This seems like a good idea...

Get a different job.

Anti-choicers don't care about the hundreds of frozen embryos because there isn't a woman to oppress yet

Come on, Tom, where's your sense of fun.
DO, one person suggested that the embryos be labelled 1000 white male embryos to make sure the appropriate parties actually care /snark

It's just a variation of the train switch problem of do you send it to collide with one person or a lot of them.

Save the kid.

Save the cheerleader.

I don't get it. Do places actually keep frozen fertilized eggs? That's highly unethical, in my point of view. But then again, I'm not exactly sure how en vitro fertilization works anyways.

Why is the five year old unattended? Why is a five year old in a fertility clinic in the first place? I think the five year old set the fire. If I were playing d&d I would cast true seeing. I'm more of a Call of Cthulhu player myself, so the embryos are probably tainted and I'd probably have to shoot the kid before it explodes into a mass of tentacles. SAN check!

How do you know the heat from the fire hasn't already melted the embryos?

The first rules of fire safety are to raise the alarm and get out.

Only tackle the fire if it is safe to do so.

Having got that important message out of the way, there are two reasons why "the original author suggests no one has had a satisfactory answer to [it] in ten years...".

Firstly, it's because it's b*ll*cks. The scenario is utterly unrealistic. If a small child was in a room already engulfed in flame they wouldn't have breath to be crying. Likewise, the frozen embryos will cease to be viable unless they continue to be kept an equivalent facility. So, unless there's another fertility clinic next door, they'll be toast anyway. What's happened to the fire sprinkler systems: This isn't 'The Towering Inferno' And why is the poor delivery driver in the heart of this complex? They deliver their parcel and the front desk and go to the next drop-off. If they're in the building, then there's been a gross failure of security somewhere.

Secondly, the actual answer to 'what would you do?' varies from individual to individual, according to their personal safety and risk preferences. So there isn't any one 'correct' answer. If the author has asked this question for so long without receiving a 'satisfactory response' then either everyone has just given abusive responses (unlikely) or else the author hasn't been listening to the responses that they've received. Each one will be valid (or 'satisfactory') from the respondent's perspective and any attempt to externally validate them is to completely miss the point of the exercise.

If the author wants to get 'satisfactory answers' then they need to frame a realistic scenario and then accept what they receive at face value. Then they'll be inundated.

Frozen embryos of what?

Is the child insured? Is it fat? Is it kind of snotty looking? How heavy is the freezer, and does it have wheels?

Obviously you save the child. Not sure what the point of this thought experiment is. It looks like you're trying to make a cheap point on abortion based upon a failed understanding of the arguments of the other side.

Fantastic dive there Dippy

Who do you choose, the kid or the 1000 embryos?

(By the way, the asker ha never gotten an answer from anti-choice types who invariably equivocate and try to weasel out of the question. Everyone else says "save the kid, duh. )

Are the embryos boys or girls?

It isn't a failed understanding. They're entirely clear on making embryos entirely equivalent with a child. The confirmed anti choices ought to let the five year old burn without question.

So the embryos are not human then? Serious question.

Not really, because all the fetuses are going to have a very hard time becoming functioning humans now that they've been locked in the freezer, so saving them won't do all that much good.

(to Ogion, not Steven)

Flum provides another dodge. Life begins at conception. Therefore they're exactly euquivalent of a kid, all thousand of them. (It's a fertility clinic and yes embryos must be frozen until Implantation.) Whether they'll be implanted is irrelevant isn't it? They're alive

Yes, they're human embryos. Another dodge. Still no one says "let the kid burn". Shows what people actually believe

I was right! This was a great idea.

Who's dodging? I answered, didn't I?

rofl

I dare say some might see embryos as equivalent to a five year old, although I've not come across that myself. What I do hear loud and clear is that they believe the embryos are the beginning of human life and destroying them is fundamentally wrong. I don't understand why so many of those in favour of the right to have abortions can't acknowledge this, and hide behind ridiculous arguments of misogyny.

I agree. I'm socially liberal on almost all things except for abortion, and I can't fathom why pro-choice people can never understand the concerns of the other side.

Instead they say it's sexist (even though more females get aborted) or make weird straw men like Ogion did saying that you must believe embryos are exactly equal to all other life if you believe they are human.

Why is this so hard to answer? Save the child and get out.
a) the child will feel pain; the embryos won't.
b) you will be a hero with photos of you holding saved child in all media; you will look a real nub trying to hold load of defrosted embryos in your hand.

Steven, yes. I missed that.

Because, Octavious, the arguments presented are so specious that misogyny is a pretty clear driver when the arguments advanced are so specious.

Flum, I think we understand the "concerns" but simply find that they don't hold water.

I think everyone pretty much recognizes that embryos aren't persons, yet the anti-choice brigade are trying to insist otherwise (but will never come out an say "let the child burn" here, which tells you what they actually believe). The "life begins at conception" is clearly either wrong or beside the point. (Carrots are alive. Does that make eating carrots wrong? Ok, so the "life" part isn't that relevant, so "human life?" Well cancer cells are human, and we kill them eagerly. Hell, brain dead people are human and no one but the most whacko see any point of keeping brain dead cadavers on life support.) The problem is that so may forced birther arguments are philosophically inconsistent. Given that, one assumes that some other motivation is what's driving this.

Not sure if it's worth debating with you but I'll give one more response.

Obviously you save the child and it doesn't prove any point that you think you're oh so clever in making. Saving the embryos will do very little in that situation, and the little it accomplishes isn't worth a 5 year old.
Plant and animal life are obviously less important than human life.
A cell of a human is obviously less important the the entire entity.