Interesting Moral Dilemma for Pro-Lifers (reject, abortion, Zen)

[linwood]

I just found this hypothetical situation posted over at iidb.

Thought it was an interesting moral dilemma.

Let's say you have a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, you have an infant in a crib. In the other room you have a cannister in the freezer containing 600 frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization. You only have time for one stop. Do you save the infant or do you save the 600 embryos? If you believe that human embryos are equivalent to 600 human lives, shouldn't you choose to save the 600 embryos instead of the infant? If not, why not?

[Bishka]

The infant, because that infant is already alive, and kicking.

Why the infant, I'm not sure, and you'll say that's a cop-out and not a good answer, but I believe the living child's life to be of more worth then the 600 embryos.

[FerventGodSeeker]

Originally Posted by linwood

Let's say you have a fire at a fertility clinic. In one room, you have an infant in a crib. In the other room you have a cannister in the freezer containing 600 frozen embryos intended for in vitro fertilization. You only have time for one stop. Do you save the infant or do you save the 600 embryos? If you believe that human embryos are equivalent to 600 human lives, shouldn't you choose to save the 600 embryos instead of the infant? If not, why not?

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

[linwood]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

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

An embryo has already been fertilized.
The only thing left to do is implant it into a womans womb and wait 9 months.

It is a dilemma

[Bishka]

Originally Posted by linwood

An embryio has already been fertilized.
The only thing left to do is implant it into a womans womb and wait 9 months.

It is a dilemma

But we have no idea if that woman's womb will even take it, it could be rejected, but I'm still saving the child.

[linwood]

But we have no idea if that woman's womb will even take it, it could be rejected, but I'm still saving the child.

That same argument works for abortion.

There is no way to know if the fetus will be viable, miscarry, or be horribly mutilated .

Edit:
Also, the odds of 600 embryos being rejected are immensely improbable.

You`re bound to have more lives created with that one canister than a single infant

[Ody]

How would i be able to carry 600 embryos?

[linwood]

Originally Posted by AlanGurvey

How would i be able to carry 600 embryos?

They`re contained in a single canister.

I think I need to define "embryo" here.

em·bryo

1 a archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching

b : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conception

For the sake of this topic these embryos are nothing more than fertilized eggs.


Editted to include a better broader definition.
(Thanks Sunstone)

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

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

I believe you are mistaking "embryo" for the human egg or something along those lines. Embryos, by definition, are already fertilized. From conception to the third month of development, the developing human is called an embryo. After that, it's a fetus.