Thought Experiment for Right to Lifers/Antiabortionists

You have started a very good one here auguy01! Very thought provoking! I am a person who has decided that the best choice is Life yet the choice is ultimately up to the individual and no one should be able to condemn them for their choice. It was always theirs to lose. To answer the question in your scenario, I would save the live baby because its mind has developed a lot more. A lot of fertilized embryos die from miscarriages and this is ok but a mother who chooses to abort a child is doing wrong according to the pro lifers. Well maybe she is doing wrong but it still is not your place to try and intervene. IMHO At the same time I do believe that if a mother decides that what is best is to abort then they should do it in the first trimester.

I'm really curious to see the responses to this. I know they'll mostly say the baby, and then spout rhetoric about priority and blah blah blah, but I'd really like to see their justifications. I hope you get plenty of responses, and I'll be keeping my eye on this discussion.

I think there's no question that we can relate to the live baby more than we can the 'potential' life of the 100 embryos, and in reality that would dictate our actions. If you asked a more logical being - 'data' or 'Mr Spok' from Star Trek, they might well make a different decision based on pure logic. I am note sure this has anything to do with abortion or right to life though, as the academic argument may be separate to the emontional reaction. Personally I think there are enough homeless children in the world without spending billions on creating chldren in a laboratory, but that's another story... The pro-life argument to my mind is more about the rights of the mother/parents juxtaposed with the rights of the child/embryo NOT the rights of an embryo compared with the rights of a live baby. If there was a pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman, and you could save only one, which one would you take?

This is a real no brainer. Of course you would save the baby. The embryos have not been implanted and as far as that goes, they do not even compare in any way to a viable fetus which the murdering abortionist would be terminating. There is a big difference in a mass of cells that have been mixed together in a test tube, and the life that would be ended during an abortion. Here is a question, if you had frozen embryos in your freezer at home, and a fire broke out, what would you do? Would you save the embryos and let your children die, or would you save the children?

Hi Just wanted to say that this is a great question. I imagine the responses will be quite interesting to read. And as a prochoice you can imagine my leaning to grabbing the baby and running for my life. Dana

ok i think i have it....i would wanna take the baby cos of course you would feel more emotion about a baby than a cooler of eggs...but before i did i would throw the cooler of eggs out the window to safty and then take the baby...yay there all saved!!

I am surprised that the prolifers didn't jump into this discussion screaming at how unfair it is to ask such a question! ;) Personally, I think it's a brilliant question that puts things into perspective. The *potential* lives of 100 bundles of undifferentiated cells are nothing compared to one newborn/baby, and the choice is naturally easy to make. But I bet that some prolifers would go as far as to throw the baby into the liquid nitrogen with the embryos and take the whole lot out! LOL! :P