No sh*t there I was, arguing for the equality of human life and the right to live, on scientific and philosophical grounds. I wasn’t getting an answer, just a tap dance around the issue that would make Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers blush in shame. Oh, I had the goods alright. I didn’t count on a last gasp analogy from both barrels! Do you save the embryos or the five-year-old?
First off, firefighters must hate pro-choice arguments because they are always setting fire to things. I know! “Oh another burning IVF clinic!”
Why are IVF clinics so Flammable? I thought they were filled with refrigerators and liquid nitrogen, apparently they got the wrong compound! Maybe we should send CPS in there, that is no way to raise thousands of tiny humans!
And why are so many five-year-olds trapped inside? OSHA? Hello!?!?
Ok, you all may have been asked this question. And it is used as a bludgeon to say if you save the five-year-old that you aren’t really pro-life. On the face of it, it’s a gotcha question.
This is part of my response, which someone else helped me articulate.
“Oh I love this game! You are trying to create an argument where my decision indicates that I don’t value all life! Well, I will break it down. First, let’s acknowledge that if I don’t save the five-year-old, she will die a horrible painful death, but if I don’t save the embryos, they won’t. This is where you come in and say that see, all lives aren’t equal.
The frozen embryos might not survive anyway. They may not survive the thawing, and they may never get adopted. There are thousands of frozen embryos and not nearly enough parents who want to adopt them. Suppose I had the choice to save two people who each had a 10% chance to survive their injuries, or one person who was totally healthy. If I save the healthy person, does that show that I’m ableist or something, that I think healthy people are more valuable or important?
No, of course not, that’s just me doing triage. If you combine these two issues, I think it becomes clearer why I would save the baby from the fire instead of the embryos, even though the best evidence from biology and philosophy is clearly on the side that argues that embryos are human persons. Suppose I have the choice to save either ten people who are all in comas and will otherwise die painlessly and who may not survive anyway, or one person who is not in a coma and will certainly survive but will die painfully if I don’t save him. If I save the one, does that mean I don’t value the ten?
The scenario does not say anything about how much I secretly value people because I’m not deciding who to save based on how much I value people, it’s actually based on other factors. I would also save one human embryo who I magically knew would survive over ten infants in comas who I magically knew were all going to die anyway.
All that to say, if all things are equal, I will save two embryos over one infant, and I will save two infants over one embryo. But in your original question, all things are not equal.”
Maybe not the best response, but it is what I have.
I’ll share with you too, a helpful article. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20332/?fbclid=IwAR1AlJIe0mrkUqwh9ADCzbwe_3I-gDbeQnEk8402QvXcBH2ni4WO8oLQvSI
Did you enjoy the intro? It’s a mix of military stories and film noir. I always loved film noir, and having worked with beloved military members, I fondly recall their irreverent and hilarious stories!
Also, stay away from IVF clinics, they are volatile!!!
Joe's ChronicALS 