So, the biggest question on the rise from abortionists.

[Mozart's Starling]

You're in a burning building and there is a single 5 year old child vs 10 embryos. Which do you save? You can only save one or the other. Now this is not a question that implicates the embryos are meaningless even if you would choose the child. If you were to pay me 20,000 million dollars to destroy a SINGLE embryo I would not do it. If I had a pregnant woman vs a man I'd save the woman every time. I am not asking this to poke a hole or anything. Abortion is evil and this in no way justifies it. I am 100% pro life and was glad Roe V Wade was taken down. I ask it in case this question is brought up to us in real life. Any thoughts? There's also things to consider like the child has a family will feel pain. I just want a single BAM answer to this scenario to shut it down before it catches on. Best to be prepared for all tricks of Satan imo.

Edited September 17, 2023 by Mozart's Starling

[believeinHim]

A man should save a woman every time, pregnant or not, albeit, I think we are way past that, 

[The_Patriot21]

Wow...thats a wild hypothetical scenario/question. Like...way out there...and it can play out multiple ways depending on the situation. Are we talking fertilized embryo or non?

If it's non fertilized...then what is the point of the discussion? They're not alive-yet. So the choice is obviously the 5 year old.

If it's fertilized embryos...well, assuming they're outside of the womb...they have to be stored properly. and transported properly. Though, with how tiny they are, you could realistically carry them and the 5 year old, but unless you could get them into cold storage immediately, they wouldn't live long. So the answer there is, grab the 5 year old. You can of course pocket the embryos, but they're likely a lost cause anyway.

Now if they're still in the wombs...how about just lead all 10 pregnant women out. Most pregnant women are indeed capable of walking. Rescue the 5 year old. 

Logically that's the way it works out best in each scenario. it's kinda ridiculous scenario, but logically that's really the proper answer(s)

 

[Mozart's Starling]

42 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Wow...thats a wild hypothetical scenario/question. Like...way out there...and it can play out multiple ways depending on the situation. Are we talking fertilized embryo or non?

If it's non fertilized...then what is the point of the discussion? They're not alive-yet. So the choice is obviously the 5 year old.

If it's fertilized embryos...well, assuming they're outside of the womb...they have to be stored properly. and transported properly. Though, with how tiny they are, you could realistically carry them and the 5 year old, but unless you could get them into cold storage immediately, they wouldn't live long. So the answer there is, grab the 5 year old. You can of course pocket the embryos, but they're likely a lost cause anyway.

Now if they're still in the wombs...how about just lead all 10 pregnant women out. Most pregnant women are indeed capable of walking. Rescue the 5 year old. 

Logically that's the way it works out best in each scenario. it's kinda ridiculous scenario, but logically that's really the proper answer(s)

 

Oh it's entirely ridiculous to consider but I've seen it going around caused a big stir with some groups and I know one day I'm gonna run into the dude who discovered it and have to answer it lol. I always mentally prepare for the worst. Thanks for your thoughts on it.  The argument I ran into was just embryos vs 5 year old the details weren't on whether they were fertilized etc just one or the other. Just keep an eye out for the absurdity you might have to confront lol.

Edited September 18, 2023 by Mozart's Starling

[The_Patriot21]

14 minutes ago, Mozart's Starling said:

Oh it's entirely ridiculous to consider but I've seen it going around caused a big stir with some groups and I know one day I'm gonna run into the dude who discovered it and have to answer it lol. I always mentally prepare for the worst. Thanks for your thoughts on it.  The argument I ran into was just embryos vs 5 year old the details weren't on whether they were fertilized etc just one or the other. Just keep an eye out for the absurdity you might have to confront lol.

Realistically it's a weak attempt to recreate the "if there's a train going towards a Y in the tracks, on the left there's a single child, on the right there's 10 adults, which do you save by choosing the trains direction" scenario.

Of course, any intelligent person would just stop the train but, you know. 

Personally unless I felt the pro choice person was someone who could be reasoned with, I wouldn't even give them the time of day if they presented me with a scenario like this. And, let's face it, if they're presenting a scenario like this, they likely can't be reasoned with. They're just trying to trip you up. Best not to fall in that trap.

