More info for analysis

[JamesATyler]

Original post is below

Tweets from a pro-choicer Moral Theology

When I was in the USAF one of my coworkers in the unit was an absolute pacifist. Which was strange in itself since we were both not only in the military but in an ICBM squadron. I would try to devise hypothetical scenarios wherein he would have no choice but to cause someone’s death, by action or inaction. He would never buy it. “You’re just trying to come up with something where I would have to kill someone or cause their death,” he said. “But I won’t do it.”

I thought it might be interesting to pose a few more questions to help understand why people make the choices they do in the situation. Here is a few more questions with different weighting. Corresponding buttons save one of them. Only time for one button. Which would you save?

given: All frozen beings can be made well again
given: All unfrozen beings are healthy and normal

1. 1000 Frozen viable embryos VS 1000 frozen 5 year old kids
2. 1 unfrozen 5 year old kid VS 1000 frozen 5 year old kids
3. 1 frozen 5 year old kid vs 1000 living embryos in artificial wombs
4. 1000 living embryos in artificial wombs vs 1000 Frozen viable embryos

 

[Elf01]

1000 Frozen viable embryos VS 1000 frozen 5 year old kids

The 5 year olds. Embryos do still have to be implanted.

1 unfrozen 5 year old kid VS 1000 frozen 5 year old kids

The unfrozen child. I think the experience will likely be more painful for the unfrozen child.

1 frozen 5 year old kid vs 1000 living embryos in artificial wombs

The embryos. There are more of them and they won’t need to be implanted.

1000 living embryos in artificial wombs vs 1000 Frozen viable embryos

The living embryos. Again no need to implant.

 

[chessnerd321]

While I think these are interesting questions, I’ll just start by saying in every scenario, neither action is moral, and thus it’s not a moral question. We can’t use this experiment to argue who has more value, since we would all agree all of them should be saved. It’s really a matter of gut reaction. In all likelihood, I would be too paralyzed to choose in a split second. But playing along:

1. Frozen kids
2. Frozen kids
3. Embryos
4. Living embryos

 

[JamesATyler]

What if these are not moral questions since all answers are a measure of gain. It is only a matter of how much. In these cases, all is lost without your participation. With your participation, some will be saved. For example: The previous poster saved 2000 frozen 5 year old kids and 2000 living embryos. Good job. The other poster saved: 1000 frozen 5 year old kids, 1 unfrozen kid, and 2000 living embryos. Good job.

 

[Start]

I don’t like playing with lives, but I would chose the
1000 frozen embryos
1000 frozen 5 year old kids
1000 living embryos in an artificial womb
and I’m not sure about the last one.

 

[JamesATyler]

If you aren’t sure, then just guess. Either will be a gain, else both will be lost.

 

[Start]

I would chose one randomly for the fourth one or is that not an option?

 

[JamesATyler]

Same as guessing i would think.

The lane change for the train is different. Out of control train. Fork ahead. Lane one: Kill 100 children. Lane two: Kill one child. No action results in 100 deaths but also saves one child. The difference is that now your action changes who dies.

What if:

Lane 1: 1000 Frozen embryos
Lane 2: 1 unfrozen normal 5 year old child

Who do you let the train run over?

Lane 1: 1 normal child
Lane 2: 1 normal child and his dog

or

Lane 1: 27 Christmas Carolers
Lane 2: 5000 kittens and 4 Parrots

or
Lane 1: 1 normal child (original)
Lane 2: 1 clone of the normal child on Lane 1

or what if the default Lane runs over 1 child but if you switch the track, you save that child but run over 100 other kids. Do you let the 1 child die or do you sacrifice the 100 other children?

 

[Start]

I would want to save
1,000 children
1,000 embryos
the normal child
27 Christmas Carolers
normal child (original).

 

[mVitus]

My thoughts when reading the first post: Who’s kidnapping and freezing so many 5 year olds?

Lane 1: 27 Christmas Carolers
Lane 2: 5000 kittens and 4 Parrots

That’s a no brainer. Human life > Animal life.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Vatican document is important:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html

This sad reality, which often goes unmentioned, is truly deplorable: the “various techniques of artificial reproduction, which would seem to be at the service of life and which are frequently used with this intention, actually open the door to new threats against life”.[28]

The proposal that these embryos could be put at the disposal of infertile couples as a treatment for infertility is not ethically acceptable for the same reasons which make artificial heterologous procreation illicit as well as any form of surrogate motherhood;[38] this practice would also lead to other problems of a medical, psychological and legal nature.

It has also been proposed, solely in order to allow human beings to be born who are otherwise condemned to destruction, that there could be a form of “prenatal adoption”. This proposal, praiseworthy with regard to the intention of respecting and defending human life, presents however various problems not dissimilar to those mentioned above.

All things considered, it needs to be recognized that the thousands of abandoned embryos represent a situation of injustice which in fact cannot be resolved. Therefore John Paul II made an “appeal to the conscience of the world’s scientific authorities and in particular to doctors, that the production of human embryos be halted, taking into account that there seems to be no morally licit solution regarding the human destiny of the thousands and thousands of ‘frozen’ embryos which are and remain the subjects of essential rights and should therefore be protected by law as human persons”.[39]

So, it is not morally permissible to go freezing/thawing embryos in the first place.