Hypothetical question about the Pro Life stance

[Plissken]

As I understand it, the basis for the Pro Life argument is that even a zygote is human life, and that ending that level of cell division is murder.

We'll skip all of the scientific questions this raises, as I'm more concerned about the ethical and moral questions this raises. So here we go:

Say that you and your spouse have been trying to create a second child, to complete your family. Due to some unforseen difficulties, you have begun the process of invitro fertilizations. While at the clinic to select the zygotes with which your wife will be impregnated, with your wife and first child, a fire breaks out. Your wife and the medical staff escape unharmed, but you, your child, and a tray containing 20-30 of your zygotes are surrounded by flames, and you can only carry out your infant child or the tray of petri dishes.

What do you do, and why?

[Avatar]

This is one of your favourites, isn't it?

Of course, my stance on the issue is obvious. In fact, in this case, it isn't even an issue. It wouldn't even occur to me to save the petri-dish.

--A

(Edit: Oops, looks like you double posted the topic. You can delete it yourself if nobody replies, or else ask Syl to do it for you.)

[Lord Mhoram]

Plissken,

I am pro-choice, and would obviously save my child.

However, I fail to see the significance of this hypothetical.

I would think that almost any pro-life person would rather save their child, even if they believe the zygotes are human lives.

It's like if you and your child were in a crowded room and a fire broke out. Regardless of your position on abortion, you'd want to save your son/daughter first.

[Nathan]

But the tray of zygotes represent far more human lives than one child do. How can it be consistent to save one life over a whole load of lives?

[Lord Mhoram]

Nathan,

In my opinion, my child represents "more" of a human than any zygote.

[Plissken]

Well yes, that's what I think too. But the other day, I was listening to this preacher say that helping the poor didn't matter until these cells, which according to him are "Human Life, at it's most fragile stage," are protected from those who would "murder" them.

Right now, we're having cells that haven't even decided what organ they want to be when they grow up protected by a Pro Life president, based on this belief.

Since this belief doesn't inform my choices, I quite naturally wonder how that belief plays out in the real world.

(Av: Hey, you were the one bitching that nothing was going on in here. Of course, if the only ones to answer my question are a bunch of us baby-murderin' liberals, we've still got nothin'...)

[Lord Mhoram]

Plissken,

Right now, we're having cells that haven't even decided what organ they want to be when they grow up protected by a Pro Life president, based on this belief.

Exactly.

(Av: Hey, you were the one bitching that nothing was going on in here. Of course, if the only ones to answer my question are a bunch of us baby-murderin' liberals, we've still got nothin'...)

Yes, where are the pro-life Watchers in this thread?

[Nathan]

I'm sure Dennis would have been able to argue with us about this. He'd have provided links too I bet.

[Plissken]

Well, let's give it another day. There are other intelligent Pro Lifers on this forum, and one of them will be able to answer the question...

(Sigh. I miss dennis...)

[Brinn]

I carry out my infant child as I have more emotional investment in him than I do in the petri dish. I have more of a loving attachment to my child than the children in the petri dish.

Although this is an interesting thought experiment I think the core of it is misjudging the stance of the majority of pro-lifers.

The central quandry of this question seems to be that the clump of cells is less human than the child and therefore is the logical choice to leave behind. IMHO the way any one person answers this question tells you nothing about the pro-life stance as any parent, be they pro-life or pro-choice, would choose to save their child. You have created a situation in which a death is inevitable regardless of the choice made.

Rephrase the question to make the choice between your infant son and daughter. Which would you choose in that situation and why? Rephrase it as a choice between your son and a stranger's son. The answer to these questions would inform you just as well as the original question you pose. Although the choice must be made in this hypothetical situation, is one of your children, or even a strangers child less deserving of life?

The answer is the same in all circumstances however, if we are being honest, the decision ultimately made will be based on emotional attachment. That does not eliminate the intellectual and moral uneasiness felt by one who is forced to make this type of choice. In all these cases a life that should not be ended must be ended due to circumstances beyond their control.

[Lord Mhoram]

Brinn,

IMHO the way any one person answers this question tells you nothing about the pro-life stance as any parent, be they pro-life or pro-choice, would choose to save their child. You have created a situation in which a death is inevitable regardless of the choice made.

I concur.

Are you pro-life, if you dont mind my asking? I have never had that debate with you.

[Brinn]

Yes...and no.
The birth of my son has moved me alot closer to to the pro-life camp than I ever was before, however, I am uncomfortable imposing my choices on others. I just wish that more people would consider the ramifications of their actions and take responsbilty for them.

[duchess of malfi]

That was a great post Brinn.

Abortion is an issue I also feel uncomfortable with. I wish they didn't happen except in cases where the mother's life in endangered, or there is something horribly wrong with the baby -- but as a survivor of childhood abuse myself, I equally hate the thought of a child being born to unfit parents who do not want him/her but do not give the child away for adoption, either. Not all kids are as lucky as myself in getting away somewhat unscathed.

[Avatar]

Excellent posts indeed, both Brinn and Duchess.

However, while I fully agree with Brinn as to the determining factor being emotional involvement, I wonder

That does not eliminate the intellectual and moral uneasiness felt by one who is forced to make this type of choice.

