If you actually understand the concerns, why don't you guys ever address them?

This question makes the enormous assumption that all human life has the same value. It's very obviously a poor one and makes for a poor thought experiment.

You are forced to choose whether or not some amount and form of human life dies. Making a value judgment that 500 embryos are worth less than one infant doesn't require you to say that the embryos have no value or deserve no protection.

The reason the author "never got a good answer in 10 years of asking" is because he was never willing to entertain one.

In other words, Oggy, you find it easy to demonize the other side based on a few right wing stereotypes than attempting to understand the opposing points of view.

Try to save both and die a controversial news story.

Legislate, like most countries have done.

It might be interesting to save the freezer containing the embryos though. Picture Good Morning tele show. There you are with the smiling hosts, freezer at your side.
You tell the story, describing the hurt and sadness you felt as you left the screaming child to burn to death. How the sound still echoes in your ears. (cut away to photo of the child). You then go on to describe the agony of dragging the freezer through the corridors. How you had to go back to unplug it, again having to see the fear in the child's eyes as she implored you to help her. You explain how you managed to get the freezer out of the building and the difficulty you had getting it into your truck. You explain the fraught journey as you sought out a suitable container. Finally you explain the argument with the corner store when you insisted the shopkeeper empty the ice creams and frozen yogurts into the road to make way for your precious cargo.
The host beam at you, the audience gives a round of applause as all share their condolences with the child's parents.

I like Deeply Dippy's response. The scenario is an abstract concept constructed to suit some purpose, posing a philosophical dilemma.
My "simple" response is to say, save the child, leave the frozen embryos. Why ? The child is a living person. The frozen embryos are not. There is no certainty that any of the frozen embryos will become people, a possibility is not a certainty, countless things could prevent the frozen embryos from "becoming" people. Simply removing them from the "storage system" could lead to them being damaged.. Loss of refrigeration etc.
The child is "real", there's a risk in attempting to save the child, the risk of failure increases significantly in the scenario if you attempt to save more than the child.
So as a simple balance of choices and risks..least risk to self is to leave the child and get yourself to safety. Some real risk to self is attached to attempting to save the child, but there's a significant possible reward..saving a child. Trying to do more increases the risk to self and child. So in my view the "reasonable humanitarian" choice is, try to save the child.
I can't see why this is apparently regarded as such a difficult "philosophical dilemma". And there's other possibilities with this scenario, eg, can the person facing the choice hear fire engine sirens, hear or see firemen rushing into the building ? Is there a fire extinguisher handy ? What are they wearing..clothing that offers them some protection against the fire, or nylon shorts and a polyester shirt ? Are they a fit, physically capable person, or grossly obese with severe asthma, or physical disabilities ?

@MajorM They are fit. Certainly fit enough to drag a fully loaded freezer out of a building and load it, single handed, onto a truck.

Actually, Flum, you've just demonstrated the value of the exercise: It gets people to recognize that an embryo is not the same thing as a person and is less important. The rhetoric of "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" intentionally obscures that critical point in a highly illegitimate way. So yes, I'm addressing those "concerns" by demonstrating how ill founded they are.

Once you recognize that basic point, then the whole discussion becomes much clearer. Then it's clear that we're not discussing persons, we're discussing embryos and whether people should be required to place themselves at great personal risk to turn those into people. (Again, perhaps the most honest answer would be "try to save both and die" just as they expect others to do). We aren't and never have been talking about actual persons, but only hypothetical potential ones. That's a very different discussion than the ones the anti-choice forces want to make it.

@MM, all of the silly objections on other hypotheticals are just attempts to avoid the fundamental question. Imagine all of them however you want provided at the end you have a choice to make: 1,000 embryos or one five year old. (By the way, embryos are tiny. They can all fit in a single eppendorf tube in a thermos sized liquid nitrogen container. So yeah, easier to move than the five year, given most five year olds.) I guess none of you have ever set foot in a biology lab or understand how biology works.

It's not valuable and doesn't reveal anything knew. Everyone knows that in some very specific hypothetical situations sometimes some life has to be picked over others.
Would you save a newborn baby over a 10 year old kid who has his foot caught and is screaming in this burning building?

I imagine you'd save the kid for similar reasons as he's more conscious and self aware of what's going on, and more able to recognize they're in pain.
That doesn't mean that in 99% of the situations the baby's life would be worth saving.

Look. Is one embryo = one person, there is no question you save the thousand "people".

Of course it doesn't illuminate anything new in that we already new the "life begins at conception" etc arguments have always been a sham. It is useful in that is clearly exposes the sham. If you really believe these talking points, you wouldn't hesitate or try to distract the way you have. It'd be a clear and unequivocal "save the thousand tiny human persons!" No question. Yet no one ever chooses that.

The key is that in the picking, no one relies on the argument that embryos are equal people. No one does. That's because no one believes it.

You caught us. Pro lifers don't actually care about life and it's all secretly a ploy to keep women oppressed.

(Also, for like the thirtieth time an embryo being less important than a 5 year old in a very hypothetical scenario does not mean killing embryos freely is a morale thing to do.)

Use the Kobayashi Maru and rig the test so that the fire extinguishing system kicks on and the alarm system gets the fire department there in one minute as the emergency generator prevents the thawing of the embryos.

Thought experiment 2:  THE difference between men and women.