[kwikphilly]

Blessings  .

I'm not even sure how I feel about frozen embryos to begin with-If they are not fertilized then what? Are they like wasted sperm?(Gen 38:8-9)

I agree with @Mozart's Starling that life is life & its precious but what I don't understand is the eggs on ice,sort of like hoarding or playing God.. I often wonder if it is Pleasing to God?

I'm not talking about women that cannot conceive naturally but about women that may or may not want children in the future,when it's convenient for them or some other selfish reasoning..like Onan who did not want to give his brother offspring

I know I'm off Topic,it's just something I've considered many times......all the unused embryos that perhaps God's Plan was different than what man chose..just my thoughts,questions

With love in Christ,Kwik

[Deborah_]

If they are emryos, then they must be fertilised (otherwise, they would be frozen ova/eggs).

But they can't survive and develop into people unless they are implanted into wombs - and even then, probably most will not develop or will be lost through miscarriage. Sadly, most frozen embryos end up being destroyed because they are "surplus to requirements".

So the logical choice is to save the 5-year-old.

[Who me]

12 hours ago, Mozart's Starling said:

You're in a burning building and there is a single 5 year old child vs 10 embryos. Which do you save? You can only save one or the other.

The child is already living, the frozen  embryos  are only potential life.

But throw the question back at them.

                                             When does an unborn baby become human?

Science  says life begins  at fertilisation, so what evidence do they have to support there view?

[Tristen]

My first instinct would be to declare that the hypothetical scenario is placing me in the unfortunate position of choosing between two groups of living humans. Therefore, to me, the general dilemma is akin to saying, "There are two groups of 5-year-old children. You can only save one group. Which do you choose, and why?". The answer would not be related to the human dignity of either group.

 

The fact that the hypothetical scenario articulates two distinct groups of living humans actually makes it easier to answer. It has already been discussed that if the choice was between a male and female, most would choose to save the female. Most people would save children over adults if given the aweful choice.

Therefore, when the question is between distinct groups of living humans, there are always externalities to consider - which are not logically related to the human value of either group. That fact undermines the purpose of the scenario - which is to falsely suggest that choosing one group over the other means that the second group is somehow less human. Selecting to save a woman instead of a man does not logically entail that the man has less human value than the woman. Selecting to save a child instead of an adult does not logically entail that the adult has less human value than the child.

In other words, we can make a valid decision without implying that one human has less human value than the other. And since that false implication is the purpose of the scenario, the logic is undone without having to give an answer. In terms of it's goal, the scenario stalls before it starts.

 

However, if you wanted to give an answer, you could discuss the externalities that might influence your choice to save one group of humans over another. For example:

What is the assigned purpose and probable destiny of the embryos? What is the likelihood that each embryo will achieve successful impregnation (assuming that is their purpose)? - Then you can compare those to the fact that the 5-year-olds have already overcome such obstacles to progress to early development, and that there are significant emotional and material resources that have been expended promoting the survival of each 5-year-old. What will the emotional and societal impact be on selecting one group over the other?

It would be terrible to have to choose one human over another, but if we are placed in that unfortunate position, there are factors that can contribute to a valid decision - none of which deride the fundamental human dignity of either group.

 

[Tristen]

On 9/18/2023 at 1:14 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

If it's non fertilized...then what is the point of the discussion? They're not alive-yet. So the choice is obviously the 5 year old.

 

On 9/18/2023 at 4:48 PM, kwikphilly said:

I'm not even sure how I feel about frozen embryos to begin with-If they are not fertilized then what? Are they like wasted sperm?(Gen 38:8-9)

 

On 9/18/2023 at 5:01 PM, Deborah_ said:

If they are emryos, then they must be fertilised (otherwise, they would be frozen ova/eggs).

 

On 9/18/2023 at 6:53 PM, Who me said:

The child is already living, the frozen  embryos  are only potential life.

Embryos are an early stage of human development that happens after fertilization. Embryos are (diploid) humans - not just (haploid) sperm or eggs. They meet every reasonable criteria of a living human - which is why the question is being asked by pro-abortionists - they are trying to insinuate that even we anti-abortionists would treat them as non-human if put in this absurd position.

But their logic doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.