Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice: Post on Twitter

Discussion in 'Defending the Faith' started by RobertPGH1981, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. A.) save the 5 year old

  2. B.) save the 1,000 unborn embryos

  3. C.) you are unable to choose and everybody dies

Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

    Hello All,

    I recently saw a post on twitter that stated they have an argument that pro-lifers are unable to be consistent on in their beliefs. The argument that is proposed is a hypothetical situation that would be very rare or almost impossible but it deserves a response. Here is the question:

    "You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. Your options are:
    A.) Save the child
    B.) Save the 1000 embryos
    C.) everybody dies

    Which one do you choose and why?"

    While this argument creates a situation that is very unlikely it doesn't invalidate the importance of human life of an unborn child. However, I am interested in seeing on how others would respond to this question.
     
  2. Ryan&Amber2013

    Ryan&Amber2013 Puritan Board Junior

    I'm interested to see other responses, but I do know there would be no way I could abandon a scared child crying for help, on the verge of death. Naturally through the eyes of compassion and sacrificial love, to save the child, would be my first instinct.
     
  3. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Graduate

    Failing to save some does not make the victims subhuman.
     
  4. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

    I think we're all in agreement to save the five year old over the 1,000 embryos. The question is a trick question since we all would save the child, but the argument is clear that life is life and 1,000 children perished by saving one. What if the amount was increased from 1,000 embryos to 10,000 or even 100,000?

    How do we approach this biblically? For example, are there verses that mention a child in the womb being killed unintentionally? How did God treat that death compared to manslaughter? It is a question of how we value human life in the womb versus outside the womb. Is this question something we can address through exegesis, or do we get offer up a clever response like Jesus did when asked about paying taxes?

    Just an FYI, I fully believe that all humans are created in the image of God, and that life is valued both in the womb and outside the womb.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2017
  5. BGF

    BGF Puritan Board Sophomore

    Grab the 5 yr. old, get out and call the fire dept. The viable embryos are in a container perhaps protected from the smoke. It may be that the fire dept. can stop the flames before they are lost. If they are not able to, even so, I would feel no guilt and no responsibility. I am as pro-life as they come, and I sympathize with those who experience fertility issues, but I still struggle with the ethical dilemmas that arise from the fertility industry.

    When it comes to classifying the embryos as living beings, I wonder if we forget that there is more to it than it being viable. They will never be anything other than what they are until implanted or discarded. For life to be possible, not only must the fertilization be successful, but implantation must also occur.

    Plus, I hate these gotcha scenarios. They place false limits on the choices to highlight supposed hypocrisy. For this reason I refuse to take the poll even though I revealed by choice here in the comments. I have a question for the pro-death crowd. What possible reason do you have to save anyone?
     
  6. BGF

    BGF Puritan Board Sophomore

    By the way, I'm not trying to poison the well for the poll. I'm expressing a personal dislike and not trashing the concept.
     
  7. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

    I understand you sentiments as I share the same for the poll. I only posted this because I saw a pro-choice advocate ask this same question directed at Pro-Lifers. I am only trying to be prepared myself along with preparing others if asked the same question. These type of question asked is getting a lot of publicity on twitter, and I am sure it will circulate around to pro-choice advocates in general. Just trying to fulfill 1 Peter 3:15.
     
  8. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    The murderers are the ones monkeying around with human embryos to begin with. If we weren't trying to play God in opening and closing the womb, this hypothetical situation wouldn't be possible. It's a moot point.
     
  9. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    I personally don’t think it’s a good question. How about this question (one you all probably know): Your wife and your child are dangling from a cliff. You’re holding one with your right arm and the other with your left. You can save one, so who will you save? In my opinion, the right answer would be to save my wife. Odviously someone would disagree with my answer, but you’re being asked to consider an impossible situation that in many ways is outside of your control.

    My point is this, regardless of the decision you make, your view of human life doesn’t change because you’re being forced to make an decision between one life over the other. The Pharisees repeatedly challenged the Lord Jesus Christ with “gotcha questions”, and he repeatedly exposed their errors and their hypocrisies. Perhaps folks who are pro choice should spend more time considering the reality of murder, and less time coming up with hypothetical scenarios.
     
  10. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Junior

    The question has a fatal flaw in its premise and assumptions. To illustrate, we could turn the question around and ask them, "would you save one five-year-old or three 80-year-olds?" If they opt for the five-year-old, does that mean the five-year-old, even in there opinion, is more human than the others? Because we would choose one over the other accounts for the stage of life, not the value of life or worse that one is not life at all.

    The question asked on Twitter superimposes that choosing one renders the other as less human or non-human. They don't even agree with their own premise.
     
  11. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    Well since the five year old can run, i would grab the unborn child, then grab the five-year-old by the hand and run. It's stupid to think you can't save both, but baby killers like to make up fairy tales that they say would make you choose the "obvious" truth. And when you fall for their games you play right into their hand. If i were on their site and read this fantastically, stupid post, I would call them out by telling them no one with a brain in their head would think it impossible to save both children.
     
  12. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    I actually don't like my earlier response. Here's what I would say to their little fairytale:

    Here's a list of your fairytales:
    1) there's a five-year-old in a fertility clinic (could be possible)
    2) the five-year-old is not with their parents (could be possible if they have irresponsible parents)
    3) the five-year-old was able to get into a secured, locked room which held the 1000 Viable Human Embryos.
    4) the container of 1000 Viable Human Embryos are out in the open where you could just grab them up instead of being locked up.

    My list of fairytales (it's only fair I have one fairytale since you have four):

    1) I'm superwoman and I put out the fire saving everyone.

    That's how idiotic your story is. Unless you can use an intelligent scenario to argue your side, stay home with the children and let the adults talk.

    On the reality side of things...this is from a fertility clinic website:

    "All tissue in the bank is stored frozen in liquid nitrogen at a temperature of -1960C in vacuum lined tanks that are computer controlled and monitored 24 hours a day with a state of the art alarm system. The embryologists are responsible for maintaining the bank and no other PFC employee has access.

    The storage tanks require no power and would not be impacted by a power failure or blackout. They are made of metal and would probably survive a small or moderate fire. If the tanks were not physically damaged or knocked over in a disaster, they should survive intact. Even if no one was able to physically check the tanks, or if we were unable to obtain liquid nitrogen, the tanks should still hold their temperature for several weeks."
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2017
  14. RobertPGH1981

    RobertPGH1981 Puritan Board Freshman

    What is the biblical argument against in vitro fertilization? Just curious because some pointed to the morality of that specific event as the problem.
     
  15. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Junior

    I don't think it's morally wrong if the fertilized eggs are used-- just just a potential for use.
     
  16. Edward

    Edward Puritan Board Doctor

    At least someone has gone to the trouble to update that tired, worn out, sermon illustration of the drawbridge operator, the train, and his son playing on the gears.
     
  17. OPC'n

    OPC'n Puritan Board Doctor

    Scripture would be against it bc they destroy them at times and other times they are killed during the freezing process.
     
  18. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    It's possible the moral decision would be to save the embryos but it's unlikely one would take it. Say the five year old was your own son. Most would save their own beloveds before saving orders of magnitude more of others in a dilemma. Philosophical proportionalism gets the abortion advocate no where. Ask him about saving his own son or 1000 five year old strangers, 1000 babies growing in test tubes or 1000s of whatever. He'll mutter an answer but will have no framework to explain himself. These days some 'ethicists' would save a two gorillas over one human boy.
     
  19. jwright82

    jwright82 Puritan Board Senior

    Not a fair question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page