save and only gave me the choice to save one, so I chose the one I would save and explained why. Who would you save?
ReplyDeleteI don't know, honestly, yet.
ReplyDeleteI just pose the questions. :) And then additional questions, as they come up.
Well if I was REALLY in a burning building with a 5 year old and a tank of embryos, I would not hesitate to save the 5 year old
ReplyDeletecan't you just toss the tank out of the window, breaking the glass and then jump with the 5 year old into the waiting fire trampoline below?
ReplyDeleteNow do you understand why my Ethics professor hated me?
Ok, fine. Turn it up a notch. The embryos are yours. The 5 year old is not.
ReplyDeleteI'd still save the 5 yr old. My reason is that the five year old would feel fear as s/he was being burned alive, and the embryos, while they might(?) suffer, would not have the same consciousness of what was coming. I couldn't leave someone to go through that.
ReplyDeleteSo a person without consciousness is not the same as a person with. What if it was the embryos or an elderly person suffering from dementia?
ReplyDeleteA person without *fear* is not the same. I have no idea if embryos have a consciousness, I just said it's not the same consciousness. When it comes down to what *I* can live with as the person making the decision, I couldn't live with choosing the potential for a life (and by that I mean a life being LIVED, not just "life". Embryos may be alive but there's no guarantee they would take to a woman's uterus and grow to be born) over a life that was already in action. I'd choose the elderly person with dementia.
ReplyDeleteThis is somewhat related but I saw this show last night where the parents desparately want a girl baby. One mom had 4 boys and was 41 (my age) and was on her 3rd round of this procedure. She ended up getting one female embryo (?) or whatever, but it didn't implant. Right before the doctor came in, he said "and you want the others destroyed right?" and they nonchalantly said "yes". I believe they were 8 day old embryos because that was the time needed to tell if it was male or female. I just couldn't do that, but obviously they don't believe you get what you get. The mother was VERY negative and cried in front of her poor little boy who was like 6. Can you imagine, "Mommy loves you boys, but what she REALLY wants is a little girl"
ReplyDeleteGeez.
PS, my word verification was "ovcyst"!
ReplyDeleteWow. I have no other words.
ReplyDeleteUgh, that does such damage to kids, hearing stuff like that! My grandmother risked her life to have her fourth child, hoping it would be a boy, because as she says "a mother doesn't have a child until she has a boy." !!!!!
ReplyDeleteYes, the embryos are (insert appropriate word here) real, alive, etc. However, they are not living, breathing, etc.
ReplyDeleteI would save the 5 year old.
I hate ethics questions.
Wait. who is the 5 year old?
I would save the 5 year old or the elderly woman. Although 3 embryos are living human beings, I have a hard time thinking anyone would stop for a second and save the embryos over a 5 year old or an elderly woman. AND, I believe God would forgive us for making that choice. Now change that to 3 crying babies in a crib....THAT would be a heck of a choice to have to make. I'd probably just comfort the kids and have us all burn together. I wouldn't be able to live with choosing.
ReplyDeleteSo you're all saying that even though you agree the embryos are "alive"...one life is more important than the other. The 5 year old could collapse and die the moment you get him/her out of the building. You say there's no guarantee the embryos would make it...there's never a guarantee ANYONE makes it.
ReplyDeleteIt's either a life worth saving, or it's not.
So if you choose the 3 embryos over the 5 year old, what does that make you? Why should 3 embryos be saved over the 5 year old? Because they're newer life? (I'll have to check back later. I have so much to do).
ReplyDeleteAnd this is a very interesting hypothetical, btw. :)
ReplyDeleteSorry for the 3 comments in a row. :) I just wanted to add, because of your last comment, that if you ask me to risk MY life for the 5 year old and the 3 embryos, I would do it. I think all of those lives are worth saving.... just what makes choosing one over the other "right"?
ReplyDeleteI like the question too! Its a good one! But what I dont get is arguing everyones points without having a side of your own (or playing D A). We stated why we would do what we would do, and shouldnt that be good enough?
ReplyDeleteOr maybe thats the point of this blog? lol
Yeah, it's mainly just a discussion blog. I don't have an opinion on everything.
ReplyDeleteYes, the life I can see, touch, talk to, and imagine screaming in fear is the one I would consider more worth *saving*. Not worth more, in and of itself, but more worth saving in THIS scenario.
ReplyDeleteDid you never talk to your children in utero?
ReplyDeleteI didn't
ReplyDeleteI will rephrase: "have a conversation with", and yes, this would apply even to a non-verbal person as I could still have a back-and-forth communication with them. And yes, I would still save someone who was catatonic. Have I covered all the exits NOW??? ;-)
ReplyDelete