Odd ethical question for pro-lifers

  • Thread starter Thread starter c_mcanall
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

c_mcanall

Guest
One of my friends is pro-abortion and sickened by how much I care about “globs of cells” (i.e. fetuses). Anyways, we argue on a lot of things and he always likes to come up with ethical scenarios to try and disprove my position. Well, the most recent one is a real mind boggler. I’ll call it the “cliff” scenario:

You have the choice of rescuing a friend or rescuing ten human embryos from falling off of a cliff. You can only rescue one or the other. You can be absolutely confident that the embryos will survive and be able to be implanted in wombs and develop into humans. Who do you save?

Now, he gave this scenario, because he thinks it’s terrible that pro-life people make things like abortion and stem-cell research such big issues when people are dying in Iraq. He says he could never put fetuses (even if they are human) above the risk of his brothers being drafted (we won’t get into that bold claim here) and possibly dying at war. So basically, Iraq for him must be the biggest issue, and he’s anti-war.

But my question is an ethical one. I know it’s a far fetched scenario, but I still replied. I responded saying that if I knew those embryos would be able to fully develop safely (which is impossible to know), then I would save them, because 10 lives are more valuable then one, even if it is my friend (and I’d hope that my friends would be willing to sacrifice his life for others).

Is that a proper answer? I’m no ethicist, but it seems right to me. At the same time, I also have some hesitations. What does everyone else think? How would you have responded to this odd ethical scenario? And do you have any thoughts on how to go about continuing this conversation with my friend.

Thanks for any and all thoughts!

Chris
 
Don’t let this person bait you with semantics like “embryo”, “fetus”, etc. The question boils down to saving 10 lives or saving 1 life. If you had 10 friends on one side and 1 friend on the other, what would you do? Probably save 10 lives, right?
This isn’t a probable scenario and has no bearing on the election. John Kerry is wrong because he is pro-death. If he can’t respect the right of a person to be born, to have life, how is he going to respect your friends life? This is not just an abortion issue. John Kerry is a liar. He says he is Catholic. He says he believes life begins at conception. If he believed these things he would not support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual marriage, etc. He obviously does not have good morals if this is his platform, and he is obviously a liar.
Don’t let the pro-deathers play with your mind with their spin and double talk. You know what’s right. Stand by your faith. God Bless and keep fighting the good fight!
 
His scenario is absurd in that it deliberately stacks the deck with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t situation. That point aside, our first obligation is to those closest to us. I would save my friend, and I would mourn the loss of the others.

Now here’s another scenario:

You are given a new job. On your first day, you report for orientation. Your boss tells you that all you have to do is push a button. When you push that button, a 10-ton weight drops from the ceiling and completely crushes a wooden crate. Each time you do this, you get paid.

But, your boss says, there’s a catch. There might be a person inside the crate. On the other hand, there might not be a person inside the crate. You don’t know, and there’s no way you can tell.

The question: Is it morally acceptable to push that button knowing that you might be the immediate cause of someone’s death?

This is the same situation as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. It is a scientific fact that an embryo is human. This cannot be denied. But, the question, “Is the embyro a person?” is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. Science cannot answer this question, and philosophy provides a variety of different answers.

So, abortion and embyronic stem cell research might kill a person. Therefore, can it be morally acceptable to perform either?

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I had a friend in the USAF who was, remarkably enough, a total pacifist. I used to try to pose scenarios to him which would “inevitably” involve one party or the other being killed. He always replied, “you’re just trying to put me in a position where I have to kill somebody, and I won’t do it.”
 
What do embryos have to do with his brothers being in Iraq?! I think I probably would have just said, “How about we just deal with real life situations and leave it at that?” It appears he can only come up with impossible situations because it’s impossible for him reason sacrificing a defenseless life to save someone else.

If I had to ponder, I’d imagine the logical and probably ethical answer to this illogical question would be you’d try and save them all. Only God would know for sure if you could only save the 10 or the 1. You’d grab the easy save first and go back for the other(s). If this was a “Sophie’s choice” situation then I’d think you’re answer would have been right but for a different reason. It’s not because one life or mulitple lives are better than another it would be more because you were trying to do the greater good which may have actually been another way to say what you said. Basically you weren’t saying anyone was better than another, you were just trying to do the greater good.

Good luck!
 
Ask you friend a question from an Ethics Class I took at the University.

You can’t swim. You are walking about 1 mile up the beach from a Coast Guard Station. The beach is deserted except for you. It is 12:00 noon.

You suddenly see a man with only his head above the water waving and called for help. He is bobbing up and down in the water. You see him.

What should you do, you can’t swim - should you endanger your life? Should you run back to the Coast Guard Station for help? That would be too late. Then you remember that Ethics Class , the part that talked about “shall” and “should”. What would you do?

The answer is that you should make an attempt. You did. You found the man was in water pocket deep. He was having a heart attack. You should make the attempt.
 
