Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because you, and I, and just about everyone here, except for one (weird) person who responded to this, knows damned well we'd run to and save the one child over the embryos in this hypothetical situation. Don't tell me you wouldn't.
There are many reasons (practical, ethical or personal) why people may choose to save the 5-year-old child.
Aussiehoff is pointing out that not all are incompatible with the pro-life world view. Therefore, that the OP's argument doesn't work.
Unless you can prove him wrong, the most you can do with the poll is to play 'gotcha' with pro-life advocates who don't have much experience discussing ethics. However, that needs follow-up questionnaires and analysis, which I doubt is what the OP had in mind.
There are many reasons (practical, ethical or personal) why people may choose to save the 5-year-old child.
Aussiehoff is pointing out that not all are incompatible with the pro-life world view. Therefore, that the OP's argument doesn't work.
Unless you can prove him wrong, the most you can do with the poll is to play 'gotcha' with pro-life advocates who don't have much experience discussing ethics. However, that needs follow-up questionnaires and analysis, which I doubt is what the OP had in mind.
Fire in a hospital, only enough fire suppressant to use in one ward, pediatrics where there is only one toddler (possibly the same kid from the OP's question, they're having a bad day) or the ward containing 100 terminally ill cancer patients. Which ward do you direct the suppressant to?
Fire in a hospital, only enough fire suppressant to use in one ward, pediatrics where there is only one toddler (possibly the same kid from the OP's question, they're having a bad day) or the ward containing 100 terminally ill cancer patients. Which ward do you direct the suppressant to?
This isn't a dilemma over the ethics of personhood, nor is it an analogy for the fertility clinic scenario.
Why don't you try asking a question that is relevant to the thread?
Last edited by Hightower72; 05-22-2019 at 03:08 PM..
Reason: rollback edits
This isn't a dilemma over the ethics of personhood, nor is it an analogy for the fertility clinic scenario.
You don't you try asking a question that is relevant to the thread?
Actually I was attempting to expand upon your comment that how one votes isn't necessarily indicative of one's perception of the embryo's status as "living" by presenting another scenario by which one's answer to save many vs few is based on many different values and to make an assumption based purely on the answer without knowing the values that went into that decision (e.g. by doing the opposite and assuming values based on the answer) can lead to misrepresentations of those values.
Sorry if you don't think it's apropos for this thread.
Actually I was attempting to expand upon your comment that how one votes isn't necessarily indicative of one's perception of the embryo's status as "living" by presenting another scenario by which one's answer to save many vs few is based on many different values and to make an assumption based purely on the answer without knowing the values that went into that decision (e.g. by doing the opposite and assuming values based on the answer) can lead to misrepresentations of those values.
Sorry if you don't think it's apropos for this thread.
The issue is that many pro-lifers believe that embryos feel pain just like a child does.
Fire in a hospital, only enough fire suppressant to use in one ward, pediatrics where there is only one toddler (possibly the same kid from the OP's question, they're having a bad day) or the ward containing 100 terminally ill cancer patients. Which ward do you direct the suppressant to?
The kid - 100 terminal cancer patients have less likely total life span than the one kid.
The issue is that many pro-lifers believe that embryos feel pain just like a child does.
This discussion gets to be absurd. The initial set of cells that may, or may not, develop into a human have no intellect or capability of feeling anything. They are potential human but not there yet.
There is a more interesting argument which is when in the process is the human line crossed. The far anti suggest at conception which is absurd. The US legality suggests when the are viable outside the womb which may prove treacherous as the medical arts progress.
I had an ectopic pregnancy and a then 3 year old daughter. When I went to the hospital, she was screaming and crying to me, "Mommy, please don't DIE". Who would YOU care more about? That Embryo or your crying 3 year old? All I wanted was to be a Mother to her and LIVE to see her grow up, which I did. She is now a Mother herself and I am a Grandma.
Actually I was attempting to expand upon your comment that how one votes isn't necessarily indicative of one's perception of the embryo's status as "living" by presenting another scenario by which one's answer to save many vs few is based on many different values and to make an assumption based purely on the answer without knowing the values that went into that decision (e.g. by doing the opposite and assuming values based on the answer) can lead to misrepresentations of those values.
Sorry if you don't think it's apropos for this thread.
When faced with a dilemma like this, a pro-life advocate might consider:
Who has more capacity for suffering and pain?
Who has more developed social bonds and family ties?
Who stands a better chance of surviving the fire during rescue?
Who has a better chance of survival once saved?
Who is likely to benefit more from being saved?
None of these criteria concern the ethics of personhood, but they can clearly influence your decision in who to save.
Not false, earlier only "life" was mentioned, you added the context of "only life that has all the components to make up a human being" just now because it was pointed out that "life" was not relevant to the situation. What goalposts should we shift next?
What I stated earlier is what was commonly stated in biology textbooks with no need for further clarification. It’s sad you can’t just admit a human life is being terminated and resort to alternative facts.
In 1971 when I was in 8th grade life began at conception and CO2 was a greenhouse gas. Neither of those facts have changed just because abortion and climate change have become divisive political issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
