The Old In-vitro Fertilization Fire Scenario...

(credit to another PF poster for reviving it).

To any out there....a hypothetical.

You're the lone adult in a fertility clinic when a massive fire breaks out. Due to the nature of the fire, it spreads rapidly and will soon consume the clinic and destroy everyone and everything in it.

In the lab where you are, there is an unconscious 12 year old child, incapable of being awoken. There is also a self-powered containment unit carrying 100 individually protected human embryos which were awaiting implantation or cryogenic storage for later implantation. The unit can function and the embryos can survive, if removed from the fire, for atleast 48 hours, until they can be taken to a new facility.

You have the ability to carry ONE out of the fire and to safety, while leaving the other behind to be destroyed in the fire.

Which do you choose?

A. the ONE 12 year old child?

B. the HUNDRED 3 day old embryos?




((Let us be hopefully optimistic that a on-topic debate on this hypothetical can be made...and not mere subject changes and deflections.))

 

wishful thinking on your part, you know it won't happen in reality

 

Well, I would like to point out that most of those embryos are probably never going to be implanted, so they would eventually die anyway.

I would probably go for the child. I still think people should take human life more seriously. An human embryo should not just be treated like another object.

 

excellent argument, course pro-lifers will let this go in one ear and out the other

 

I just answered this thread! so obviously what you said is untrue.

 

same here, though there are many potential children that would never be born, there is one real live breathing child there, so that makes the choice obvious

 

The 12 year old can run the embryo's can't. The condition you used "incapable of being awoken" is unrealistic to be a true factor.

 

No, that is just because the embryos are less than 3 days old. If these were fetuses we were talking about, it might be a different story...

 

good for you, though I would not "probably" save the child over the many potential children, the real child wins hands down

Anders Hoveland said "I would probably go for the child."

 

12 year old fell and hit her head in panic, I would say that could happen, *if* it did... who would you save if you could only save one or the other?

.

 

Which ones am I related to?

 

well lets do both

your related to 10 of the 3 day old embryos , and not related to 12 year old child - what would you do?

your related to none of the 3 day old embryos , and not related to 12 year old child - what would you do?

 

Somehow I don't think he's going to implant them all. The rest will expire on their own after a year.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*) em, I'm saving my own ass.

 

At least you are not an active participant in having them killed. In contrast, a woman who gets an abortion is like the accomplice who brought the arsonist the can of petrol.

 

which is your choice, no one can force you to risk your life to save those embryos or the child for that matter, only you can make that choice as it's you that would be risking your life

while I may disagree with your choice, I still support that it is your choice to make

.

 

Hey it's not like I'm putting a gun to their heads and pulling the trigger. Then I'd be as bad as an abortionist.

 

that is true, they are only potential children, I believe that is the point of this thought experiment

 

IVF cryostorage doesn't work like that. they're stored on site in a stainless steel vault that requires a reinforced floor...but i'll play along...

i can still move a piano by myself, i can get both.

 

Their existence is still not meaningless, though. If couples are attempting to receive in vitro fertility treatments, they should bring into existence as few blastocysts as possible, out of respect for human life.

 

The 12 yr. old child would be an obvious choice, as she is a fully functional human capable of suffering a horrible and painful death in a fire. The embryos are incapable of this, and perhaps one of the hundred has a chance of ever reaching the stage of the girl. Though I understand the intent of this thought experiment, the scenario might be more fitting if we replace embryo with fetus (impossible I know).....but my answer would be unchanged.

 

It's a thought experiment...directed at those who consider a 12 year old and an embryo "the same".

You'll notice the difficulty they have with it without either (A) contradicting their own rhetoric or (B) sounding like monsters.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying you wouldn't object to abortion....if it's 3 day old embryos???

 

that is was mental masterbation was quite clear. everyone would save the the 12 y/o, some would consider going back for the embryos.

 

If people who believe that a 3 week old embryo is "the same" as a 12 year old....it's not that clear. Nor by their OWN RHETORIC would they logically save ONE 12 year old and let a HUNDRED "babies" die.

 

the one 12 y/o is a lot easier to carry. fireman's carry? hello? even if was an implanted embryo, the kid would be easier to carry than momma. she might get dragged out.