The Embryos or the Infant

[ppp]

To those who call them selves Pro-Lifers:

There is a container of 1000 frozen embryos due for implantation tomorrow morning, and a two month old infant grinning and burbling cuteness. There is some disaster and due to a freak confluence of circumstance you can only save one -- the container or the infant. Which do you choose? Or do you leave them all to be destroyed like some Social Darwinist?

Note #1: With current medical technology, about 250 of the embryos will successfully implant.
Note #2: For those to whom such things are important, all of the parents are lithe, blond haired and blue eyed.

 

[Nakosis]

To those who call them selves Pro-Lifers:

There is a container of 1000 frozen embryos due for implantation tomorrow morning, and a two month old infant grinning and burbling cuteness. There is some disaster and due to a freak confluence of circumstance you can only save one -- the container or the infant. Which do you choose? Or do you leave them all to be destroyed like some Social Darwinist?

Note #1: With current medical technology, about 250 of the embryos will successfully implant.
Note #2: For those to whom such things are important, all of the parents are lithe, blond haired and blue eyed.

Or which would you purposely destroy?

Otherwise 50/50, who you save. No guarantee the two month old is going to make it to adulthood but at least they avoided all of the risks with the birthing process.
However, how many of the 250 will make it through the birthing process and all of the way to adulthood?

I could go either way as long as I'm not the source/choice of whatever destroys them.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Texas cares more about the embryos because they treat abortion as a crime but do nothing to protect school children from being shot in school.

 

[ppp]

I could go either way as long as I'm not the source/choice of whatever destroys them.

So, you would be fine with saving embryos and leaving an infant to burn in a fire. Interesting.

 

[Windwalker]

To those who call them selves Pro-Lifers:

There is a container of 1000 frozen embryos due for implantation tomorrow morning, and a two month old infant grinning and burbling cuteness. There is some disaster and due to a freak confluence of circumstance you can only save one -- the container or the infant. Which do you choose? Or do you leave them all to be destroyed like some Social Darwinist?

Note #1: With current medical technology, about 250 of the embryos will successfully implant.
Note #2: For those to whom such things are important, all of the parents are lithe, blond haired and blue eyed.

That's a damn good question. If life begins at conception, and there are 1000 "unborn babies" and only one live baby, do you let that live baby die to save 1000 frozen unborn babies? Interesting moral dilemma. I'd love to hear the answer to that.

 

[crossfire]

I don't know about you, but I'm saving the 2 month old cutie. (But I'm one of those evil pro-choice people, so I must be saving the infant for some malicious reason.)

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. and a two month old infant grinning and burbling cuteness.
Note #2: For those to whom such things are important, all of the parents are lithe, blond haired and blue eyed.

The infant.
#2 is racist. Wish, others also were represented. Nothing for the browns there.
Creating embryos is not difficult.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't know about you, but I'm saving the 2 month old cutie. (But I'm one of those evil pro-choice people, so I must be saving the infant for some malicious reason.)

<<<THIS>>>​

 

[Twilight Hue]

Texas cares more about the embryos because they treat abortion as a crime but do nothing to protect school children from being shot in school.

How about shooting embryos? See how ridiculous that is?

This comparison of guns has nothing to do with pro life ot pro choice issues.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Note #2: For those to whom such things are important, all of the parents are lithe, blond haired and blue eyed.

So the op is nothing more but a race issue to you?

 

[ppp]

So the op is nothing more but a race issue to you?

Nope. I am not one "For those to whom such things are important..." But it seems to be a thing for about a fifth of pro-lifers.

 

[pearl]

I think the premise of the OP is not logical. At no time would a two month old baby be in the same vicinity as the embryos. Better would be two containers of embryos and you can only carry one to safety. You also show no understanding of a pro-life position.

 

[Nakosis]

So, you would be fine with saving embryos and leaving an infant to burn in a fire. Interesting.

Since either choice has "moral" issues, I resort to practicality. So the potential of 1 reaching adulthood vs 250 reaching adulthood.
I'd likely flip a coin in my head and go with whichever "came up" with no regrets.

To save either is a "good" thing. You set the conditions of only saving one is possible. Not my fault the conditions are such that they are.

 

[crossfire]

I think the premise of the OP is not logical. At no time would a two month old baby be in the same vicinity as the embryos. Better would be two containers of embryos and you can only carry one to safety. You also show no understanding of a pro-life position.

Alright, you get to save any breathing human being or the 1000 blastocytes. (I'd go for saving the breathing person over saving the 1000 blastocytes.)

 

[ppp]

Since either choice has "moral" issues, I resort to practicality. So the potential of 1 reaching adulthood vs 250 reaching adulthood.
I'd likely flip a coin in my head and go with whichever "came up" with no regrets.

To save either is a "good" thing. You set the conditions of only saving one is possible. Not my fault the conditions are such that they are.

I don't agree with your valuation, but I am not complaining. You gave a straightforward answer without trying to weasel around, nor wheedle about the terms. And you gave your reasons. I appreciate that. Many people, such as @pearl, could learn something about having the courage of one's convictions.