Scenario:  Major League Baseball - World Series, bottom of the 9th, and you're playing center field.  Suddenly a fly ball is coming your way - just over your head.  As you turn to go for it, you see an alligator creeping up on a baby in left-center..... What do you do?

Save the baby, dummy.  But:

"If a woman has to choose between catching a fly ball and saving an infant's life, she will choose to save the infant's life without even considering if there are men on base."

--- Comedian Dave Barry

A five year old doesnt know basic fire safety? Hes wandering aroumd a burning fertility clinic. Yea Id probably save the embryos because if were using triage, youd-save the most at risk and most valuable assests available.

The debate isnt if the embryos are people. Their value is greater scientifically than this pretty stupid kid

but the argument is obviously anti pro life as having the embryos in the first place is a violation of the whole concept of valuing life as to obtain them other embryos were destroyed.

oh and i am for the tax proposal that removes the tax deduction for state and local taxes. it is time that those high tax blue states start feeling the effects of voting in legislatures that pass those taxes that really only enrich themselves and their lap dog public unions

The embryos are easier to transport. I can save more of them. The kid is gonna involve a lot more work for significantly less gain. He will grow up to be Capt Brad and be some groping arsonist kid.

From a fiscal standpoint the embryos massively exceed the value of the child as well.

The kid will just follow me if hes got any common sense

Let's pose a different philosophical question to prove that "Gotcha" moments exist on both sides and are not helpful.

A woman is pregnant and gets tested to see whether her child will suffer any debilitating genetic diseases. In the course of the testing it is discovered - by chance - that her fetus' cells are capable of completely lossless, perfect mitosis even after being exposed to harmful radiation.

The doctors who tested her fetus are amazed. If this child is allowed to grow to maturity they would be the key to a breakthrough that would be guaranteed to include a cure for cancer and probably treatments for many other degenerative conditions like dementia, etc. The woman is not at risk from her pregnancy, she's completely healthy, but recently broke up with her boyfriend because he kept leaving the toilet seat up.

She says she wants to get an abortion just to spite him. Should she?

Give Oklahoma back to the Native Americans!

Assuming for the moment that the hypothetical is tenable (a doubtful proposition; false dilemmas bear that name for a reason), doesn't the likelihood of survival also play into this?

It's unclear that the embryos are going to survive the transfer process, or even that their chances of doing so are very good. The 5-year-old, on the other hand, has complete certainty of surviving just by getting out of the building. So: save hundreds just to have a good chance of their dying on your hands shortly thereafter (and end up saving no one at all), or be certain that you are losing hundreds but equally certain that you are saving one......? Yeah, I can't see how the 5-year-old could be a reasonable or consistent choice if you're a pro-lifer.

Someone please quote me so Ogion sees this since he probably muted me.

"Of course it doesn't illuminate anything new in that we already new the "life begins at conception" etc arguments have always been a sham. It is useful in that is clearly exposes the sham. If you really believe these talking points, you wouldn't hesitate or try to distract the way you have. It'd be a clear and unequivocal "save the thousand tiny human persons!" No question. Yet no one ever chooses that."

Your scenario necessarily requires some amount of loss of human life. The human life that is chosen to die is no less human and no less deserves protection under the law. There is nothing inconsistent in a pro-life position to say that embryos are simultaneously (a) human life and (b) less important than a young child, possibly even on a scale of thousands of embryos to one.

You are deliberately erroneously forcing a specific utilitarian argument -- that we should act to save as much life as possible and that every life is worth exactly the same -- onto the entirety of people who feel any degree of skepticism toward the idea that abortion access should be unrestricted. It is a stupid thought experiment and it's no wonder the author "hasn't received a good answer in 10 years" -- it's a terrible experiment.

No, anti-choicers don't actually care much about life, but that's another story. (If they did, they'd pull all their energy into dealing with climate change). More importantly the arguments they use are highly dishonest.

So we can through put all the "abortion is murder" and "life begins at conception" as specious nonsense

And point out that all these people (mostly men) want to subject women to a risk 25% greater than military face from combat (except that he military get pay and benefits, unlike mothers) because of some shaky theoretical commitment to potential quasi person who doesn't actually exist as a person.

Once you concede we aren't discussing actual persons, then it gets a whole lot less compelling as an argument

No, anti-lifers don't actually care about choice, but that's another story. (If they did, they'd pull all their energy into into the pro-gun lobby). More importantly the arguments they use are highly dishonest.

So we can through put all the "cells aren't alive" and "human life has no intrinsic worth" as specious nonsense

And point out that all these people (mostly unattractive) want to subject unborn children to a risk 99.102% greater than military face from combat (except that mothers get pay and benefits, unlike unborn children) because of some shaky theoretical commitment to the flighty, murderous whims of careless individuals who don't actually exist as responsible adults.

Once you concede we aren't discussing sensible adults, then it gets a whole lot less compelling as an argument

I like how you keep calling pro-life anti-choice. I should start calling your side anti-life.
Good luck pushing your conspiracy theory that pro-lifers secretly don't care about life and that they're all secretly evil. I suspect most people will just look at you funny.

It would be nice if you actually responded to what people were saying though.

Although I notice the trend with you is to ignore people's posts. (Is it because you don't have any good response?)
Man I wish you realized how silly you look most of the time.

Choose life.


















I chose not to choose life.
I chose something else...