Would a "pro-life" (damn, I hate these labels) person feel uneasiness at having to make the choice in the situation described? What if we rephrase the question to leave out the living child? A raging fire breaks out suddenly in the room where you're waiting with the dish containing the zygotes. Everyone else has escaped, it's just you and the dish. Would you take the time to rescue the dish? Would you even think of it as being something that needed rescuing?

--Avatar

[Plissken]

I carry out my infant child as I have more emotional investment in him than I do in the petri dish. I have more of a loving attachment to my child than the children in the petri dish.

Although this is an interesting thought experiment I think the core of it is misjudging the stance of the majority of pro-lifers.

The central quandry of this question seems to be that the clump of cells is less human than the child and therefore is the logical choice to leave behind. IMHO the way any one person answers this question tells you nothing about the pro-life stance as any parent, be they pro-life or pro-choice, would choose to save their child. You have created a situation in which a death is inevitable regardless of the choice made.

Rephrase the question to make the choice between your infant son and daughter. Which would you choose in that situation and why? Rephrase it as a choice between your son and a stranger's son. The answer to these questions would inform you just as well as the original question you pose. Although the choice must be made in this hypothetical situation, is one of your children, or even a strangers child less deserving of life?

The answer is the same in all circumstances however, if we are being honest, the decision ultimately made will be based on emotional attachment. That does not eliminate the intellectual and moral uneasiness felt by one who is forced to make this type of choice. In all these cases a life that should not be ended must be ended due to circumstances beyond their control.

Brinn, I don't know if I agree with you. Obviously, if these choices are being made on emotion, you are correct. However, the choice to have an a abortion is often made within an emotional context - one that is considered to be invalid by Pro-Lifers.

Since emotion is not a valid reason to end the life of a zygote in their eyes, an emotional attachment shouldn't have any bearing on the choice created here. Theoretically, the case of petri dishes should win out over the infant.

Of course, this is all guesswork until a Pro-Lifer actually joins the discussion...

Av: Use the moniker "Pro-Life proponent" if it makes you feel better. And perhaps we could add a second level to the question: What if the choice was a case of zygotes or yourself?

[Avatar]

There'd be no contest. I can't imagine even the pope throwing a case of zygotes out the window, while he stayed behind to burn. The problem is that you're (still) expecting some sort of rational consistency here.

The refusal to countenance abortion is also an emotional descision. Everybody is going to think that a living, developed life is more important than a few living cells.

Emotion, or emotive thought, has a massive impact on our actions, beliefs, whatever. It's bloody rare to actually encounter somebody who thinks unemotionally, even most of the time. And when people do, the assumption is almost certainly that there is something wrong with that person.

If emotional choices are considered invalid by anti-abortionists, they're obviously blind to the role that emotion plays in their own choices.

--Avatar

[Plissken]

There'd be no contest. I can't imagine even the pope throwing a case of zygotes out the window, while he stayed behind to burn. The problem is that you're (still) expecting some sort of rational consistency here.

The refusal to countenance abortion is also an emotional descision. Everybody is going to think that a living, developed life is more important than a few living cells...

...If emotional choices are considered invalid by anti-abortionists, they're obviously blind to the role that emotion plays in their own choices.

--Avatar

Av, folks are trying to legislate their noses into my life about this - the least I expect is some rational consistency.

However, the Pro Life advocates are rather frighteningly consistent - and "living, developed life" is most definitely not as important as zygotes. If that was not the case, we'd not have so much trouble getting stem-cell research done.

Of course, none of them have entered into this conversation yet -- the closest we've ever gotten was an honest, thoughtful, "I'll have to think more about this..." from Cail, regarding the loss of multiple "lives" required for every invitro fertilization.

The fact that every Liberal and Moderate 'Watcher that has logged on here has basically said, "Well, duh! Of course I'd save the infant!" and your admission that you can't even imagine another choice illustrates the gulf in thought between the two camps quite nicely.

It's also why I asked the question in the first place. I have to poke at things I don't understand until I can put it in some kind of framework.[/i]

[Avatar]

The fact that every Liberal and Moderate 'Watcher that has logged on here has basically said, "Well, duh! Of course I'd save the infant!" and your admission that you can't even imagine another choice illustrates the gulf in thought between the two camps quite nicely.

You're right, we're all just guessing here. I want to see that gulf. We need somebody who disagrees!

--Avatar

[Kymbierlee]

Crap- If it was down to just me and the zygotes, I would at least try to save them. Then again, I am pro-choice, so you guys still are lacking your different perspective in this debate......

[Brinn]

Obviously, if these choices are being made on emotion, you are correct. However, the choice to have an a abortion is often made within an emotional context - one that is considered to be invalid by Pro-Lifers.

Since emotion is not a valid reason to end the life of a zygote in their eyes, an emotional attachment shouldn't have any bearing on the choice created here. Theoretically, the case of petri dishes should win out over the infant.

I would say that pro-lifers maintain that there are very few valid reasons to end a life provided there are alternatives (carrying the baby to term and dealing with the life changes as best as possible or giving the baby up for adoption are two possible alternatives.) The hypothetical situation you have created is one in which there are no alternatives and thus the decision must be based on some set of criteria which I submit would, without question, always be emotional attachment.