I believe you are having a difficult time replying to this “scenario” because your friend’s premise is flawed. He does not properly understand the pro-life position. In other words,he has asked the wrong question. His premise seems to be that if you do not choose the embryos you have somehow admitted that they are not people. That’s ridiculous.

In the case where there is a person and a petri dish with embryos in it both ready to go over the cliff, you are free to choose either – I personally would probably save the friend (but not based on the personhood or non-personhood of those I must choose between).

Saving the friend and allowing the unavoidable death of the embryos is like “women and children first” in life boats, you do not choose to put women & children first because men aren’t people but because when we CANNOT save ALL the people we can make choices based on many factors including selflessness on the part of the ones to be saved (ie, take my seat in the boat), available resources (how much space, food & water we have equates to how many can go in the boat), and skills (we need someone who can row so we can’t have all children in the boat).

The pro-life position is not based on having to “save embryos and damn the woman”. In the case of medical issues, such as a necessary surgery or cancer treatment, etc, the woman is free to seek these treatments. If the effect of the treatment is the death of the child, it is a sad but unavoidable consequence. The woman could exhibit heroic virtue and forego treatment until after the baby is born, but it is not required. Also, if the baby is delivered early and dies, it is not the intent but a sad consequence that our medical technology cannot yet assist a premature child to full maturity and life.

However, the point your friend misses is that you are not at liberty to throw the embryos over the cliff. That is what abortion does. That is what stem cell research does. They deliberately kill the child. It is the moral equivalent of throwing one who is already in the boat out of it. That, we can never do.
 
I think I left out something important to point out. You in no way were choosing evil or to sacrifice anyone. There’s a difference in allowing peril to someone and causing it! I’m sure he’d try and say "Then how come you won’t let one embryo “fall of a cliff” so we can save millions of people.
 
I’d say I don’t believe in the implanting he describes, so I’d have to save my friend, but I’d also say the question isn’t fair because I can’t see how the embryo’s got on the outside anyway, especially recent enough to still be viable in my presence…at the edge of a cliff.

Then I’d ask your friend: If your neighbor frequently lured children into his home and killed them, and this had been going on for years in broad daylight, with the full knowlege of everyone around you, would you feel compelled to speak out against the horrific crimes being allowed to occur right next door? Would you expect the authorities to do something about it? Would you be outraged if the laws changed so as to make it legal?

If he would, then he agrees with the Pro-Life movement.
 
In my experience when people ask such silly hypothetical questions they are doing so in order to sidestep the real issue which they don’t want to face–in this case that abortion kills human beings. I’d tell him that and let the chips fall where they may!
 
How about FOUR Thousand innocent lives daily lost to abortion – how many people are suffering in Iraq?

your friend should donate his life to science since he can just be a blob of cells too.

Ask him if he has ever baked a cake? Just because the batter isn’t in it’s finished form is there any chance he can have a cake pop out of the oven after the appropriate time?

Maybe you should just find a better friend who won’t be polluting your mind with his drivel.
 
amorphous blobs of cells do not have heartbeats, a blood supply separate from their host, fingerprints, brain wave activity, and do not such their thumbs.
 
40.png
c_mcanall:
You have the choice of rescuing a friend or rescuing ten human embryos from falling off of a cliff. You can only rescue one or the other. You can be absolutely confident that the embryos will survive and be able to be implanted in wombs and develop into humans. Who do you save?
Click to expand...
“Develop into humans” is the problem.

They’re already human. It should be changed into “develop into adults”.

When that’s done, you can remove “and be able to be implanted into wombs” and replace “human embryos” with “infants” or “children” or “pre-teens” or “adolescents”.
He says he could never put fetuses (even if they are human) above the risk of his brothers being drafted (we won’t get into that bold claim here) and possibly dying at war.
Click to expand...
Same here. Replace “fetuses” with any of the other stages of human development listed above, and he’ll squirm.
 
Chris,

His question is a ethics question, not a question of faith and morals and has no bearing on the question of determining fetal humanity.

Faith and morals tell us that a fetus is a new living human being who has life given from God and protected by God. This is undeniable and unchangeable.

His ethics question calls for an exercise in wisdom, judgement, discresion and discernment. There is not right or wrong answer, so your answer is fine.
 
First of all, I think everyone so far has made good points. The main thing for you is to not let yourself get sucked in. His question is a diversion from the real point; whether or not embryos are human and do they have the same rights as everybody else.

His question does not address either of these points. The only goal of his question is to back you into a corner, which it did. What I find disturbing is that he doesn’t care whether they are human beings or not; he places conditions on human rights. Ask him who has the authority to place his or her conditions on another persons life.

If he wants to talk about the casualties of war vs. the casualties of abortion then give him the facts:
Abortion in the United States has killed more human beings each year (since 1973) than all the American wars combined (starting with the Revolutionary War on through the current conflict in Iraq).

Your friend has blinders on and I know how frustrating it can be to talk to someone like that because I have a friend that says basically the same thing. My friend goes as far as to admit that abortion is murder, but he still thinks war is a greater evil! Some people just dont get it.
 
Thanks to all for your thoughts. I really appreciate them.

A number of people have made the point that “our first obligation is to those closest to us”, then saying that they would first save the 1 friend.

Others have said that, even despite that, my choice wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, for I could be doing what I thought to be the greater good.

This is totally aside from the original ethical dilemma now, but could some people please elaborate upon these two points in ethics. How do we know when one principle overrides the other?
 
This has been an interesting thread!

I would go with the greater good as the overriding choice in most situations. I think that if you look at what people do in real life situations, they would try to save those who are less likely to be able to save themselves (infants, children, the sick, the elderly) and hope that the stronger would save themselves or be able to survive the situation or make it until someone can come back to help them. Thus I would save the 10 pre-born babies and pray for my friend.
 
I’ve read most of the replies so far and they make excellent points in defense of pro life. In response to the original question, however, I cannot imagine not trying to save both - regardless of the fact that circumstances may try and force me to choose between one and the other.

If I were a medical doctor faced with a situation wherein both the lives of the mother and unborn child were in jeopardy and saving only one or the other but not both would guarantee success, I would STILL choose to try and save both and then if one or both perishes in the attempt, at least I tried to save both - in other words, neither the mother’s nor the child’s death would be at my hand, but in the plan of God. I don’t know how you medical doctors reading this feel about that, but at least that would be my plea were I the mother in that scenario.

Go with perserving all life everytime and let God sort out the rest.
“I’ll see you at the weighing in…” - Jethro Tull
 
I share your friend’s heartache over the chaos in Iraq, and do not want us to be at war there.
However, there will always be wars and rumors of wars. We stumble in and out of these horrific problems. But this election gives us the chance to change the direction of our country for a long time. The president, if reelected, may be able to appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices and defeat Roe vs Wade. If Kerry’s elected, that chance may be gone for a long time to come, and we will go further down the road to pro-death hell. Envision Scandinavia, where forced euthanasia is becoming the norm.
We need to seize this opportunity to redirect the heart of our country toward life, away from the cold hearted utilitarianism promoted by Kerry. The chance may be our last for a long time.
 
Well folks, I finally got back to my friend on my blogsite. I’m going to post my response below. Thanks again to all who have shared their thoughts. Also, so things aren’t too out of context for you, you should know that this is an extension of several previous dialogues on abortion. I’ll try to cut what is unnecessary…

===================================
"The cliff scenario"…

Recently, Justin got back to me on this discussion in a conversation on AOL Instant Messenger. We talked on a number of things, all of which may be addressed more in time, but I want to focus right now upon one specific topic…

In our conversation on abortion, the War in Iraq was brought up again. Justin continues to believe that the War in Iraq is a bigger problem (this has been his stance since the summer when we first started having these discussions). At one point, in response I emphasized the following point:

“One fetus isn’t necessarily more important than a military casualty, especially if it is an unjust war. A million fetuses are more important."

He responded by bringing things to a more personal level.

“Honestly, I find it offensive, that you consider the rights of a fetus as important to a life of another family/friend…. it just seems foolish to me.”

Now, I responded, saying, “Well, yeah, that makes sense…if you don’t see that fetus as a person this is going to seem foolish to you.”

(Before going on, I realize that I did not state something clear enough at this point. I should have added that if given the choice between 1 friend/family member and 1 fetus, both being real human persons in my opinion, I would have most certainly chosen my friend/family member. The people closest to us are the people we should be most concerned with first and foremost. I completely affirm this truth.)

Next, Justin brought up an interesting “ethical dilemma.” We’ll call it “the cliff scenario” and it goes as follows:

“It’s sorta the cliff question . . . I’d grab your hand over catching 10 embryos from falling any day of the week…. it seems like you’d save the 10 embryo . . . it just doesn’t make sense.”

Now, immediately I was a little perplexed at the oddity of the situation. I found it difficult to see how this related to real life. I asked how in the world it would be possible for these embryos to all survive, seeing as they are already out of the womb, and in who knows what condition. Justin assured me the following:

“Oh just assume, they won’t die . . . and they could become humans . . . they are cryogenically frozen, and upon thaw, they could be alive.”

With that in mind, I kept asking questions because the scenario still irked me quite a bit. After some answers and a bit of prodding, I finally stated the following answer:

“If I know these fetuses are going to somehow be implanted and survive, then I’d save them . . . it’s 10 to 1 . . . but you’re scenario is so unrealistic.”

But let’s get to what I actually did struggle with. Obviously, to me the scenario was just the same as “10 adult humans or 1 friend/family member.” Either way though, I was torn over what would be the best thing to do. I’ve come up with a couple of thoughts.

CONTINUED BELOW>>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top